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: harald on 10 Mar 2010 17:04

On Mar 10, 2:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:10db1087-a875-4849-8a2f-cc03a09865d3(a)g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 10:45 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 9, 11:10 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 9, 8:00 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mar 9, 9:05 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Bad 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"
>
> >> > > Actually, solids support the propagation of both transverse (s)
> >> > > and longitudinal (p) waves. But the speed of s and p waves are
> >> > > different, so you STILL need two aethers for light and gravity.
>
> >> > > And no, Inertial, you CANNOT simply postulate an aether in which
> >> > > s and p waves travel at the same speed...
>
> >> > > Jerry
>
> >> > Yes, I know but the "solid aether" died a violent death more than 100
> >> > years ago :-)
> >> > This is not going to stop the Inertial imbecile, I guess his own
> >> > inertia in admitting his errors is way too big.
>
> >> Ever heard of a devil's advocate?
>
> > That's the term! I couldn't remember it!!!
>
> > Yes, Inertial is just being devil's advocate here. We had a few
> > heated words, but it's all in good fun. :-)
>
> Indeed .. I'd be more than happy if we could come up with something that
> would either refute LET as false, or prove it as true. I just don't see
> anything that has been said here so far as doing that. Aether is a slippery
> devil :):)

Following Popper - even loosely - no model can be proven as "true";
worse, we should assume that any physical model is only approximate
(example of another useful but ad-hoc model: the Bohr model).

Harald

From: harald on 10 Mar 2010 17:14

On Mar 10, 8:07 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 10:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 5:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 3, 10:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> > > > > > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> > > > > > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not
> > > > > > > > remember that?
>
> > > > > > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> > > > > > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took it
> > > > > > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each
> > > > > > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> > > > > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> > > > > > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> > > > > > either observer.
>
> > > > > Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to
> > > > > *know* that the speed is the same both ways.
>
> > > > Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined. I'm
> > > > surprised you weren't aware of this.
>
> > > Do you mean like this one?
>
> > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988....
>
> > > The author is kind enough to point out problems in some similar
> > > experiments, while failing to notice any in his own.
>
> > Yes that paper is amazing - shocking, what a blunder of Physical
> > Review!
>
> It is not the reputed Physical Review but the much lesser, fringe
> Phys.Lett.A.

Gagnon et al, Physical Review A, Vol.38, no.4, 1988. p.1767.

Harald

From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 17:47

On Mar 10, 2:14 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:07 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 10:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 5, 5:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 3, 10:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> > > > > > > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> > > > > > > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not
> > > > > > > > > remember that?
>
> > > > > > > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> > > > > > > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took it
> > > > > > > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each
> > > > > > > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> > > > > > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> > > > > > > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> > > > > > > either observer.
>
> > > > > > Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to
> > > > > > *know* that the speed is the same both ways.
>
> > > > > Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined. I'm
> > > > > surprised you weren't aware of this.
>
> > > > Do you mean like this one?
>
> > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988...
>
> > > > The author is kind enough to point out problems in some similar
> > > > experiments, while failing to notice any in his own.
>
> > > Yes that paper is amazing - shocking, what a blunder of Physical
> > > Review!
>
> > It is not the reputed Physical Review but the much lesser, fringe
> > Phys.Lett.A.
>
> Gagnon et al, Physical Review A, Vol.38, no.4, 1988. p.1767.
>
You are right: http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988.pdf

Hideous.

From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 17:52

On Mar 10, 2:47 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2:14 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 8:07 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 10, 10:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 5, 5:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 3, 10:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> > > > > > > > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> > > > > > > > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not
> > > > > > > > > > remember that?
>
> > > > > > > > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> > > > > > > > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took it
> > > > > > > > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each
> > > > > > > > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> > > > > > > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> > > > > > > > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> > > > > > > > either observer.
>
> > > > > > > Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to
> > > > > > > *know* that the speed is the same both ways.
>
> > > > > > Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined.. I'm
> > > > > > surprised you weren't aware of this.
>
> > > > > Do you mean like this one?
>
> > > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988...
>
> > > > > The author is kind enough to point out problems in some similar
> > > > > experiments, while failing to notice any in his own.
>
> > > > Yes that paper is amazing - shocking, what a blunder of Physical
> > > > Review!
>
> > > It is not the reputed Physical Review but the much lesser, fringe
> > > Phys.Lett.A.
>
> > Gagnon et al, Physical Review A, Vol.38, no.4, 1988. p.1767.
>
> You are right:http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988...
>
> Hideous.-

So much worse since it was published in 1988. RMS theory was already
published in '77. No excuse for using a very bad theoretical
foundation. No excuse for the reviewers to let the paper through.

From: BURT on 10 Mar 2010 18:30

On Mar 9, 9:01 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> > I'm sorry about these questions but, what does privileged mean?
>
> > _______________________________
> > Somehow better than the others. Special in some sense. For example, the
> > reference frame of the ether is privleged because it is the only reference
> > frame where lengths and times are "correct".
>
> > There
> > is certainly physical consequences of the medium (such as field
> > profile alterations due to motion) but there is certainly nothing
> > priveleged as in having different properties about it.
>
> > _____________________________
> > It is privileged; it is the unique reference frame for which the real
> > length
> > is the same as the measured length. Or so I understand it; as I said, I
> > don't actually believe it exists at all.
>
> Real length??? What makes length real?

Distances across round atoms reveal atomic size that does not vary.

Mitch Raemsch

>
> ___________________________
> Ask the people who believe in the ether. It's their concept.
> BTW, you asked for a definition of a "privileged reference frame". I posted
> a not very good one. But this is a standard term in physics, not for me to
> define. Googling it gives 150,000 hits, and the very first onehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frameexplains it exactly in this
> context opf SR. Should have done this in the first place.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -