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 22:22

On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > __________________________________
> > > 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?
>
> > _________________________________
> > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> The the tabletop is the train.
>
> __________________________________
> No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't answered my
> question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some other
> value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it?

How is the tabletop able to move at 'v' with respect to the aether?

It's on a train.

From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 23:55

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c8112b0-e86e-4fdb-a9f6-6c390200aa01(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > __________________________________
> > > 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?
>
> > _________________________________
> > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> The the tabletop is the train.
>
> __________________________________
> No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't answered my
> question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some
> other
> value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it?

I have answered it several times. If you want to understand how the
clocks on the tabletop behave read my posts and replaced 'train' with
'tabletop'.

_______________________________________
Or, you could simply answer my question. Its pretty simple. Will the speed
be measured as c, or some different value.

I will make it easy for you:

If the earth is moving at velocity v with respect to the ether, and we
perform the very simple experiment above, then will the measured speed of
light in a vacuum be measured as c in a laboratory on earth?

Well?

From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 23:58

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6d7f0a4-a27c-476d-8098-8b877d62a849(a)b18g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > __________________________________
> > > 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?
>
> > _________________________________
> > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> The the tabletop is the train.
>
> __________________________________
> No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't answered my
> question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some
> other
> value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it?

How is the tabletop able to move at 'v' with respect to the aether?

It's on a train.

________________________________
It is not on a train. It is on a tabletop. And it moves relative to the
ether because I have already stated that it is moving at velocity v with
respect to the ether.

So, is the speed on earth measured at c or some other value?

From: Ste on 17 Feb 2010 08:14

On 16 Feb, 13:53, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> I never said it didn't *represent* physical reality, at least in some
> way. But my ability to understand requires me to translate that
> representation into something physical and concrete.
> ___________________________
> A lot of people have trouble understanding abstract concepts. You shouldn't
> feel shy about this, but you may take it as a sign that possibly physics is
> not for you.

I don't have too much trouble understanding abstract concepts within
their own terms, if I'm inclined to familiarise myself with them. But
if the abstract concept is supposed to describe something physical,
then I wouldn't claim to "understand" unless I could indeed translate
it into something concrete.

Indeed when I say "I don't understand", I may sometimes be using it as
a polite synonym for having actually made a judgment that "this theory
is obviously ludicrous and unworkable as an explanation for the
phenomenon that was to be explained".

From: Peter Webb on 17 Feb 2010 08:25

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b31d2c9-e699-41a8-a366-bc2f407ad017(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 Feb, 13:53, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> I never said it didn't *represent* physical reality, at least in some
>> way. But my ability to understand requires me to translate that
>> representation into something physical and concrete.
>> ___________________________
>> A lot of people have trouble understanding abstract concepts. You
>> shouldn't
>> feel shy about this, but you may take it as a sign that possibly physics
>> is
>> not for you.
>
> I don't have too much trouble understanding abstract concepts within
> their own terms, if I'm inclined to familiarise myself with them. But
> if the abstract concept is supposed to describe something physical,
> then I wouldn't claim to "understand" unless I could indeed translate
> it into something concrete.
>
> Indeed when I say "I don't understand", I may sometimes be using it as
> a polite synonym for having actually made a judgment that "this theory
> is obviously ludicrous and unworkable as an explanation for the
> phenomenon that was to be explained".

Well, its obviously not ludicrous, because it works. The experimental
evidence is overwhelming. That is seems ludicrous to you is because you
don't understand some key concepts; one is the mathematics, and the other
relates to the philosophy of science.

I might add that I have never heard of anybody who understood the
mathematics but thought SR (or GR for that matter) as being "ludicrous"; if
you were somewhat less lazy or considerably brighter (or perhaps both) you
could learn the maths as well and by the time you have learned Maxwell and
Minkowski you won't think its ludicrous, you will think SR (at least) is
obvious.

But alas, lazy and stupid, that is a recipe for being a crank, not
understanding science.