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: mpc755 on 11 Mar 2010 20:54

On Mar 11, 4:57 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2e16df28-8aaa-4a83-b215-9dae14eb075f(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 7:37 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:860a5e85-6231-4eeb-a3a8-f2b25ced173b(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > On 11 Mar, 01:58, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > > wrote:
> > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> > except for the fairly
> > >> > obvious explanation that it is the reference clock which is
> > >> > undergoing
> > >> > a "real" slowdown.
>
> > >> Or, that you have no idea of what SR predicts, and have completely and
> > >> falsely assumed that observers see clocks jump ahead when turnaround
> > >> occurs.
>
> > > I'm merely going off what "experts" here say happens. I didn't say
> > > there is a "leap ahead". Paul Draper (if I remember correctly) said
> > > there is a "leap ahead". Now perhaps I misunderstood, but that is what
> > > was said.
>
> > Perhaps that was what he said.
>
> > But now you know.
>
> > No leap ahead.
>
> http://scope.joemirando.net/faqs/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gap.html
>
> This and the supporting links give some of the context here.
>
> ____________________________________
> Including the same sort of diagram as on the wiki page, which answers Ste's
> question, if he could be bothered to look and read.

In the Twin Paradox the twin less at rest with respect to the aether
has their clock tick slower than the other twin. Since the state of
the aether is determined by its connections with the matter the clock
of the twin on the Earth tick's faster than the clock associated with
the twin who leaves and returns to the Earth.

From: BURT on 11 Mar 2010 20:57

On Mar 11, 5:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 4:57 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2e16df28-8aaa-4a83-b215-9dae14eb075f(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com....
> > On Mar 11, 7:37 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:860a5e85-6231-4eeb-a3a8-f2b25ced173b(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > On 11 Mar, 01:58, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> > except for the fairly
> > > >> > obvious explanation that it is the reference clock which is
> > > >> > undergoing
> > > >> > a "real" slowdown.
>
> > > >> Or, that you have no idea of what SR predicts, and have completely and
> > > >> falsely assumed that observers see clocks jump ahead when turnaround
> > > >> occurs.
>
> > > > I'm merely going off what "experts" here say happens. I didn't say
> > > > there is a "leap ahead". Paul Draper (if I remember correctly) said
> > > > there is a "leap ahead". Now perhaps I misunderstood, but that is what
> > > > was said.
>
> > > Perhaps that was what he said.
>
> > > But now you know.
>
> > > No leap ahead.
>
> >http://scope.joemirando.net/faqs/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gap.html
>
> > This and the supporting links give some of the context here.
>
> > ____________________________________
> > Including the same sort of diagram as on the wiki page, which answers Ste's
> > question, if he could be bothered to look and read.
>
> In the Twin Paradox the twin less at rest with respect to the aether
> has their clock tick slower than the other twin. Since the state of
> the aether is determined by its connections with the matter the clock
> of the twin on the Earth tick's faster than the clock associated with
> the twin who leaves and returns to the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If clocks tick slower then there must be a fastest time rate
corresponding to light rate time.

Mitch Raemsch

From: mpc755 on 11 Mar 2010 20:58

On Mar 11, 8:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 5:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 4:57 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:2e16df28-8aaa-4a83-b215-9dae14eb075f(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Mar 11, 7:37 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:860a5e85-6231-4eeb-a3a8-f2b25ced173b(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > On 11 Mar, 01:58, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com..au>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >> > except for the fairly
> > > > >> > obvious explanation that it is the reference clock which is
> > > > >> > undergoing
> > > > >> > a "real" slowdown.
>
> > > > >> Or, that you have no idea of what SR predicts, and have completely and
> > > > >> falsely assumed that observers see clocks jump ahead when turnaround
> > > > >> occurs.
>
> > > > > I'm merely going off what "experts" here say happens. I didn't say
> > > > > there is a "leap ahead". Paul Draper (if I remember correctly) said
> > > > > there is a "leap ahead". Now perhaps I misunderstood, but that is what
> > > > > was said.
>
> > > > Perhaps that was what he said.
>
> > > > But now you know.
>
> > > > No leap ahead.
>
> > >http://scope.joemirando.net/faqs/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gap.html
>
> > > This and the supporting links give some of the context here.
>
> > > ____________________________________
> > > Including the same sort of diagram as on the wiki page, which answers Ste's
> > > question, if he could be bothered to look and read.
>
> > In the Twin Paradox the twin less at rest with respect to the aether
> > has their clock tick slower than the other twin. Since the state of
> > the aether is determined by its connections with the matter the clock
> > of the twin on the Earth tick's faster than the clock associated with
> > the twin who leaves and returns to the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If clocks tick slower then there must be a fastest time rate
> corresponding to light rate time.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

The fastest rate at which a clock ticks is when it is most at rest
with respect to the aether.

