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 16 Feb 2010 02:13
On Feb 16, 2:06 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:887b7b2c-5c7e-420f-87f1-6705884d5936(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 16, 12:57 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:70e0e369-7438-4571-b8c6-43b05ca13546(a)h12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 15, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:cc37a395-3b16-4471-9964-d9db63246254(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > As I have said at least three times now,
> > > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether.
> > > > ____________________________________
>
> > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So
> > > > why
> > > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c,
> > > > and
> > > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that
> > > > procedure determine the speed of the ether?
>
> > > How do you measure the speed of light and how do you determine it is
> > > different from 'c'? Are you using a mirror or synchronized clocks?
>
> > > _______________________________
> > > Use whatever measuring apparatus you like.
>
> > > What you are incapable of understanding is everything is under the
> > > effects of the aether. As I said in one of my original posts which it
> > > would help you understand the point I am making. The atomic clocks the
> > > Observers on the train are using are offset because of their state
> > > with respect to the aether.
>
> > > So, I will ask you again. How is the light to be measured?
>
> > > ________________________________
> > > You must already have some means of measuring light speed, or you
> > > couldn't
> > > claim the speed was constant relative to the ether. Use that.
>
> > It is all explained in the posts you refuse to read.
>
> > ________________________
> > Read them all. Didn't see it, sorry. Perhaps you could repost your answer.
> > Tx
>
> Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether.
>
> Think of the train and the embankment in Einstein's train gedanken to
> be filled with water. Consider the water to be at rest with respect to
> the embankment. Consider the clocks on the train to consist of paddles
> for the second hand.
>
> <snip about 200 lines identical to what you posted originally>
> _______________________________
> I didn't ask you about trains, embankments, Einstein or paddles. I described
> a simple experiment to measure the speed of the ether. One more time. You
> say light propagates at c with respect to the ether. So measure the speed of
> light in a vacuum; lets say it is c'. Light moves at c with respect to the
> ether; you measured it c', therefore you must be moving at speed at c-c'
> relative to the ether. Doesn't this tell you exactly your speed relative to
> the ether? If not, why not? What would happen (according to you) if you
> tried it?
>
> Well?

You have to read the posts you refuse to read in order to understand
the answer.
From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 02:16

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:17353969-96de-46d5-b54c-74e655e2d34f(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 16, 12:59 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48499780-10ed-4377-b4cf-0bde5b5d298f(a)28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 1:06 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:21c1d72e-9898-436a-ba4e-05a849fc4efc(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > As I have said at least three times now,
> > > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether.
> > > > ____________________________________
>
> > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether.
> > > > So
> > > > why
> > > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from
> > > > c,
> > > > and
> > > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that
> > > > procedure determine the speed of the ether?
>
> > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of
> > > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't
> > > measure your speed relative to the aether.
>
> > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a
> > > fifth time?
>
> > > ______________________________________
> > > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the
> > > ether.
> > > You
> > > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the
> > > difference is your speed relative to the ether.
>
> > How do you measure the speed of light so it is not 'c'?
>
> > _________________________________
> > Anyway you like. Aren't you claiming that the speed of light is a
> > constant
> > relative to the speed of the ether, and not constant relative to the
> > observer? So you can measure the speed of light in some way, to make
> > this
> > claim at all, right? So why not measure it, see how much it departs from
> > c,
> > and then the difference is the speed of the ether.
>
> > Why won't that work?
>
> I am asking you to state how it is you want to measure the speed of
> light? Are you using mirrors?
>
> ____________________
> No. I am using a metre ruler and two clocks, one at each end. I
> synchronise
> the clocks, separate them by a metre, and note the difference between
> arrival and departure time. The difference between this and c is my speed
> relative to the ether. Why won't this work?

You separate the clocks by a metre on a train moving relative to the
aether. <snip about 200 lines involving trains, embankments and whole lot of
other stuff unrelated to my question>

____________________________________
No. There is no train in my question. There are two clocks and a one metre
ruler. They are on a tabletop. Both clocks are together at the middle. They
are very slowly moved to opposite ends of thje 1 metre ruler - take a year
if you like. A photon is sent from opne to the other, and the difference in
time gives you the speed c' with which the light travelled. Note that two
clocks can be brought back together again and they are still synchronised.
If light moves at speed c relative to the ether, and c' relative to you,
then your speed relative to the ether must be the difference c-c'. This
would appear to give a mechanism to exactly measure your speed relative to
the ether. Does it? If not, why not?

From: funkenstein on 16 Feb 2010 06:28
On Feb 13, 2:29 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been absolutely racking my brain (to the point of getting a
> headache) for the last few days about this issue, and it's clear that
> the speed of light (where light is either considered in the form of a
> ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot, physically, be constant in
> all relative frames, and at the same time be constant when travelling
> between two objects in two different frames. It's a physical and
> logical impossibility.
>
> It's also clear that velocities cannot be additive (in the form of
> speed of bullet+speed of gun), and nor can they be subtractive
> relative to a background medium (in the form of speed of propagation
> in medium-speed of source).
>
> Take an illustration:
>
> A                         C
> B
>
> Where A and B are atoms that pass infinitely close to each other. In
> the illustration, A and B are separated from C by a distance L. A and
> C are stationary relative to each other. B is moving, and approaching
> C at a speed S. A pulse is emitted from both A and B simultaneously
> towards C, at the point when A and B are equidistant from C.
>
> Now, clearly, if velocities were additive, then light from B would
> reach C much quicker than light from A. We don't see that, so we can
> dismiss that immediately.
>
> Next, if velocities were subtractive, like sound, well that seems like
> a compelling explanation for what we see, which is that light from
> both A and B travel towards C at the same speed. But the presence of
> an absolute medium seems to fall down when one considers that, to be
> consistent with observation, the speed of propagation orthogonal to
> the direction of travel must be the same as the speed in the direction
> of travel.
>
> A speed (i.e. a mesure of distance traversed within a period of time)
> cannot possibly be measured constant in all directions within a frame,
> *and* constant between frames, where the frames themselves are moving
> at a speed relative to each other. So how the hell does one reconcile
> this physically?

