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: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 21:17

On Mar 9, 5:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4c52b5ec-cedd-4940-a54d-689ffb323d17(a)k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > 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".
>
> For a start, I think you are confusing gravity waves with gravitational
> waves.

No, I am not: http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/P/P980007-00.pdf

> Regardless, I just showed one medium having both longitudinal and transverse
> components of wave motion. And as I explained to you .. common sense has
> never stood in the way of aetherist giving the aether more and more
> properties that are unlike any other material .. no reason why they would
> not simply claim that aether can propogate both types of waves, if that was
> required to explain observations.

The "aether" used for propagating graitational waves would need to
have very different properties from the one used for propagating em
waves. Get used to this.

From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 21:25

On Mar 9, 5:29 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> I know all that .. that is the same in SR as in LET. But (exactly as with
> SR) there is more to Lorentz transforms than just ruler contraction. Which
> is why I never claimed that it is just rulers being compressed.
>

You simply claimed that rulers compression cancels out light speed
anisotropy . I don't know why you are now lying about this.
Look, bozo: the test theories mentioned in the link I gave you (SME
and RMS) use the same exact approach as your beloved LET, they assume
light speed isotropic only in the preferred frame (and anisotropic in
all other frames)> As such, these theories make predictions that are
DIFFERENT from the SR predictions for the class of experiments listed
on the website. This is precisely why both SME and RMS are used as
test theories for SR, if they predicted the SAME results as SR (as you
continue to claim), they would be absolutely useless. I will stop
trying to teach you, you are way too imbecile and I don't have that
much time to waste.

From: Uncle Al on 9 Mar 2010 21:39

"Dono." wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 5:35 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > "Dono." wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > 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-.
> >
> > idiot
> >
> > http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
> > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> > Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
> > Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
> > <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
> > No aether
> >
> > <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
> > Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
> > No Lorentz violation
> >
> > idiot
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
>
> Imbecile, I am proving the same exact thing as the papers you are
> citing.

Then who is the idiot? It has been OBSERVED. What do you hallucinate
you are doing by not referencing observation? Theory predicts what it
is told to predict. A soon as EO Lawrence needed a synchrotron rather
than a cyclotron SR was golden. After the first GPS satellite was
lofted, GR was golden.

No aether, no Lorentz violation... in the masselss sector. Absolutely
nobody knows if opposite shoes

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/twistene.png

detect an interactive vacucm background in the massed sector. Will
vacuum-phase bi-rotors - right-right, right-left, left-left - show a
diurnal divergence in rotation state populations at 45 degrees
latitude? soembody should look

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 21:41

On Mar 8, 6:12 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not .. I don't think there is an aether. But as aether advocates can
> > give it any properties they want,
>
> Quite frankly, you have done nothing but present a series of
> special pleads, quite similar to how HW explains BaTh.
>
> Jerry

You are so right, the guy is such a waste of time.

