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 10 Mar 2010 22:44

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c94dadb2-b9c3-42ee-981e-6407cb5e99b2(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 7:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> In a frame S' moving at v wrt the aether frame, then you get the measured
>> velocity of light is:
>>
>> c' = (c + v) / (1 + vc / c^2)
>> c' = (c + v) / ((c + v)/c)
>> c' = c
>>
>
> 1.Why would you do such an imbecility?

Because it shows that a measured speed of c in one frame gives a measured
speed in every other frame when related by lorentz transforms

> 2.You started with c+v, c-v in the lab frame, cretin.

No .. I started with c in the aether frame .. of course, you snipped the
lines where I said that.

> How does your
> cretinoid calculation make light speed isotropic in the lab frame?

I just showed you.

> You
> "calculated" light speed wrt the "aether" frame, imbecile.

No .. I calculated what it would be measured as in the moving frame, based
on it being 'c' in the aether frame .. of course, you snipped the lines
where I said that.

> 3. Try your cretinism again with c(theta)=c0/(1+v/c0*cos(theta)).

Why would I use that when measured speeds in LET are related via Lorentz
transforms, and the measured speed of light is c in all inertial frames?

> Don't cheat by taking theta=0

No need. When are you going to start your usual back-pedaling? .. it must
be soon now.

From: mpc755 on 10 Mar 2010 22:52

On Mar 10, 10:42 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 7:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What part of '"According to the general theory of relativity space
> > without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein' do you not understand?
>
> What is the next sentence in the Leiden address, imbecile?

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space
and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time
intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of
as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of
motion may not be applied to it."

Yes, of course, the 'I will read into a definition what I require in
order to remain ignorant' argument.

You have no idea what Einstein's definition of motion is:

"Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary
between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the
help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position
of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If
the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles
of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact
nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space
occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground
for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all
the same we could characterise it as a medium."

"[extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be
applied] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow
themselves to be separately tracked through time."

"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of
motion to the ether."

"But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

The idea of motion as defined by Einstein is a material which consists
of particles which are separately tracked through time.

This, along with Einstein's definition of a superfluous aether as one
which is 'superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
not require an "absolutely stationary space"' allows for an aether
which is displaced by matter.

An aether which is displaced by matter is not an "absolutely
stationary space".

An aether which is displaced by matter is not dependent upon particles
which can be separately tracked through time.

The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects
is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether wave.

Deal with it.

From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 23:12

On Mar 10, 7:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

"But this ether may NOT be thought of
as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of
motion may NOT be applied to it."

Cretin.

