A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious. [Physics]

Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights

From: Peter Webb on 1 Mar 2010 08:05

Excellent.

From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 08:13

On 1 Mar, 12:29, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Feb, 16:33, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 1:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Illustration:
>
> > > > E1
>
> > > > --------
>
> > > > E2
>
> > > > The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the
> > > > observers may move while always reporting both events to be
> > > > simultaneous.
>
> > > You are correct about E1 and E2 being simultaneous to all observers on
> > > the line despite their motion relative to other observers on the
> > > line. The statement about spatially seperated events is about
> > > seperation along the axis of travel. In the train experient A and B
> > > are on the tracks, which we call the x axis. You have E1 and E2 off
> > > to the sides of the tracks on the y axis, which isn't normally
> > > considered in the train experiment.
>
> > This is called "revisionism", Bruce. The statement was not "about
> > seperation along the axis of travel". It was about "what is
> > simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", and "Ste,
> > you are an idiot who knows nothing about SR".
>
> I haven't read every one of the posts in this thread but I think the
> topic was RoS. The question is "Is what is simultaneous in one frame
> necessarily simultaneous in the other?" You have set up a special
> case where they are. But we can also set up situations where they are
> not, so the answer is no.

But I didn't dispute this in the first place. What I *was* disputing
was the contention, certainly by more than one poster, that such
simultaneity could *never* occur between two frames, and thus my
special case (arrived at without any mathematical comprehension of SR)
falsifies that assertion.

> And I did not call you an idiot.

No, I was gloatingly referring to what others have alleged.

> Please
> comment on the remainder of that post.

I must admit I struggled to understand the rest of the post, but as
far as I can tell there was nothing inconsistent with my existing (and
wholly non-mathematical) understanding of SR. The basic principle of
SR, as far as I can tell, is very simple, based on the finite speed of
propagation.

It also seems to me that the predictions of SR (like perceived time
dilation, etc) can be replicated, and easily demonstrated, with sound,
with the only exception that the medium must be presumed to be always
stationary relative to the sound-source (which, of course, is the one
big way in which light and sound are not analogous).

From: mpc755 on 1 Mar 2010 08:21

On Mar 1, 2:12 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:47 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:a34363d2-1afe-4b36-9ee8-65fc8ffc825a(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > On 28 Feb, 16:33, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >> On Feb 28, 1:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > Illustration:
>
> > >> > E1
>
> > >> > --------
>
> > >> > E2
>
> > >> > The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the
> > >> > observers may move while always reporting both events to be
> > >> > simultaneous.
>
> > >> You are correct about E1 and E2 being simultaneous to all observers on
> > >> the line despite their motion relative to other observers on the
> > >> line. The statement about spatially seperated events is about
> > >> seperation along the axis of travel.
>
> > That is correct
>
> > >> In the train experient A and B
> > >> are on the tracks, which we call the x axis. You have E1 and E2 off
> > >> to the sides of the tracks on the y axis, which isn't normally
> > >> considered in the train experiment.
>
> > > This is called "revisionism", Bruce.
>
> > No .. its not
>
> > > The statement was not "about
> > > seperation along the axis of travel". It was about "what is
> > > simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", and "Ste,
> > > you are an idiot who knows nothing about SR".
>
> > > Apparently, both statements have been falsified. Hehehe. Next!
>
> > There are no two frames where all event simultaneous in one frame are
> > simultaneous in another.
>
> > Bad luck STE.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I briefly stopped by this thread today, only to find that Ste's mental
> retardation appears to be growing with time, along with the idiocy of
> his statements. Ste, if you do take the time to write up some utterly
> imbicillic response to this message, I won't bother to respond, but I
> have just a few things for the other posters in this thread.
>
> Since the modern scientific method was developed (and yes, Ste a
> universally agreed upon thing does exist,http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
> -- which every scientist here should agree pretty much encompasses it,
> and which began with the writings of Bacon and Descartes)
> falsifiability has been a necessary criterion for any scientific
> theory.
>
> The fact that Ste's is just too plain stupid to understand most
> scientific theories and yet still feels qualified to describe them in
> detail is what leads him to believe that they are not falsifiable,
> however here are some ways that his so-called "unfalsifiable theories"
> can (or could have been falsified).
>
> This is mainly for everyone else to use as a starting point, since I'm
> sure Ste will not be able to understand this correctly, and it will
> require further explanation if his particularly weak mind is even to
> grasp a small fraction of the actual implications of the things below.
>
> 1) Dark matter -- most of the visible matter in galaxy clusters is
> actually between the galaxies, in the form of a dilute plasma that
> gives off x-rays called the intergalactic medium. When galaxy
> clusters collide, the galaxies usually pass by each other without
> interacting but the intergalactic medium in the two clusters collides
> and interacts, which can be seen by looking at x-ray images of the
> galaxy clusters. By looking at the gravitational lensing of the
> galaxies behind the clusters, it is possible to figure out how the
> mass is distributed inside the cluster.
>
> We know where most of the visible matter is, because we can see it.
> We know where most of the actual mass is, because of gravitational
> lensing. If there were no dark matter, most of the mass that we
> measure would be located in the intergalactic medium. If dark matter
> exists, most of the mass would be located inside the galaxies (since
> dark matter is supposed to form halos around galaxies). (Note, this
> experiment has been done--look up the bullet cluster).
>
> This is an experiment that could falsify the theories of dark matter.
> Witih dark matter, we predict one thing, and if we observed something
> else, it would be false.
>
> Keep in mind that to be "dark matter" all it has to be is matter that
> we can't see.