From: Bruce Richmond on 9 Mar 2010 21:48

On Mar 9, 4:34 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:51d25138-0494-4e1a-a46a-ee48ea24a394(a)g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 1:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:29fd9f7d-c9b4-41e6-b33a-585c3e0e7acf(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > On Mar 7, 9:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:1c6a2640-39f5-4ea4-9c85-127e71f4e6a2(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Mar 7, 6:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
> >> >> >> message
>
> >> >> >>news:4b943853$0$11336$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> >> >> >> > "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.
>
> >> >> >> That's what it is :)
>
> >> >> >> > But I asked you about *your* position, not SR's position.
>
> >> >> >> My position is SR's position
>
> >> >> >> > Do you agree that that the clocks slow down due to relativistic
> >> >> >> > time
> >> >> >> > dilation, as predicted by SR, or not?
>
> >> >> >> They are measured as slower, just as a rod is measured as shorter.
> >> >> >> This
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> due to the difference in simultaneity. They don't slow down
> >> >> >> because a
> >> >> >> moving observer is looking at them any more than a rod shrinks
> >> >> >> because
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> relatively moving observer is looking at it.
>
> >> >> >> Here's a little example you might follow .. with time differences
> >> >> >> exagerated
> >> >> >> for clarity
>
> >> >> >> Here are six clocks, in tow rows (S and S'), all ticking at the
> >> >> >> correct
> >> >> >> rate, but set with different times...
>
> >> >> >> S' 10:30 11:00=A 11:30 <--v
> >> >> >> S 11:30=C 11:00=B 10:30 -->v
>
> >> >> >> Clocks B sees the A is synchronized with it.
>
> >> >> >> Now .. the clocks are moving in opposite directions so after an
> >> >> >> hour
> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> have
>
> >> >> >> S' 11:30 12:00=A 12:30
> >> >> >> S 12:30=C 12:00=B 11:30
>
> >> >> >> Clock A has moved away from clock B .. but another clock (C) in S
> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> see
> >> >> >> the time on it. Clock C sees that clock A is half an hour slow (A
> >> >> >> shows
> >> >> >> 12:00 when C shows 12:30). So according to the clocks in S, clock
> >> >> >> A
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> ticking slower. We also note that clock B now sees a *different*
> >> >> >> S'
> >> >> >> clock
> >> >> >> next to it as being fast (it shows 12:30 when B shows 12:00)
>
> >> >> >> If you look at the same scenario but from the point of view of the
> >> >> >> other
> >> >> >> row
> >> >> >> of clocks, you get symmetric results.
>
> >> >> >> This is how clock synch affects measured ticking rates for moving
> >> >> >> clocks
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> SR. Even though the clocks themselves do NOT change their
> >> >> >> intrinsic
> >> >> >> ticking
> >> >> >> rates.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> > Looks good, but let's take it one step further. The observer with
> >> >> > clock A jumps to frame S" which is traveling in the same direction
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > S relative to S' but at twice the velocity.
>
> >> >> > S" 1:00 12:00=A 11:00 -->2v
> >> >> > S' 11:30 12:00=A 12:30 <--v
> >> >> > S 12:30=C 12:00=B 11:30 -->v
>
> >> >> > Clocks A and B continue to tick at there same intrinsic ticking rate
> >> >> > and an hour later A has overtaken B.
>
> >> >> > S" 2:00 1:00=A
> >> >> > 12:00 -->2v
> >> >> > S' 12:30 1:00=A 1:30
> >> >> > <--v
> >> >> > S 1:30=C 1:00=B
> >> >> > 12:30 -->v
>
> >> >> > The above provides the same situation as the twins paradox. Clock A
> >> >> > left clock B and returned. So why doesn't clock A show less time
> >> >> > elapsed than B? (Note the clocks in S" are further out of sync than
> >> >> > those in S due to the higher velocity.)
>
> >> >> The three clock situation cannot be so easily drawn .. bit like trying
> >> >> to
> >> >> drawing a three dimensional figure in 2d :) This sort of diagram only
> >> >> really works for a single pair of clocks looking from a third frame in
> >> >> which
> >> >> they move with the same speed. Things are trickier when there is
> >> >> frame
> >> >> jumping going on :):)- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > The question still remains, if there is no change in the tick rate of
> >> > the clock, how can clock A have fewer ticks recorded when it is
> >> > brought back to clock B?
>
> >> Look at the Lorentz transforms to see. Its all due to clock synch.- Hide
> >> quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You are going to give yourself a head cold with all that arm waving.
>
> Do you REALLY need to to give you the SR explanation of the twins paradox?
>
> > You are saying the tick rate doesn't change,
>
> That's what SR says.

I asked if that was what *you* were saying. Relativity says all kinds
of things depending on who you listen to, including that moving clocks
run slow.

> But a moving observer will measure the tick rate as
> slower.

There you go frame jumping. We were discussing the stay at home twin,
who is stationary, and the clock that changes its state of motion.

> Just like the intrinsic length of a rod doesn't change because a
> moving observer measures it.

But we aren't talking about just observing it. The clock changed its
state of motion.

>
> > yet SR says that the
> > returning twin's clock will show less elapsed time.
>
> It will

And I agree that it will.

> > You don't see any
> > conflict there?
>
> No .. do you?

Yes. As I see it any admission that the clock has slowed is being
surpressed to avoid possible connections to ether theory. That
"Moving clocks run slow" used to be the standard line. As for what
causes the different measurements depending on the frame, it's not
just clock sync. Length contraction figures into it as well. I have
been re-reading Bondi recently and he says the thing that makes time a
dimension as opposed to just a data point is that when you do a
rotation of coordinates the time gets mixed up with the space. He
didn't mention it, but that also makes time dependent on position,
which is what RoS is all about.

I know I still have a long way to go but my goal here is to truely
understand SR, not to just parrot explainations. LET helped me see
that the math of SR is correct, but I also realize it has become a
hiderence in understanding SR.