Hi Ste,

Maybe this will help to reconcile physically.
What do we mean by distance?

A meter stick is a collection of atoms held together by the
electromagnetic forces.
What we think of as "distance" is our observation of electromagnetic
effects.

A moving observer has no choice but to use electromagnetism, i.e. a
constant speed of light, to define his metric.

The speed of light as an invariant constant in any reference frame
is just a result of our choice of metric.

Hope this helps- cheers

From: JT on 16 Feb 2010 06:41
On 16 Feb, 12:28, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:29 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've been absolutely racking my brain (to the point of getting a
> > headache) for the last few days about this issue, and it's clear that
> > the speed of light (where light is either considered in the form of a
> > ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot, physically, be constant in
> > all relative frames, and at the same time be constant when travelling
> > between two objects in two different frames. It's a physical and
> > logical impossibility.
>
> > It's also clear that velocities cannot be additive (in the form of
> > speed of bullet+speed of gun), and nor can they be subtractive
> > relative to a background medium (in the form of speed of propagation
> > in medium-speed of source).
>
> > Take an illustration:
>
> > A                         C
> > B
>
> > Where A and B are atoms that pass infinitely close to each other. In
> > the illustration, A and B are separated from C by a distance L. A and
> > C are stationary relative to each other. B is moving, and approaching
> > C at a speed S. A pulse is emitted from both A and B simultaneously
> > towards C, at the point when A and B are equidistant from C.
>
> > Now, clearly, if velocities were additive, then light from B would
> > reach C much quicker than light from A. We don't see that, so we can
> > dismiss that immediately.
>
> > Next, if velocities were subtractive, like sound, well that seems like
> > a compelling explanation for what we see, which is that light from
> > both A and B travel towards C at the same speed. But the presence of
> > an absolute medium seems to fall down when one considers that, to be
> > consistent with observation, the speed of propagation orthogonal to
> > the direction of travel must be the same as the speed in the direction
> > of travel.
>
> > A speed (i.e. a mesure of distance traversed within a period of time)
> > cannot possibly be measured constant in all directions within a frame,
> > *and* constant between frames, where the frames themselves are moving
> > at a speed relative to each other. So how the hell does one reconcile
> > this physically?
>
> Hi Ste,
>
>   Maybe this will help to reconcile physically.
>   What do we mean by distance?
>
>   A meter stick is a collection of atoms held together by the
> electromagnetic forces.
>   What we think of as "distance" is our observation of electromagnetic
> effects.
>
>   A moving observer has no choice but to use electromagnetism, i.e. a
> constant speed of light, to define his metric.
>
>   The speed of light as an invariant constant in any reference frame
> is just a result of our choice of metric.
>
>   Hope this helps-     cheers- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -

Idiot a distance is the spatial separation between two points, a
length is the spatial extension of an object, a unit is a comparisson
tool, a length *unit* should be a spatial comparisson tool.

A meter as defined by modern physics is a circular definition an ECDT.

JT
From: Androcles on 16 Feb 2010 06:58

"funkenstein" <luke.saul(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a868e1a-bae9-4e8c-b087-621496d9b7d8(a)w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 2:29 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been absolutely racking my brain (to the point of getting a
> headache) for the last few days about this issue, and it's clear that
> the speed of light (where light is either considered in the form of a
> ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot, physically, be constant in
> all relative frames, and at the same time be constant when travelling
> between two objects in two different frames. It's a physical and
> logical impossibility.
>
> It's also clear that velocities cannot be additive (in the form of
> speed of bullet+speed of gun), and nor can they be subtractive
> relative to a background medium (in the form of speed of propagation
> in medium-speed of source).
>
> Take an illustration:
>
> A C
> B
>
> Where A and B are atoms that pass infinitely close to each other. In
> the illustration, A and B are separated from C by a distance L. A and
> C are stationary relative to each other. B is moving, and approaching
> C at a speed S. A pulse is emitted from both A and B simultaneously
> towards C, at the point when A and B are equidistant from C.
>
> Now, clearly, if velocities were additive, then light from B would
> reach C much quicker than light from A. We don't see that, so we can
> dismiss that immediately.
>
> Next, if velocities were subtractive, like sound, well that seems like
> a compelling explanation for what we see, which is that light from
> both A and B travel towards C at the same speed. But the presence of
> an absolute medium seems to fall down when one considers that, to be
> consistent with observation, the speed of propagation orthogonal to
> the direction of travel must be the same as the speed in the direction
> of travel.
>
> A speed (i.e. a mesure of distance traversed within a period of time)
> cannot possibly be measured constant in all directions within a frame,
> *and* constant between frames, where the frames themselves are moving
> at a speed relative to each other. So how the hell does one reconcile
> this physically?

Hi Ste,

Maybe this will help to reconcile physically.
What do we mean by distance?

A meter stick is a collection of atoms held together by the
electromagnetic forces.
What we think of as "distance" is our observation of electromagnetic
effects.

A moving observer has no choice but to use electromagnetism, i.e. a
constant speed of light, to define his metric.

The speed of light as an invariant constant in any reference frame
is just a result of our choice of metric.

Hope this helps- cheers
================================================
Not my choice, and your choice is fuckin' stupid.
Hope that helps, but I doubt it will.



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
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