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: PD on 15 Feb 2010 14:17

On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle
>
> > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties
> > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these
> > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of
> > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects
> > called quantum objects.
>
> > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are
> > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this.
> > You just assert that it is so.
>
> > > and as such it always
> > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically
> > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical
> > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense.
>
> > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the
> > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single
> > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation
> > > of QM for now.
>
> > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits
> > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60
> > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon
> > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will
> > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being,
> > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future.
>
> > > That is absurd nonsense.
>
> > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without
> > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and
> > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting
> > this or asserting that.
>
> > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to
> > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't
> > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you
> > > choose to believe.
>
> > See? You haven't answered the question at all.
> > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what
> > is absurd nonsense and what is not.
> > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so
> > what you CHOOSE to believe.
> > That's called faith, not science.
>
> Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith
> like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium
> is material or believing the future determines the past?

You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding.
That's the point. You have to have an independent method for
*checking* which of the two statements is more likely.

What's your method for that independent determination?

Or do you just CHOOSE based on what you LIKE?

>
>
>
> > > A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated
> > > aether displacement wave.

From: Ste on 15 Feb 2010 14:20

On 15 Feb, 18:51, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > But you could give a simple demonstration of spatial rotation. Indeed,
> > people knew how to rotate things in space long before formal geometry
> > was ever developed.
>
> And so because it is older and more familiar, then it is acceptable,
> whereas something that is newer and less familiar is less acceptable?

No, I'm saying that one should treat with utmost suspicion those who
say the essential concepts of some theory cannot be understood in
familiar everyday terms, and can only be understood within the terms
of its own special language.

> > But "rotation into time" is totally meaningless in the sense that it's
> > supposed to have any analogy with spatial rotation.
>
> Analogies are always limited. When you say that house walls are like
> bridge piers, you have to identify in what ways they are alike and
> what ways they are not alike. To people for whom the analogy is
> familiar, the distinction is easy. For people for whom it is not
> familiar, it is easy to get confused and think they are not the same
> at all.
>
> Likewise, you have a limited sense of what "rotation" means, and you
> don't have any visual concept of what general rotation means --
> because you are limited to the spatial context. If you had a better
> understanding of the *essence* of rotation that is not limited to the
> specific instance, then the analogy would make much more sense. In a
> way, you suffer the same limitation of someone who only thinks of
> mammals as being tetrapod land animals. For this person, who has a
> limited understanding of what mammals are, the idea of bats and whales
> being mammals would just make no sense at all, because they aren't
> tetrapod land animals.

I can understand "rotation" in geometric terms, and indeed I can
immediately see how rotation into time involves no different a
mathematical procedure than rotation in space. But in physical terms,
it seems to me the differences are vast.

> > It's a bit like
> > "light follows a groove in space" - the supposed concrete analogy
> > actually introduces more confusion.
>
> > I mean, if this "rotation into time" means "at any one instant, you
> > cannot see the whole item",
>
> No, it does not mean that.
>
> > then it would be easier just to say that.
> > On the other hand, if it means "the item gets physically shorter in
> > the direction of travel", then it would be easier just to say that.
>
> No, it does not mean that either.
>
> Stop trying to pigeonhole things into things you PRESENTLY understand,
> and try to expand your understanding to include what it REALLY means.

I'm not saying it meant either of those things. I'm just giving you an
example of how you would describe something in terms of everyday
language. Obviously, because you know the true nature of this
"rotation into time" and I don't, then it's for you to describe (if
you can and so wish to do so) the essential features in everyday terms.

From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 14:37

On Feb 15, 1:20 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 18:51, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 12:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > But you could give a simple demonstration of spatial rotation. Indeed,
> > > people knew how to rotate things in space long before formal geometry
> > > was ever developed.
>
> > And so because it is older and more familiar, then it is acceptable,
> > whereas something that is newer and less familiar is less acceptable?
>
> No, I'm saying that one should treat with utmost suspicion those who
> say the essential concepts of some theory cannot be understood in
> familiar everyday terms, and can only be understood within the terms
> of its own special language.

I'm not sure why. It's a matter of economy. For example, when speaking
of rotation, you have in mind a *particular kind* of rotation -- a
spatial rotation -- because that's what so in everyday terms. But this
is a *special case* of what rotation means. Now, physicists have a
choice here: 1) They can cow to the everyday language and instead of
saying "rotation" they can say "generalized rotation which the
following broader meaning: [etc]" and repeating that phrase every time
they want to talk about rotation in general and not spatial rotations
in specific, lest someone get confused and think that "rotation" means
the same thing as the specific case; or 2) They can urge the reader to
broaden their understanding of the term "rotation" so that spatial
rotation thenceforth becomes recognized as the special case for the
reader as well, and so that "rotation" can be used to mean the
generalized term and "spatial" rotation" can mean the special case.

There's a sound reason for preferring the latter, though it does pose
a learning curve for the reader.

>
>
>
> > > But "rotation into time" is totally meaningless in the sense that it's
> > > supposed to have any analogy with spatial rotation.
>
> > Analogies are always limited. When you say that house walls are like
> > bridge piers, you have to identify in what ways they are alike and
> > what ways they are not alike. To people for whom the analogy is
> > familiar, the distinction is easy. For people for whom it is not
> > familiar, it is easy to get confused and think they are not the same
> > at all.
>
> > Likewise, you have a limited sense of what "rotation" means, and you
> > don't have any visual concept of what general rotation means --
> > because you are limited to the spatial context. If you had a better
> > understanding of the *essence* of rotation that is not limited to the
> > specific instance, then the analogy would make much more sense. In a
> > way, you suffer the same limitation of someone who only thinks of
> > mammals as being tetrapod land animals. For this person, who has a
> > limited understanding of what mammals are, the idea of bats and whales
> > being mammals would just make no sense at all, because they aren't
> > tetrapod land animals.
>
> I can understand "rotation" in geometric terms, and indeed I can
> immediately see how rotation into time involves no different a
> mathematical procedure than rotation in space. But in physical terms,
> it seems to me the differences are vast.

