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: Peter Webb on 11 Mar 2010 00:21

"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ca6a0dbf-23e8-42ff-b741-ae709e93dc66(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
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?


_____________________
Do you think that zoology has a problem because it knows nothing about
Unicorns?


The difference between LET and SR is that the ether exists in LET, but its
speed cannot be determined. SR doesn't even have an ether; they are
different situations. LET assumes that "Unicorns" exist but says some
properties cannot be determined; SR says they don't exist at all.


From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 00:28

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:20fdca26-407d-48e8-afec-352178f8e4a6(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 9:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:30414028-b80c-4c4e-b56e-165b51f709cf(a)m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 8:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:794e1ebf-1273-45c5-babf-744f05938489(a)l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Mar 10, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "Dono." <sa...(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.
>>
>> >> > No, lying cretin
>>
>> >> Wrong on all three counts.
>>
>> >> > You were asked to show how you get the anisotropic speed in the lab,
>> >> > c=c0(1+v*cos(theta)) to become isotropic.
>>
>> >> I showed the speed of c in the aether frame is measured as c in the
>> >> lab
>> >> frame.
>>
>> > Imbecile,
>>
>> > You start by assuming that light speed is anisotropic in the lab
>>
>> > c=c0(1+v*cos(theta))
>>
>> > From this point on, you need to show how your "ruler compression",RoS
>> > and time dilation make the light speed isotropic.
>> > You didn't solve the exercise you were asked to do, you simply showed
>> > that c composed with v is ...c!
>>
>> And that is why the speed in the lab is measured as c. Do you not
>> understand velocity composition?
>
> Autistic imbecile,
>
> You can't use speed composition

Of course you can. Lorentz transform apply to measured speeds. I start
with a measured speed of c in the aether frame (you do realize that in LET
light travels isotropically at c in the aether frame), and use velocity
composition to give the measured speed in the lab frame.

To work out the 'real' speed (that we cannot measure) in the lab frame, you
do simple Galilean transforms (ie simple vector subtraction). Which is what
you did.

> you have been given that light speed
> is anisotropic in the lab frame.

The measured speed isn't.

To work out the measured speed from the 'real' speed in the lab frame, work
out what the 'real' speed is in the aether frame (which is trivially c in
this case) and then apply velocity composition to get the measured speed in
some other frame. Not surprisingly it comes out at c. Just as LET says.
LET makes the same predictions for measured values as SR does .. are you
unaware of that? You should be .. I've told you .. and so have others.

It's quite simple really. You might get it one day if you deflate your ego
for a while so you can see past it.


From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 00:31

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b987dea$0$5860$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:ca6a0dbf-23e8-42ff-b741-ae709e93dc66(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> 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?
>
>
> _____________________
> Do you think that zoology has a problem because it knows nothing about
> Unicorns?
>
>
> The difference between LET and SR is that the ether exists in LET, but its
> speed cannot be determined. SR doesn't even have an ether; they are
> different situations. LET assumes that "Unicorns" exist but says some
> properties cannot be determined; SR says they don't exist at all.

SR says nothing about aether .. whether it exists or not. It certainly
doesn't require aether. It doesn't say there can be no aether. SR itself
doesn't really say anything much about how light is propagated (as waves in
an aether , or little ballistic particles, or something else) .. only that
it is measured as having a speed of c in all inertial frames. SR does, of
course, work well with theories that DO deal with how light is propagated.
SR itself is light propagation agnostic.




From: Dono. on 11 Mar 2010 00:50
On Mar 10, 9:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:20fdca26-407d-48e8-afec-352178f8e4a6(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 9:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:30414028-b80c-4c4e-b56e-165b51f709cf(a)m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Mar 10, 8:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:794e1ebf-1273-45c5-babf-744f05938489(a)l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Mar 10, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "Dono." <sa...(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.
>
> >> >> > No, lying cretin
>
> >> >> Wrong on all three counts.
>
> >> >> > You were asked to show how you get the anisotropic speed in the lab,
> >> >> > c=c0(1+v*cos(theta)) to become isotropic.
>
> >> >> I showed the speed of c in the aether frame is measured as c in the
> >> >> lab
> >> >> frame.
>
> >> > Imbecile,
>
> >> > You start by assuming that light speed is anisotropic in the lab
>
> >> > c=c0(1+v*cos(theta))
>
> >> > From this point on, you need to show how your "ruler compression",RoS
> >> > and time dilation make the light speed isotropic.
> >> > You didn't solve the exercise you were asked to do, you simply showed
> >> > that c composed with v is ...c!
>
> >> And that is why the speed in the lab is measured as c. Do you not
> >> understand velocity composition?
>
> > Autistic imbecile,
>
> > You can't use speed composition
>
> Of course you can. Lorentz transform apply to measured speeds.

Autistic imbecile,

You were GIVEN that light speed is anisotropic, i.e.

c=c0+v*cos(theta)

So, you can't make theta=0 and do your cheating. You need to solve the
problem honestly.
So, stop the cheap cheats and solve the problem.




> I start
> with a measured speed of c in the aether frame (you do realize that in LET
> light travels isotropically at c in the aether frame), and use velocity
> composition to give the measured speed in the lab frame.
>

No, imbecile

You have to start with the fact that light speed is anisotropic in ALL
frames except the "aether" frame.
Stop the cheap cheats and solve the problem the honest way.



From: Peter Webb on 11 Mar 2010 01:00

"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message
news:4b988035$0$27791$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>
> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4b987dea$0$5860$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:ca6a0dbf-23e8-42ff-b741-ae709e93dc66(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> 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?
>>
>>
>> _____________________
>> Do you think that zoology has a problem because it knows nothing about
>> Unicorns?
>>
>>
>> The difference between LET and SR is that the ether exists in LET, but
>> its speed cannot be determined. SR doesn't even have an ether; they are
>> different situations. LET assumes that "Unicorns" exist but says some
>> properties cannot be determined; SR says they don't exist at all.
>
> SR says nothing about aether .. whether it exists or not. It certainly
> doesn't require aether. It doesn't say there can be no aether.

Much like zoology's position on Unicorns.

And in sharp contrast to LET, which posits that it exists.

The fact the LET cannot determine the velocity of the ether is a real
problem for LET. Like saying Unicorns exist, but knowing how big they are.
SR has no such problem; as the ether doesn't even exist in SR (like Unicorns
in zoology), its not a problem that SR can't describe some of its
properties.



> SR itself doesn't really say anything much about how light is propagated
> (as waves in an aether , or little ballistic particles, or something else)
> .. only that it is measured as having a speed of c in all inertial frames.
> SR does, of course, work well with theories that DO deal with how light is
> propagated. SR itself is light propagation agnostic.
>
>

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256
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