From: Bruce Richmond on 10 Mar 2010 23:30

On Mar 10, 9:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:45 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 8:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 10, 7:45 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 10, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 10, 8:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:4b970c19$0$8039$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > Good. There is one key insight which makes the jump from LET to SR a
> > > > > > > little easier (in my opinion).
>
> > > > > > > For all the talk of relative motion against the ether in LET, the
> > > > > > > equations work out exactly the same whatever you choose as the rest frame
> > > > > > > of the ether. So the actual rest frame of the ether cannot be detected
> > > > > > > within LET.
>
> > > > > > That's right. That's what Dono doesn't get.
>
> > > > > > > Its only a small hop, skip and jump from saying that "it cannot be
> > > > > > > detected" to "it doesn't exist".
>
> > > > > > Or at least 'it doesn't matter'.
>
> > > > > > Once you go beyond just the aether frame, and relating frames directly to
> > > > > > it, LET becomes more of a hinderance than a help
>
> > > > > > LET tells you (for instance) that even though objects at rest in frame A may
> > > > > > be more length compressed and time slowed than those in frame B (where A
> > > > > > moves faster in the aether frame than B) .. yet A will see objects at rest
> > > > > > in B as being more contracted and time dilated than its own. Which really
> > > > > > confuses those who use the simple 'motion in the aether shrinks and slows
> > > > > > things' idea of LET as a way to 'understand' into a spin. You end up with a
> > > > > > strange combination of real compression and apparent contraction, real
> > > > > > slowing and apparent time dilaton. Its not really helpful :):)
>
> > > > > It is helpful in that it gets 'us' closer to understanding what occurs
> > > > > to objects as they move with respect to the aether.
>
> > > > > The issue with LET is everything is relative.
>
> > > > > For example, "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by
> > > > > connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring
> > > > > places" - Albert Einstein.
>
> > > > You like Einstein quotes about the ether so try this one:
>
> > > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
>
> > > > "We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up
> > > > ascribing a definite state of motion to it" - Albert Einstein.
>
> > > "If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the
> > > particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if,
> > > in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the
> > > space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no
> > > ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.
> > > But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."
>
> > > "[extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be
> > > applied] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow
> > > themselves to be separately tracked through time."
>
> > > "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
> > > consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
> > > ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
> > > relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of
> > > motion to the ether."
>
> > > "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
> > > characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
> > > be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
>
> > > Once you are willing to understand how Einstein defined motion, as
> > > particles which can be separately tracked through time, maybe you can
> > > advance from your statement.
>
> > > p.s. You still haven't answered how it is the train is length
> > > contacted because it is moving relative to the aether and the
> > > embankment is more at rest with respect to the embankment but at the
> > > same time LET has everything being relative. The answer is both the
> > > Observer at M and the Observer at M' will determine the train to be
> > > length contracted and for the clocks on the train to be ticking slower
> > > than the clocks on the embankment.
>
> > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with
> > > > > respect to the embankment than it is with respect to the train. The
> > > > > train is moving relative to the aether so it will be length contracted
> > > > > while the embankment will not. The ruler the Observer on the
> > > > > embankment uses to measure the length of the train is not length
> > > > > contracted. The ruler the Observer on the train uses to measure the
> > > > > length of the embankment is length contracted. The Observer on the
> > > > > embankment and the Observer on the train conclude the embankment is
> > > > > longer than the train.
>
> > > > > The same holds true for the clocks on the train and on the embankment.
> > > > > Since the train is moving relative to the aether while the embankment
> > > > > is more at rest with respect to the aether there will be a greater
> > > > > pressure associated with the aether on the clock on the train causing
> > > > > it to tick slower. If the Observers on the embankment and on the train
> > > > > where able to 'see' each others clocks as the M and M' pass each other
> > > > > both the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment
> > > > > would conclude the clock on the train ticks slower than the clock on
> > > > > the embankment.
>
> > You know for a while you were making progress. (I'm sure some here
> > are thinking the same about me ;) You managed to get away from each
> > frame having its own ether to having them share a single ether (for EM
> > waves anyway). Now if you could just get away from trying to attach
> > one of the frames to the ether...
>
> > Did you ever get anywhere with that diagram I made to explain RoS to
> > you. Einstein presented the train experiment from the point of view
> > of the tracks, but he never said that the tracks were at rest WRT the
> > ether.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that can reveal
> > > > which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to know which
> > > > frame is more at rest WRT the ether.
>
> > > The clock which ticks the fastest is most at rest with respect to the
> > > aether.
>
> > But you have no way of knowing which clock is ticking faster. To
> > measure the tick rate of a moving clock requires more than one clock
> > at rest. And then you end up making assumptions to sychronize them.
> > Those assumptions affect your measurements.
>
> The two clocks are synchronized at some point in time. Then the clock
> at M and the clock at M' travel past one another. The Observer on the
> train and the Observer on the embankment have enough time to determine
> which clock is ticking faster. The clock which is ticking faster when
> M and M pass each other is the clock most at rest with respect to the
> aether.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You need at least one more clock to measure a tic rate. Given clock
B, you compare the time on clock M to that on clock M' when they
pass. You cannot compare them a second time because M' is moving. So
you compare M' to B when they pass. With that comparison you can
decide whether the clock at M' has gained or lost time, but that
calculation assumes the clocks at M and B read the same. And
assumptions were required when those clocks were synchronized.

From: Bruce Richmond on 10 Mar 2010 23:36

On Mar 10, 10:39 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1f04b278-4b2e-4602-9ce8-716f62cff45e(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 8:13 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that can reveal
> > which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to know which
> > frame is more at rest WRT the ether.
>
> > ______________________
> > Wrong. Only LET has this problem. There is no ether in SR, so the question
> > of its velocity doesn't even arise.
>
> Einstein did not rule out the possibility of an ether, he said that it
> made no difference if there was one, that it was superfluous.
>
> ___________________________
> And indeed there is no ether in SR, so there is no problem with calculating
> its speed. A bit like saying that zoology has a problem because it doesn't
> say how fast Unicorns can run; it doesn't have a problem, as according to
> zoology Unicorn's don't even exist so they can't run.
>
> If you
> claim my statement is wrong you are claiming there is an experiment
> that can reveal the ether frame.
>
> __________________________
> What part of "SR does not even include an ether" don't you understand?

What part of "If there isn't one you can't measure it" do *you* not
understand?