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 10 Mar 2010 10:01

On Mar 10, 6:52 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3c296172-0e54-4fa9-96c9-cc376f215bbf(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 4:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:eef67368-81e4-46cc-85c6-8fd5cafd5f0f(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > 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 .
>
> >> Don't lie. I did NOT claim that
>
> >> > I don't know why you are now lying about this.
>
> >> I'm not. I NEVER EVER claimed that
>
> > Of course you are lying, pathetic imbecile. Look here:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8802e45ec11...
>
> Thatnks for proving I am right. I never made the claim you attribute to me,
> that only contracted rulers cause isotropic measurement. I claimed that LET
> says that the combination of compressed rulers and slowed clocks causes the
> measurement of light to be isotropic c in all frames (note that the slowed
> clocks cause RoS as well).

IMBECILE,

The anisotropic light speed depends on SENSE of motion.
The length contraction, time dilation, etc DO NOT.
So, time dilation, length contraction,RoS CAN NOT "compensate" for the
light speed anisotropy. All test theories (RMS,SME) RELY on this
fact.
How imbecile are you? Really.

From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 10:04

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ae269f15-4a97-4e9b-9529-002823bd2ca6(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 6:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Because the "multiple aethers" would need to
>> > have contradictory properties.
>>
>> They probably would. Why can't multiple aethers have different
>> properties?
>>
>
> Because the properties in cause are CONTRADICTORY , imbecile. You keep
> missing that.

The claim was that an aether for gravity would have different properties for
one for EMR. There is no contradiction in that .. they can simply be
different aethers with different properties. If there is no contradictions
(or not enough for aetherists to assert their way out of it) then the same
aether can be used. It doesn't really matter which approach they take, but
a determined aetherist can get out of the refutations put forward so far
quite easily (as has happened in the past). Seeing we have no way to
determine if there actually is any aether (or aethers), let alone directly
measure its (or their) properties, aetherists are free to attribute whatever
properties that like on it to satisfy experimental results that would
otherwise refute it.

From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 10:10

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7bb9543e-fa1b-481b-a28c-b8bef9eedd9e(a)o16g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 6:52 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3c296172-0e54-4fa9-96c9-cc376f215bbf(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 4:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:eef67368-81e4-46cc-85c6-8fd5cafd5f0f(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > 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 .
>>
>> >> Don't lie. I did NOT claim that
>>
>> >> > I don't know why you are now lying about this.
>>
>> >> I'm not. I NEVER EVER claimed that
>>
>> > Of course you are lying, pathetic imbecile. Look here:
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8802e45ec11...
>>
>> Thatnks for proving I am right. I never made the claim you attribute to
>> me,
>> that only contracted rulers cause isotropic measurement. I claimed that
>> LET
>> says that the combination of compressed rulers and slowed clocks causes
>> the
>> measurement of light to be isotropic c in all frames (note that the
>> slowed
>> clocks cause RoS as well).
>
> IMBECILE,

Don[t put yourself down like that. You're quite intelligent .. just a
little full of yourself, and though human enough to make mistakes, you're
not human enough to admit them

> The anisotropic light speed depends on SENSE of motion.
> The length contraction, time dilation, etc DO NOT.

ROS does .. and it comes from time-dilation. LET has all of those (as you
should know) because it shares the same math as SR. It has the same
transform of measurements between frames that SR has.

> So, time dilation, length contraction,RoS CAN NOT "compensate" for the
> light speed anisotropy.

Yes .. they do. Its called Lorentz transforms. It is simple to show that
anything that is measured to have a speed of c in one frame will be measured
as having a speed of c in all other frames that are related by Lorentz
transforsm. In LET the measurements in all frames are related by Lorentz
transfroms

> All test theories (RMS,SME) RELY on this
> fact.

Its a lie of yours .. not a fact. Lorentz transforms guarantee that
anything that is measured to have a speed of c in one frame will be measured
as having a speed of c in all other frames. It is simple math.

> How imbecile are you? Really.

Far less of one that you are. You're also a much bigger liar (I don't).
You seem to have no ethics and no remorse for you appalling and blatant lies
and mistakes.

From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 10:11

On Mar 10, 7:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ae269f15-4a97-4e9b-9529-002823bd2ca6(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 10, 6:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Because the "multiple aethers" would need to
> >> > have contradictory properties.
>
> >> They probably would. Why can't multiple aethers have different
> >> properties?
>
> > Because the properties in cause are CONTRADICTORY , imbecile. You keep
> > missing that.
>
> The claim was that an aether for gravity would have different properties for
> one for EMR. There is no contradiction in that .. they can simply be
> different aethers with different properties.

How can they? Their properties would not only be different but also
CONTRADICTORY.

> If there is no contradictions
> (or not enough for aetherists to assert their way out of it) then the same
> aether can be used.

If your grandmother had wheels she would have been a bus. The point is
that there IS contradiction. Fallacious thinking will not take you
very far.

> It doesn't really matter which approach they take, but
> a determined aetherist can get out of the refutations put forward so far
> quite easily (as has happened in the past).

You are a prime example.

From: Ste on 10 Mar 2010 10:31

On 9 Mar, 23:41, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e37617e7-52f9-4fbd-a740-bac32eb220dd(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 9 Mar, 05:34, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> Did you look at the diagrams on the Wikipedia page on the twins paradox
> >> as I
> >> suggested?
>
> >> This shows *exactly* what the moving and stationary clocks see as
> >> happening
> >> at all stages of the thought experiment.
>
> > This isn't the twins paradox,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>
> Of course it is the twins paradox. Do you even know what the twins paradox
> is ? Lets see what the web page says
>
> "In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity,
> in which a twin makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and
> returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on
> Earth. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as
> traveling, and so, according to the theory of special relativity,
> paradoxically each should find the other to have aged more slowly. How the
> seeming contradiction is resolved, and how the absolute effect (one twin
> really aging less) can result from a relative motion, can be explained
> within the standard framework of special relativity. The effect has been
> verified experimentally using precise measurements of clocks flown in
> airplanes.[1][2]"

I repeat myself again, the scenario we have here is *not* the twins
paradox.

> > so it would be strange to find the
> > answer to my question there. Also, I've read that page in the past,
> > and I don't recall it having relevant detail.
>
> Clearly you are either lying about reading it, or you didn't understand it.

No, perhaps you didn't understand. As I say, this is *not* the twins
paradox, because in the twins paradox only *one* twin leaves Earth.