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: BURT on 7 Mar 2010 18:23

On Mar 7, 2:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:4b93bf73$0$28464$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> 1) your statement: "For clarity, both effects are purely
> >>> observational - SR presumes (ideal) clock mechanisms are completely
> >>> unaffected by a clock's motion." -- I agree the physical mechanism of
> >>> the clock is unaffected, but this is a really misleading statement,
> >>> since the amount of proper time that the clock consumes is affected by
> >>> its motion. Are you trying to say
>
> >> I was "trying to say" exactly what I did say. If you didn't find it
> >> clear enough, try this: relative slow-downs/speed-ups observed in the
> >> readings of SR's ideal clocks aren't due to changes in the tick
> >> mechanisms of those clocks.
>
> > I still don't find it clear, as it begs the question - it says what
> > doesn't cause the change, not what does cause the change.
>
> > The standard SR answer is much more direct - the clocks slow down due to
> > relativistic time dilatation from them being in different reference
> > frames.
>
> > Is that standard position of SR also your position? Or is your somehow
> > different?
>
> SR says that the difference in clock sync (clock settings) cause the
> measurement of length to be contracted and measurement of clock ticking
> rates to be dilated.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There are no flat atoms in physics. Flat matter is a failure in
physics.

Mitch Raemsch

From: BURT on 7 Mar 2010 18:51

On Mar 7, 3:35 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b942bcf$0$27789$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:4b93bf73$0$28464$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> >>>> 1) your statement: "For clarity, both effects are purely
> >>>> observational - SR presumes (ideal) clock mechanisms are completely
> >>>> unaffected by a clock's motion." -- I agree the physical mechanism of
> >>>> the clock is unaffected, but this is a really misleading statement,
> >>>> since the amount of proper time that the clock consumes is affected by
> >>>> its motion. Are you trying to say
>
> >>> I was "trying to say" exactly what I did say. If you didn't find it
> >>> clear enough, try this: relative slow-downs/speed-ups observed in the
> >>> readings of SR's ideal clocks aren't due to changes in the tick
> >>> mechanisms of those clocks.
>
> >> I still don't find it clear, as it begs the question - it says what
> >> doesn't cause the change, not what does cause the change.
>
> >> The standard SR answer is much more direct - the clocks slow down due to
> >> relativistic time dilatation from them being in different reference
> >> frames.
>
> >> Is that standard position of SR also your position? Or is your somehow
> >> different?
>
> > SR says that the difference in clock sync (clock settings) cause the
> > measurement of length to be contracted and measurement of clock ticking
> > rates to be dilated.
>
> More or less.
>
> But I asked you about *your* position, not SR's position.
>
> Do you agree that that the clocks slow down due to relativistic time
> dilation, as predicted by SR, or not?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Energy and field flow through space and have time or aether flowing
over them.
Atom and light flow through the hypersphere surface with time flowing
over them.

Mitch Raemsch

From: BURT on 7 Mar 2010 19:55

On Mar 6, 11:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:690819be-c554-4e0b-9eec-c688f6a03827(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 8:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 4, 10:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On 4 Mar, 15:54, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mar 4, 1:03 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > This is what fundamentally sets apart things like creationism
> >> > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > science. Whatever other hoops creationism manages to jump
> >> > > > > > through, it
> >> > > > > > will never jump through the hoop of naturalism, and that is
> >> > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > *fundamentally* sets it apart from science.
>
> >> > > > > And also FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes science from religion.
> >> > > > > Thanks.
>
> >> > > > Agreed, but then religion in general never claimed to be science,
>
> >> > > Agreed! And so science is not a religion in the same fashion.
>
> >> > No, but neither did one religion ever claim to be the other.
>
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > traditional religion is almost immediately identifiable by its
> >> > > > supernaturalism. Creationism is different in that it actually
> >> > > > claims
> >> > > > to be scientific in some essential respects.
>
> >> > > Ah, yes, but as has been demonstrated even to layfolk (Dover v
> >> > > Kitsmiller), this is an unsupportable claim.
>
> >> > I agree. I'm glad you brought up that case. I just reviewed the
> >> > judgment quickly, and apparently the court agrees that the defining
> >> > essence of science is naturalism.
>
> >> Gee, I didn't read that into the judgment at all.
>
> > -----------------
> > what is all that nonstop spamming about
> > 'A constant speed of light ' !!!
>
> What spamming?
>
> > who is the crook behind it ??!!
>
> Its called nature- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Light speed flow is a constant in empty space. Aether for light is its
fastest flow. Light's clock is therefore the fastest.

Mitch Raemsch

From: Paul Stowe on 7 Mar 2010 20:13

On Mar 6, 11:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "rotchm" <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:77f3f705-45fc-4505-855b-403619921122(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Given that was possible I no longer had any
> >> > problem accepting the second postulate. Eventually I became aware
> >> > that the second postulate wasn't so much an assumption as a
> >> > stipulation. We will consider the speed of light to be our standard.
>
> >> No .. it is an observed fact. Not a stipulation
>
> > It is a stipulation. In fact it is a "defintion".
> > What ever the behavior of light, it is used as a standard to measure
> > lengths.
>
> Only because it has been MEASURED to behave as SR says. It is an observed
> 'fact'.

And, as LET explains... SR says nothing, as he says, SR stipulates it
as a base assumption... LET provides an actual explanation for the
behavior.

> Nature came first on this one .. light DOES travel at c in all frames of
> reference.

Light speed is independent of all motion of physical elements. Again
LET explains what causes it to be 'measured' as invariant.

> That means we CAN use the speed of light to define length to give a very
> easily reproduced and accurate standard for length.
>
> > Length has an operational defintion that uses the integer 299792458.
> > This definition implies/makes the speed of light constant.
>
> > Who owes me 2 cents now ? :)
>
> No idea.

Yup, certainly not you, I don't think you'll ever admit the validity
of LET... :) To Bruce, you know what's said about trying to teach
pigs to sing...

Paul Stowe

From: Androcles on 7 Mar 2010 20:21

"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa26451b-dcb7-4bbf-8577-063efc1a2c72(a)c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 6, 11:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "rotchm" <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:77f3f705-45fc-4505-855b-403619921122(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Given that was possible I no longer had any
> >> > problem accepting the second postulate. Eventually I became aware
> >> > that the second postulate wasn't so much an assumption as a
> >> > stipulation. We will consider the speed of light to be our standard.
>
> >> No .. it is an observed fact. Not a stipulation
>
> > It is a stipulation. In fact it is a "defintion".
> > What ever the behavior of light, it is used as a standard to measure
> > lengths.
>
> Only because it has been MEASURED to behave as SR says. It is an observed
> 'fact'.

And, as LET explains... SR says nothing, as he says, SR stipulates it
as a base assumption... LET provides an actual explanation for the
behavior.

> Nature came first on this one .. light DOES travel at c in all frames of
> reference.

Light speed is independent of all motion of physical elements. Again
LET explains what causes it to be 'measured' as invariant.

> That means we CAN use the speed of light to define length to give a very
> easily reproduced and accurate standard for length.
>
> > Length has an operational defintion that uses the integer 299792458.
> > This definition implies/makes the speed of light constant.
>
> > Who owes me 2 cents now ? :)
>
> No idea.

Yup, certainly not you, I don't think you'll ever admit the validity
of LET... :) To Bruce, you know what's said about trying to teach
pigs to sing...

Paul Stowe
==================================================
Yippee, a kook fight!