The "dark matter" we can't see is aether. Matter and aether are
different states of the same material 'mather'.

> There are two main theories of dark matter. One is
> that it is normal baryonic matter that's just too "dark" to see,
> although IIRC there is evidence to support that this is not the
> correct theory. The other theory postulates that dark matter is a
> form of matter that does not interact electromagnetically at all.
>
> 2) Special relativity -- If the measured time dialation on a clock was
> different than what special relativity predicts, if the speed of light
> were found to depend on the orientation of the source and detectors,
> or if the energy and momentum calculated by special relativity
> (different from Newton's formulae) were not found to be conserved in
> particle accellerators (it is), that would falsify special relativity.
>
> 3) Evolution -- It seems that no one here is in the field of biology
> and so none of us nearly as well equiped to deal with this question as
> an evolutionary biologist, or someone in that field. But one thing
> that Ste seems confused on is the difference between evolution and
> abiogenesis. Evolution is not actually theory on the origin of life,
> although most proponents would likely support a naturalistic origin of
> life. However, evolution is a theory about how diversity occurs AFTER
> the first self replicating (living) molecules existed. Evolution
> alone does not explain how those first self replicating molecules came
> into existence. The field of *biology* does, but not through the
> theory of evolution, rather through closely related theories of
> abiogenesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>
> Since I'm not an expert on the subject, and it appears no one else is,
> either, here are a few ways in which evolution could be falsified:
>
> Irreducible complexity - if it could be found that there exists a
> complex structure that has no useful function when modified slightly
> or reduced to some simpler structure, this would falsify evolution.
> So far, all structures that proponents of intellegent design have
> proposed as irreducibly complex can be shown to serve a useful purpose
> in a simpler form.
>
> Genetic similarity between various species - all animals should share
> similar DNA. Animals that are more closely related should have more
> similar DNA. The DNA of human ancestors should gradually approach
> modern human DNA as we go forward in time through the fossil record.
> If it could be shown that this were not the case, evolution could be
> shown to be false. Whether or not this can distinguish it from
> creationism (although the last part CAN) is irrelevant to whether or
> not the theory can be falsified.
>
> 4) Quantum mechanics - If the energy spectrum or bonding energy of an
> atom can be shown to be different than those predicted by quantum
> mechanics, quantum mechanics would be falsified. We regularly do
> these calculations in my group for very complex moleculare systems, to
> a high degree of accuracy. If the wave function observed by an STM is
> significantly different from that which is predicted by quantum
> mechanics, this could falsify quantum mechanics. If simultaneous
> measurements of non-commuting operators (such as position and
> momentum) can every be carried out to a higher degree of accuracy than
> that which is predicted by quantum mechanics, then the theory would be
> falsified.
>
> 4) String theory -- as people have been repeatedly tried to tell you,
> there *is no working string theory yet*. Scientists are working
> *TOWARD* a complete string theory. There are currently several
> candidates for a string theory but their predictions are not
> falsifiable with any current technology. There is no current, working
> string theory because there is no way to say which version, if any, is
> correct. The reason string theorists are scientists is because they
> are trying to find a way to either use string theory to make testable
> predictions (such as black hole entropy, which at least some versions
> of string theory can correctly predict, maybe all--I don't know enough
> to say for sure), or find a way to create some type of experiment that
> can distinguish between string theories. Again, there IS NO CURRENT
> WORKING STRING THEORY, ONLY SEVERAL CANDIDATES.
>
> Note also that for a theory to be falsifiable it doesn't mean that the
> theory is false or that when the test is run it will demonstrate that
> the theory is false. It only means that the theory makes predictions
> which can be tested and shown to be true or false and that if any of
> these predictions is false, the theory is false.
>
> Note for a theory to be falsifiable, it also does not mean that no
> other theory can make the same predictions (although experiments will
> need to be done to distinguish between the two theories to find out
> which is more likely to be correct), only that it makes predictions
> which can falsify it. Falsifiablity is not necessarily a way to
> distinguish between two theories, only a necessary criterion for any
> scientific theory.

From: mpc755 on 1 Mar 2010 08:25

On Mar 1, 6:00 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:190599c1-6e5e-4ad8-a741-272499753ad8(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You didn't ask for a "definition of gravity".
>
> He asked:
>
> 'Explain to me what gravity "really is" under Newton.'
>
> If asking what something "really is" is NOT asking for a definition, then
> I'm not sure what is (other than using the exact words "what is a definition
> of gravity")

Gravity is the pressure associated with the aether displaced by
massive objects. The aether is displaced based on mass per volume. The
more massive an object is per volume the less aether it contains the
more aether it displaces. The aether is not at rest when displaced and
applies pressure towards the matter.

From: Peter Webb on 1 Mar 2010 08:26

"mpalenik" <markpalenik(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4049f2a-c6d7-44da-a13c-432aeaf2344d(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 2:15 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Dark matter is resistent to
> > falsification, because it "does not interact except through gravity
> > and inertia".
>
> That does not stop dark matter being falsified, but does mean that
> falsification would require us to change our theories on gravity and
> inertia.

Just wanted to point out, things don't interact through "inertia".
Dark matter, under the WIMP theory, interacts only under gravity and
the weak force.

___________________________
Dark matter can do what it damn well likes, as long as nobody sees it.