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: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 18:43

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:856f758f-9a80-4184-9d63-f91fb967add7(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 9, 9:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 7:49 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 8 Mar, 22:55, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 6, 5:32 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > What confuses me is that, if the clocks run slow by 2% for all the
>> > > > time that they are moving, how does one reconcile this with the
>> > > > fact
>> > > > that, if one uses the frame of one of the moving clocks, say clock
>> > > > B,
>> > > > then it seems to be to be your argument that there is no slowdown
>> > > > at
>> > > > all for B, and it is the other clocks, A and C, that slow down
>> > > > (i.e.
>> > > > *disregarding* both acceleration and propagation delays).
>>
>> > > Be careful. The acceleration profiles are common between B and C, but
>> > > they are not common to A. So while there is no difference between B
>> > > and C due to the acceleration, you CANNOT say that the acceleration
>> > > has no effect whatsoever. In fact, it is the indisputable fact that B
>> > > and C accelerate and A does NOT accelerate that makes the situation
>> > > nonsymmetric for A. This is what makes the worldline for A straight,
>> > > and the worldline for B and C kinked.
>>
>> > Yes, but we're supposed to have isolated the effect of acceleration,
>> > and disregarded it.
>>
>> No, we did not. We said that it cannot account for the DIFFERENCE
>> between B and C, but this does not discount or remove acceleration
>> from further consideration, particularly with regard to how clock A's
>> rate is seen by B.
>>
>>
>>
>> > And in any event, the more important question is
>> > the discrepancy between B and C.
>>
>> > > Two places where I will try to intercept misconceptions.
>> > > 1. The first temptation is to say, well, if the kink is what's
>> > > responsible for the time dilation, then all the dilating must happen
>> > > during the acceleration. That is not the case. Note the time dilation
>> > > is different for B and C, even though they have the same kink (the
>> > > same acceleration profile). The fact that there IS a kink is what
>> > > makes the elapsed time less on B and C than it is on A (where there
>> > > is
>> > > no kink), but how much less depends on the steepness and length of
>> > > the
>> > > straight parts of the worldline on either side of the kink.
>>
>> > As I say, I've stipulated that we are measuring on the outbound
>> > journey, before any of the clocks have turned back. So we've had one
>> > episode of acceleration and now B and C are travelling at the same
>> > speed away from the origin point, but in opposite directions. What
>> > amount of time dilation does C suffer relative to B? Nil? 2%? 4%?
>>
>> It's not that simple, and to get a number, you need to use the math.
>
>
> Indeed! The maths!
>
> << Einstein's relativity principle states that:
>
> All inertial frames are totally equivalent
> for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
> In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
> experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
> between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
> laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
> Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of
> relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
> same form in all inertial frames. >>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>
> [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the
> theory of relativity, in its most essential formal
> properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the
> three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space.
> In order to give due prominence to this relationship,
> however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by
> an imaginary magnitude
>
> sqrt(-1)
>
> ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the
> natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special)
> theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which
> the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as
> the three space co-ordinates. >>
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
>
> << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which
> can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
> which involve measuring the force of attraction between
> two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying
> wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments
> must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
> inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the
> same in all inertial frames. >>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>
> Sue...

Oh gawd.. its back .. the sue bot.

From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 19:29

On Mar 9, 3:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:67867321-a1b9-454e-96fb-bc8a0bd0783a(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 9, 1:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> Thing is we can't measure the (according of LET) real velocity of light.
>
> >> > I can provide you with an extensive list.
>
> >> Please do .. but I think you'll find they are all similarly excused by
> >> the
> >> effects of movement in the aether on matter and processes.
>
> >http://www.2physics.com/2009/11/testing-foundation-of-special.html
>
> Yeup .. all good stuff. None refute what LET claims.
>
Of course they do. Too bad that you are unable to read-

From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 19:31

On Mar 9, 2:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5f94889b-e02a-4b8e-91bc-edcdf876e3bd(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 9, 2:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >> No reason they cannot. No reason why gravity waves and EM waves cannot
> >> both
> >> travel at c. Any test showing that the do both travel at c will simply
> >> refute your assertion that they must be different .. it won't refute
> >> aether
> >> theory itself. And if necessary, aether will be modified yet again to
> >> account for it.
>
> > Bad answer:
>
> Good answer
>
> > EM waves are TRANSVERSE whereas gravitational wave are
> > LONGITUDINAL waves. The same medium cannot propagate both, so, you
> > need AT LEAST two different "aethers"
>
> Water transmits a combination of the two.http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html
>
This has nothing to do with water, I just explained to you why you
would need AT LEAST two different "aethers".

From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 19:52

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f6a45deb-03bd-43e5-9624-9301af955ec2(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 9, 3:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:67867321-a1b9-454e-96fb-bc8a0bd0783a(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Mar 9, 1:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Thing is we can't measure the (according of LET) real velocity of
>> >> light.
>>
>> >> > I can provide you with an extensive list.
>>
>> >> Please do .. but I think you'll find they are all similarly excused by
>> >> the
>> >> effects of movement in the aether on matter and processes.
>>
>> >http://www.2physics.com/2009/11/testing-foundation-of-special.html
>>
>> Yeup .. all good stuff. None refute what LET claims.
>>
> Of course they do. Too bad that you are unable to read-

I can read just fine. Too bad you are unable to think.

From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 20:09

On Mar 9, 4:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cfb962f7-8ce3-47af-82a9-98483033b493(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 2:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:c368db00-b8ab-43c9-9a17-dd257c591e1a(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > On Mar 9, 1:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:9a5eb50c-6ed1-4435-9493-0a0fef9039df(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Mar 8, 6:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> In LET the speed of light is only isotropically c in the aether
> >> >> >> frame.
>
> >> >> > ...then all the modern tests that put severe constraints on light
> >> >> > speed anisotropy falsify LET.
>
> >> >> No .. because we measure the speed as isotropic due to the distorted
> >> >> rulers
> >> >> and malfunctioning clocks that movement thru the aether causes
> >> >> (according
> >> >> to
> >> >> LET).
>
> >> > You are contradicting yourself ,
>
> >> Nope
>
> >> > in the earlier post you claimed
> >> > (correctly) that LET predicts light speed to be isotropic ONLY in the
> >> > preferrential frame of the "aether".
>
> >> That's right. It does.
>
> >> > In ALL other frame, light speed
> >> > is ANISOTROPIC.
>
> >> It is .. but we can't measure it correctly, due to distorted clocks and
> >> rulers we use (according to LET) .. and movement through the aether
> >> distorts
> >> those clocks and rulers by just the right amount so that we measure
> >> isotropic c with them.
>
> > Too bad that you continue to make incorrect claims.
>
> Too bad you think correct claims are incorrect. I guess that's the result
> of your ignorance and arrogance (yet again). This seems to be a recurring
> theme with you.
>
> > The speed of light depends on the sense of motion (the speed in +x is
> > different from the speed in -x). The "contraction of rulers" does not
> > depend on the sense of motion.
>
> Gees .. this is basic Lorentz transforms. Have you never studied them? ..
> it appears not. You do realize that LET predicts EXACTLY the same things as
> SR does .. including time dilation and RoS just.

One last time, the "contraction of rulers" is insensitive to sense of
motion whreas the light speed anisotropy is sensitive to sense of
motion. So, contrary to your claims, the "rulers contraction" cannot
counter the light speed anisotropy. If you read the experiments I
listed for you, you would have noticed that the aether based thories
predict a non-zero light speed anisotropy, precisely because there is
no effect that can cancel out the difference between c+ and c-.