And the differences between whales and tetrapod land mammals are vast,
even though in the abstract meaning of mammals, those differences
become ancillary details.

And this is precisely the point -- the MEANING of "mammal" as
*properly* understood should make it apparent that the differences are
ancillary details, rather than huge and fundamental differences. Or
another way of looking it is that if someone thinks of mammals as
tetrapod land animals, using the specific class to mean the same as
the general term, and so that whales appear to be mammals "on paper
only" but obviously not of the familiar class of tetrapod land
mammals, then this person does not have a clear understanding of what
the term "mammal" means.

>
>
>
> > > It's a bit like
> > > "light follows a groove in space" - the supposed concrete analogy
> > > actually introduces more confusion.
>
> > > I mean, if this "rotation into time" means "at any one instant, you
> > > cannot see the whole item",
>
> > No, it does not mean that.
>
> > > then it would be easier just to say that.
> > > On the other hand, if it means "the item gets physically shorter in
> > > the direction of travel", then it would be easier just to say that.
>
> > No, it does not mean that either.
>
> > Stop trying to pigeonhole things into things you PRESENTLY understand,
> > and try to expand your understanding to include what it REALLY means.
>
> I'm not saying it meant either of those things. I'm just giving you an
> example of how you would describe something in terms of everyday
> language. Obviously, because you know the true nature of this
> "rotation into time" and I don't, then it's for you to describe (if
> you can and so wish to do so) the essential features in everyday terms.

And that's the problem, you see. Everyday language attempts to
pigeonhole things that do not belong in any of the available
pigeonholes. This is the point that Feynman makes in "The Character of
Physical Law". Our everyday language categorizes physical things that
propagate into two disjoint categories: particles and waves. It is
therefore natural to ask, in everyday terms, whether so-and-so is a
particle or is a wave. Those are the only two available pigeonholes
from everyday experience. The problem is, we've learned that a large
group of physical things that propagate do not fall into either
category and have to be described by a new category. Yet, in an appeal
to everyday experience, this expansion opportunity is unavailable, as
there are only those two classes available from everyday experience.
Yet, if we try to categorize any of these physical things as a
particle, we make mistakes, and if we categorize them as waves, we
make mistakes. There are things in nature, as Feynman says, that are
simply not like anything we've ever seen before, and so our everyday
categorizations and descriptions are simply insufficient.

From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 14:50

On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle
>
> > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties
> > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these
> > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of
> > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects
> > > called quantum objects.
>
> > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are
> > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this.
> > > You just assert that it is so.
>
> > > > and as such it always
> > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically
> > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical
> > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense.
>
> > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the
> > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single
> > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation
> > > > of QM for now.
>
> > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits
> > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60
> > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon
> > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will
> > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being,
> > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future.
>
> > > > That is absurd nonsense.
>
> > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without
> > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and
> > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting
> > > this or asserting that.
>
> > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to
> > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't
> > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you
> > > > choose to believe.
>
> > > See? You haven't answered the question at all.
> > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what
> > > is absurd nonsense and what is not.
> > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so
> > > what you CHOOSE to believe.
> > > That's called faith, not science.
>
> > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith
> > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium
> > is material or believing the future determines the past?
>
> You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding.

Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical
material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is
displaced by matter.

The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple
slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense.

> That's the point. You have to have an independent method for
> *checking* which of the two statements is more likely.
>
> What's your method for that independent determination?
>

My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors
in every double slit experiment ever performed.

My method for that independent determination is, beside the absurd
nonsense of QM, a particle travels a single path and waves propagate
available paths.

A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.

> Or do you just CHOOSE based on what you LIKE?
>
>
>
> > > > A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated
> > > > aether displacement wave.
>
>

From: mpalenik on 15 Feb 2010 14:54

On Feb 15, 1:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 17:27, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> But you could give a simple demonstration of spatial rotation. Indeed,
> people knew how to rotate things in space long before formal geometry
> was ever developed.

I can give you a simple example of the rotation I've just described.
Accellerate an object. That's a rotation. The only reason people do
not recognize it as such is because we can't step back and see the
geometry of the 4 dimensional universe.

However, to an observer who sits in a 3D cross section of spacetime,
this is exactly how rotations would appear.

It's like you're living in flat land, but flatland is sitting on a
platform moving upward (representing your "motion" through time). A
rotation out of the plane in flat land might not look exactly like a
normal rotation that the flatlanders are used to, but mathematically,
it would still be recognizable.

It's the same with SR. The fault is your perceptions, not the
explanation.

>
> But "rotation into time" is totally meaningless in the sense that it's
> supposed to have any analogy with spatial rotation. It's a bit like
> "light follows a groove in space" - the supposed concrete analogy
> actually introduces more confusion.

It's not just an analogy, it's a physical reality. Look at the
picture I drew you. It means exactly what that picture shows (except
in Minkowski spacetime, rather than euclidean).

The picture I made for you wasn't supposed to represent an analogy--it
was supposed to represent physical reality (except with a slightly
different metric--but we don't need to worry about that just yet).