From: BURT on 11 Mar 2010 21:03

On Mar 11, 5:58 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 8:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 5:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 11, 4:57 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:2e16df28-8aaa-4a83-b215-9dae14eb075f(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Mar 11, 7:37 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:860a5e85-6231-4eeb-a3a8-f2b25ced173b(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups..com...
>
> > > > > > On 11 Mar, 01:58, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >> > except for the fairly
> > > > > >> > obvious explanation that it is the reference clock which is
> > > > > >> > undergoing
> > > > > >> > a "real" slowdown.
>
> > > > > >> Or, that you have no idea of what SR predicts, and have completely and
> > > > > >> falsely assumed that observers see clocks jump ahead when turnaround
> > > > > >> occurs.
>
> > > > > > I'm merely going off what "experts" here say happens. I didn't say
> > > > > > there is a "leap ahead". Paul Draper (if I remember correctly) said
> > > > > > there is a "leap ahead". Now perhaps I misunderstood, but that is what
> > > > > > was said.
>
> > > > > Perhaps that was what he said.
>
> > > > > But now you know.
>
> > > > > No leap ahead.
>
> > > >http://scope.joemirando.net/faqs/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gap.html
>
> > > > This and the supporting links give some of the context here.
>
> > > > ____________________________________
> > > > Including the same sort of diagram as on the wiki page, which answers Ste's
> > > > question, if he could be bothered to look and read.
>
> > > In the Twin Paradox the twin less at rest with respect to the aether
> > > has their clock tick slower than the other twin. Since the state of
> > > the aether is determined by its connections with the matter the clock
> > > of the twin on the Earth tick's faster than the clock associated with
> > > the twin who leaves and returns to the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > If clocks tick slower then there must be a fastest time rate
> > corresponding to light rate time.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> The fastest rate at which a clock ticks is when it is most at rest
> with respect to the aether.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is gravity slowing of time to take into acount. There are two
rates in the universe that can slow.

Mitch Raemsch

From: Paul Stowe on 11 Mar 2010 22:32

On Mar 10, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:41 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 8:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1132a230-92d9-484a-b0c1-d3a97532cad9(a)z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > >> >> SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of spacetime
>
> > > >> > That's simply a silly idea...
>
> > > >> That you think it is silly is your problem, not that of SR
>
> > > > Something physical may be represented by a geometric description.
>
> > > And our universe is represented by Minkowski geometry.
>
> > Yes, you can descibe localized behavior with that format. BUT! to do
> > so you must depend on finite light speed and its physical
> > independence. Geometry neither predicts. explains, or has a basis for
> > that.
>
> That's incorrect, Paul. The geometric structure of spacetime imposes
> both a finite speed of light AND makes it frame-independent.
>
> The geometric structure of spacetime *necessarily* divides pairs of
> events into three categories: spacelike-separated, timelike-separated,
> and nullcone-separated. This structure also immediately leads to the
> result that any wordline that could be traversed by something between
> timelike-separated events will, in any other inertial reference frame,
> still be between timelike-separated events. What this means explicitly
> is that this object can never span two spacelike-separated events.
> Thus, the universe of events is strictly divided into two completely
> separated causal domains. The boundary of these domains is the null
> cone. Since the null cone has a definite slope of space vs time, this
> imposes a causal speed limit. (This limit does not exist in Euclidean
> 3D+1D space -- it is a unique feature of the 4D space and its
> geometry.)
>
> Furthermore, while transformations between inertial frames will shift
> the slopes between pairs of timelike events (that is, the speed of an
> object traveling between the two events), the same transformation
> between pairs of events on the null cone do not change slope. What
> this means is that any object that can travel between two events on
> null cone will have the same speed regardless of inertial reference
> frame.
>
> So you see, the geometric structure DOES imply both a causal speed
> limit and the invariance of that causal speed limit with choice of
> inertial reference frame. It just so happens that light appears to be
> one of the candidate objects that can travel between nullcone-
> separated events.
>
> If you need to see how the structure does impose those limits
> formally, I could point you to a reference book or two that derives
> this unambiguously.
>
> At the time that Einstein proposed special relativity, he did not
> understand how such a geometric structure could produce those two
> conclusions as necessary consequences. And so he just posited the
> invariance of the speed of light as a postulate (or equivalently,
> demanded that Maxwell's equations obey the principle of relativity).
> It was only later that the geometric structure was uncovered and it
> was understood how the light postulate follows directly from this
> structure.
>
> PD

I wasn't going to bother with a reply since we have gone round & round
on this very point. I find your argument without merit and I'm
certain that you mind is made up. Why act like kid and continuously
and say no it ain't, yes it is???

In minkowski math c can be any finite value. As Tom Roberts would
argue the are nearly a infinite number of variations which fit this
form. Thus it's dependent upon c being a 'physical' constant. And,
as GR shows, it not even global. Now why might that be??? The logic
(actually lack thereof) and thought process is 'in my opinion' silly
and no one, not in print nor herein has provided any argument that is
convincing that the math and geometry is NOT! a resultant of physical
processes rather some magical geometry...

Paul Stowe