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: spudnik on 15 Mar 2010 15:50

what, again, is "LET?"

Young proved, a humdred years after Newton espoused
his "theory" of corpuscles, that light is simply waves
(in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity);
among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" --
2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern
on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion. (his source
of light was another pinhole in the far wall,
admitting sunlight, quite coherently !-)

> And I am telling you I understand what causes gravity. I understand
> what physically occurs in double slit, 'delayed choice', and 'quantum
> eraser' experiments. I understand what occurs physically in nature to
> cause atomic clocks to tick at different rates.

thus:
if you really grok gravity,
what is a prediction that you can make
(for either a)
"gravity waves" or b)
"gravitons," but not both at the same math) ??

however, don't consider the need of aether
for a "particle of light," which is nothing,
but a misconsideration of the whole idea of waves
(for, if there were such particles,
you'd be bound to consider anti-photons;
would you not?)

> A moving particle has an associated aether wave. A moving particle of
> matter has an associated aether displacement wave. The observed
> behaviors in a double slit, 'quantum eraser', or 'delayed choice'
> experiment are due to the interference created when the paths the
> aether waves propagate are combined which alters the direction the
> particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the
> associated aether wave and there is no interference.

thus:
nah; he'll learn from his mistake, and
retire for a couple of years to a monastery
with no net access & a book or two.

thus:
see the book by Lerner, _The Big Bang Never -- just kidding.

it seems taht he has a hotkey/macro to insert that phraseology,
but there is a case to be made for some of it, or,
just "herr docktor-professor Albert, the Showman." of course,
it doesn't do much for his own Theory of Nuthin'; eh?

anyway, Eisntein's biggest blunder was
with "homopolar generators," and getting in over his head
with Maxwell's wunnerful theory, which is also problematic;
or, so saith my school (and Schroedinger's cat,
in Meowse Code .-)

thus:
proabably most of the interpretation
of the EPR "paradox" results a la Alain Aspect
et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
in assinging all of the energy of the wave-front
as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) to a particle, whence
the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo-
eletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a)
just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
to absorb a particular frequency of light (wave).
so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
one cycle of the frequency?

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

--The Ides of March Are Coming:
Pro-Impeachment Democrat
Wins Nomination in Texas!
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100303kesha_victory.html

From: Bruce Richmond on 16 Mar 2010 18:57

On Mar 12, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bf49f7ee-126a-4e44-bdfd-cf323e83cdc6(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:722fe1d3-ba1d-4439-bffe-eda2ca668f82(a)p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > 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.
>
> >> Indeed it can. But we observe it to have a particular value in our
> >> universe.
>
> > Would that be the value in meters per second, miles per second, miles
> > per hour.... I could go on.
>
> I'm sure you would carry on with such pedantic nonsense. It is still the
> same value .. just expressed with a different numerical value in different
> units as every value with units is.
>
> So yours is really no argument at all.
>
> [snip rest]
>
> And that's all you had to say?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Paul Stowe had written, "In minkowski math c can be any finite
value." IOW the number can be anything you want, depending on the
units of measurement you use. Your response, "Indeed it can. But we
observe it to have a particular value in our universe." implies that
we use a specific number.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value

7.Mathematics.
a.magnitude; quantity; number represented by a figure, symbol, or the
like: the value of an angle; the value of x; the value of a sum.

That was the reason for my response, to point out that Paul's
statement was correct.

From: spudnik on 17 Mar 2010 16:41

actually, I doubt if Young used photo paper;
his set-up, a pinhole "splitting" at two other pinholes,
was probably only adequate for teh amazing sensitivity
of the human eye; did he just draw hte moire'?

> (in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity);
> among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" --
> 2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern
> on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion. (his source

thus:
Rodriguez's observations are dquite valid,
he being an on-duty custodian at one of the towers;
however, his interp[retations are open to questioning!

> Of course not, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor. That's why we

thus:
I'm an idiot. what's funny is that
I attended the Ninth Nonlinear Science Conference at UCLA,
where the keynoter told the story of how,
Newton stole the inverse second-power law
(the algebraization of Kepler's orbital constraints).

thus:
that is, he corrected an error in the marginal statemnt,
thus also ruling-out all powers of two, as exponential
(from the lemma that you only need to work the prime powers).

