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 16 Feb 2010 19:39

On Feb 16, 10:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 'You' do not understand what is occurring physically in a double slit
> > experiment so you invent a new type of object. A particle which in and
> > of itself 'waves'.
>
> It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe.
>

What I choose to believe is matter and the aether are different states
of the same material. What I choose to believe is a moving C-60
molecule and its associated aether displacement wave are a 'one
something'. With this understanding of nature I do not need to invent
a new type of object or choose to believe the future determines the
past. My choices allow for a better understanding of nature than
yours.

> > In order to maintain the delusion such an object exists you are
> > required to believe in the absurd nonsense of the future determining
> > the past.
>
> > Once 'you' realize a moving particle has an associated aether wave
> > there is no need for this non-existent made up object of matter which
> > in and of itself waves and there is no reason to have to choose to
> > believe in the absurd nonsense the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > He's
> > > > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly
> > > > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little
> > > > > capability to deal with the real world around him. The kind of
> > > > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond
> > > > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world--
> > > > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad,
> > > > > really. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for
> > > > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life?
>
> > > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and
> > > > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up
> > > > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have. I really
> > > > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think
> > > > > they're mentally healthy enough. And I gather that after years of
> > > > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing.
>
> > > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them?
> > > > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious.
>
>

From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 19:40

> > > ____________________
> > > 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.
>
> Yes, there is a train in your question even though you do not realize
> it. You can move the clocks anyway you like to the ends of the table,
> but as you move the clocks they are going to 'tick' based upon the
> aether pressure in which they exist. Your tabletop could be in a
> spaceship whipping through the aether and in that case the clock moved
> the the front of the table will be move against the 'flow' of the
> aether and 'tick' slower as it is being moved and the clock being
> pushed to the back of the table will be moved with the 'flow' of the
> aether and 'tick' faster as it is being moved.
>
> > 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 the 1 metre ruler - take a
> > year
> > if you like. A photon is sent from one 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.
>
> Yes, because when you bring them back they will be moving the opposite
> with respect to the aether as they did when you pushed them out. When
> you move the clock from the front of the table back towards the middle
> it will 'tick' faster as it is being moved because it is being moved
> with the 'flow' of the aether and when the clock from the back of the
> table is moved to the middle it will 'tick' slower because it is being
> moved against the 'flow' of the aether and when both clocks are back
> together again they are once again 'synchronized'.
>
>
>
> > 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

When lightening strikes the train moves. The train moves through space
at that time.

_________________________________
One more time. My question does not involve trains or lightening at all. Why
won't you answer it?

Mitch Raemsch

From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 19:37

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:538f8caf-7a7b-4a35-b7e6-35ca5635b97f(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 16, 2:16 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(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.

Yes, there is a train in your question even though you do not realize
it. You can move the clocks anyway you like to the ends of the table,
but as you move the clocks they are going to 'tick' based upon the
aether pressure in which they exist. Your tabletop could be in a
spaceship whipping through the aether and in that case the clock moved
the the front of the table will be move against the 'flow' of the
aether and 'tick' slower as it is being moved and the clock being
pushed to the back of the table will be moved with the 'flow' of the
aether and 'tick' faster as it is being moved.

__________________________________
My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the spaceship.

Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time:

1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1 metre
ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of the one
metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks) for light to
travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in this manner
be c or some other value?

From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 19:43

On Feb 16, 7:37 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:538f8caf-7a7b-4a35-b7e6-35ca5635b97f(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 16, 2:16 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(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.
>
> Yes, there is a train in your question even though you do not realize
> it. You can move the clocks anyway you like to the ends of the table,
> but as you move the clocks they are going to 'tick' based upon the
> aether pressure in which they exist. Your tabletop could be in a
> spaceship whipping through the aether and in that case the clock moved
> the the front of the table will be move against the 'flow' of the
> aether and 'tick' slower as it is being moved and the clock being
> pushed to the back of the table will be moved with the 'flow' of the
> aether and 'tick' faster as it is being moved.
>
> __________________________________
> My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the spaceship..
>
> Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time:
>
> 1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1 metre
> ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of the one
> metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks) for light to
> travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in this manner
> be c or some other value?

Is the aether at rest with respect to the table top?

From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 19:41

>
> For the record, I refuse to engage mpc755 in conversation because I
> realize that attempting to do so would be a pointless exercise in
> futility.

So, you believe a moving C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple
slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits
or not in the future? At least the other poster is not alone in their
state of delusional denial.