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: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 08:37

On Feb 15, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cc37a395-3b16-4471-9964-d9db63246254(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > As I have said at least three times now,
> > you cannot determine the speed of the aether.
> > ____________________________________
>
> > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So why
> > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and
> > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that
> > procedure determine the speed of the ether?
>
> How do you measure the speed of light and how do you determine it is
> different from 'c'? Are you using a mirror or synchronized clocks?
>
> _______________________________
> Use whatever measuring apparatus you like.
>
> What you are incapable of understanding is everything is under the
> effects of the aether. As I said in one of my original posts which it
> would help you understand the point I am making. The atomic clocks the
> Observers on the train are using are offset because of their state
> with respect to the aether.
>
> So, I will ask you again. How is the light to be measured?
>
> ________________________________
> You must already have some means of measuring light speed, or you couldn't
> claim the speed was constant relative to the ether. Use that.

It is all explained in the posts you refuse to read.

From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 08:40

On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > What ether?
>
> The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every
> double slit experiment ever performed.
>
> A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits
> to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the
> C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit.
>
> When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits
> the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern.
>
> How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated
> aether displacement wave?
>
> ______________________________________
> Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having
> an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well?

Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the
greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling
and unable to answer such a simple question.

Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically
behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been
willing to answer this question and their answer was the future
determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple
slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits
in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, but you do
have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question.

From: Paul Stowe on 15 Feb 2010 11:21

On Feb 14, 10:06 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:21c1d72e-9898-436a-ba4e-05a849fc4efc(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > As I have said at least three times now,
> > > you cannot determine the speed of theaether.
> > > ____________________________________
>
> > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So
> > > why
> > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c,
> > > and
> > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that
> > > procedure determine the speed of the ether?
>
> > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of
> > theaether. If you can't measure the speed of theaetheryou can't
> > measure your speed relative to theaether.
>
> > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a
> > fifth time?
>
> > ______________________________________
> > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the ether..
> > You
> > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the
> > difference is your speed relative to the ether.
>
> How do you measure the speed of light so it is not 'c'?

A perfectly systematic way is to observe the CMBR, determine your
Doppler shift. This tells you both your speed and direction relative
to the aether. This of course takes as a base assumption that such EM
radiation is a manifestation the background 'noise' of such a medium.
Thus you conclude that, if c is 'measured' as a constant the wave
speed c' is c -v(Cos z) where angle z is the angle relative to the
direction of motion. You allow for the fact that the Lorentz
contraction affects all moving fields and accept that time dilation is
exactly as it was expect if the MMX type apparatus would have seen IF
the Lorentz contraction didn't occur.

Since every material system is held together by fields, and these
fields undergo the Lorentz contraction when in motion, the mathematics
'conspire' to make it impossible to take a measurement of changes in
wave speed by round trip signaling in material systems. This method
does however give you the baseline speed.

As both LET and SR demonstrate, one can take advantage of this fact to
establish a system of measurements that take advantage of the quirk of
mathematics and use wave speed c as an invariant.

Both ways of looking at it doesn't change actual physical reality.

> _________________________________
> Anyway you like. Aren't you claiming that the speed of light is a constant
> relative to the speed of the ether, and not constant relative to the
> observer? So you can measure the speed of light in some way, to make this
> claim at all, right? So why not measure it, see how much it departs from c,
> and then the difference is the speed of the ether.
>
> Why won't that work?

Because moving fields undergo the Lorentz contraction to remain
'physically' internally self consistent. It is a 'result' of the fact
that c is a fixed constant which is independent of the speed of the
sources. There is nothing 'special' about relativity...

Paul Stowe

From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 12:12

On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > > What ether?
>
> > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every
> > double slit experiment ever performed.
>
> > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits
> > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the
> > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit.
>
> > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits
> > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern.
>
> > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated
> > aether displacement wave?
>
> > ______________________________________
> > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having
> > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well?
>
> Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the
> greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling
> and unable to answer such a simple question.
>
> Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically
> behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been
> willing to answer this question and their answer was the future
> determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple
> slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits
> in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense,

On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you
personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC?

I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is
always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still
relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving
toward the observer.

Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this
statement is absurd nonsense or not?

> but you do
> have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question.

From: mpalenik on 15 Feb 2010 12:27

On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Feb, 23:46, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not really
> > > interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely
> > > hypothetical "grooves in spacetime".
>
> > And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, the answer
> > simply is geometry. When you accellerate, you rotate in spacetime.
> > Why? Because that's what accelleration means. That's what it means
> > to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to something
> > else. It means that you're both "facing different directions". Every
> > effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the fact
> > that two different observers at different speeds are "facing different
> > directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be moving
> > with respect to something else. It means that you have a different t
> > and x axis.
>
> Mark, if you consider this an answer, then you simply haven't
> understood the question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't
understood the answer. The above explains everything about relativity
and there's no ambiguity when you understand it.

Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like you
have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an angle,
and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically"
happened to the ladder. You say "well, it got rotated, so it's
shorter in the horizontal direction". Then the person keeps demanding
a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, so it
takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the horizontal
but the total length of the ladder didn't change. And then the person
you're talking to says that he refuses to believe that mathematical
things like angles can affect the things that you can put the ladder
inside of So then, you try to say that it's like trying to pack a box
and turning all of the objects so they fit into the box the best way.
And then he says "well, there's no doubt that rotating objects is
useful for packing boxes but it doesn't explain what physically
happened to the ladder," so you try to explain one more time and he
says you didn't understand the question. And when you tell him that
you can even *calculate* the length and height of the ladder after
rotating it, he says that's an abstract mathematical question and has
no bearing on what's physically happening.

Velocity is rotation, just rotation in a way that you're not used to
being able to rotate. There's nothing else to explain. You
accellerate something, it rotates. That's a physical answer.