> why would Fermat explicitly state n=4, otherwise?
> (he did not prove n=3, explicitly.)

thus:
ha, good question about every God-am frequency (1/period).
Burt also had a really good question, about (say)
How would Sun emit a photon -- what shape does it go?...
he must be using the new "mental operating system!"

thus:
most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results,
a l'Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
in assinging all of the God-am energy of the wave-front
as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence
the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo-
eletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a)
just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
to absorb a particular frequency of light.
so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
one cycle of the frequency?

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, Pendergast and
ICC's 3rd Brutish invasion of Sudan!
http://larouchepub.com

From: David Thomson on 28 Mar 2010 13:01

On Mar 13, 3:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Time is a concept. Would you be interested in understanding what is
> physically occurring in nature for the traveling twins clock to
> physically tick slower?
>
> The traveling twins clock ticks slower because it is under a greater
> amount of aether pressure than the clock which remains on the Earth.
> This additional aether pressure the traveling clock is under causes
> the traveling clock to physically tick slower.

I agree with your view of Aether pressure. It is logical and
quantifiable.

To further expand on your idea, time is a function of matter. Without
matter there is no time. If matter is sped up, Aether pressure
increases (with a maximum pressure at the speed of light), and matter
functions more slowly.

It is the observation of the matter, which gives the appearance of
slow moving time. And one must ask, "speeding matter is moving slower
relative to what?" It is moving slower than matter under less Aether
pressure.

However, it is not the speed of the object that is moving slower.
After all, it is moving closer to the speed of light, which is pretty
fast. But rather, it is the cyclical processes of the subatomic
particles that are moving slower. And since subatomic particles
compose atoms, and atoms compose molecules, and molecules compose
greater structures, matter traveling near the speed of light will
experience a slower passage of time.

However, the space surrounding the matter does not age any faster or
slower. In fact, in order for a speed limit for photons and matter to
exist, space must constantly oscillate at a fixed frequency. Also,
space must be oscillating at a fixed frequency in order for subatomic
particles to have a fixed frequency and exhibit the properties of half
spin.

The fact that subatomic particles have half spin requires than the
oscillation of space (Aether) must exist in more dimensions than the
physical world we experience. And since the missing dimension occurs
with regard to particle spin, the missing dimension must be a
frequency (reciprocal time) dimension, not a length or reciprocal
length dimension.

In the Aether Physics Model, I have provided an abundance of evidence
and quantification that the Universe exists in a five-dimensional
space-resonance, rather than a four-dimensional space-time. Space-
time is what the Universe looks like from the perspective of matter.
Space-resonance is what the Universe looks like from the perspective
of Aether.

Dave
www.secrets-of-the-aether.com

From: David Thomson on 28 Mar 2010 13:12

On Mar 13, 7:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I am divorcing time as a dimension. Time is a concept. The rate at
> which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time.
>
> If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has
> time changed?
>
> No, time has not changed. You replace the batteries. You 'know' time
> has not changed because you understand what has occurred physically in
> nature in order to cause the clock to tick slower. The same is true
> for an atomic clock. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is
> dependent upon the aether pressure in which it exists.

I agree with your view of time being dependent upon Aether pressure.
And I also agree time is more of a concept than a physical reality.
However, frequency is a real dimension and time is its reciprocal.

The rate of an atomic clock is its frequency. The frequency of the
atomic clock will vary as Aether pressure varies, and this should be
provable in an Earth-based lab. All it would take would be a strong
magnetic, electrostatic, or gravitational field properly applied,
which would create the necessary Aether pressure.

There is also a gradient of Aether pressure as one moves away from the
Earth's center of gravity, which has been verified with atomic clocks
when testing for the GR effect. Further, the matter of the Earth is
entrained with the Aether surrounding it. This causes the Aether to
drag along with the Earth, thus causing the Sagnac effect. Moving in
the direction of the Earth rotation causes a lower Aether pressure
than moving in the direction against the Earth's rotation.

Dave
www.secrets-of-the-aether.com