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: kenseto on 13 Feb 2010 17:57

On Feb 13, 12:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 16:24, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 8:29 am, 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.
>
> > The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
> > Light path length of the observer's physical ruler (299,792,458 m
> > long) is assumes to be its physical length/the absolute time content
> > for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
>
> But even if this were the case, it fails to account for *why* anything
> would physically contract.

I am afraid that PD tried to confuse you. Most knowledgeable
physicists such as Tom Roberts accurately described length contraction
in SR is a geometric effect not a physical effect or material effect
as insisted by PD. PD's arguement is that physical contraction is not
material contraction and that physical contraction means geometric
projection contraction. He prefers to use the term physical
contraction instead to give the concept of geometric contraction more
credence.

>
> > > It's also clear that velocities cannot be additive (in the form of
> > > speed of bullet+speed of gun),
>
> > Yes the speed of light is not additive....the reason is that light is
> > being transmitted by a medium occupying all of space.
>
> I dare say this medium *is* space.

Yes you can call this medium as space or the aether.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >and nor can they be subtractive
> > > relative to a background medium (in the form of speed of propagation
> > > in medium-speed of source).
>
> > Yes the speed of light is not substractive becasue light is being
> > transmitted by a medium occupying all of space. What this mean is that
> > the speed of light in a medium is independent of the motion of the
> > source. However the arrival speed of light to an observer from a
> > moving source is dependent on the rate of arrival of frequency of
> > light waves from a moving source such as sodium is as follows:
> > 1. The universal wavelength of sodium=589 nm.
> > 2. The arriving speed of light from a moving sodium dource is:
> > c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(universal wavelength
> > of sodium 589nm)
>
> > I hope the above will resolve your problems.
>
> Not really. I'm still struggling to understand what is happening
> physically to explain these phenomena (which is not helped by the
> dearth of interest in physics in physical, rather than mathematical,
> explanations

Here's whatreally happened:
1. In SR length contraction is a geometric projection effect.....not a
physical or material effect.
2. geometric projection effect is purely mathematical.
3. I have developed a new theory of relativity called Improve
Relativty Theory (IRT). IRT says that physical or material length
remains the same in all frames of reference.
4. An IRT observer assumes that the light path length of his meter
stick is the same as its physical length.
5. The IRT observer predicts that the light path length of a meter
stick moving wrt him can be shorter by a factor of (1/gamma) or
longer by a factor of (gamma). The reason for the two predictions is
that the light path length of a moving meter stick is dependent on the
state of absolute motion of the meter stick compared to the IRT
observer's state of absolute motion.
6. If the observed meter stick is in a higher state of absolute motion
then its light path length is predicted to be shortened by a factor of
1/gamma meter.
7. If the observed meter stick is in a lower state of absolute motion
than the IRT observer then its light path length is predicted to be
lengthened by a factor of (gamma).
8. A description of IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Also in this link a new theory of gravity is included.

Ken Seto

From: kenseto on 13 Feb 2010 18:06

On Feb 13, 1:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/10 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> > The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
> > Light path length of the observer's physical ruler (299,792,458 m
> > long) is assumes to be its physical length/the absolute time content
> > for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
>
> I can come up with an infinite number of ratios to come up with
> the nine digits from the human definition of the speed of light!
>
> The real point is that the speed of light is a PHYSICAL CONSTANT
> observed in nature. How it is defined and what numbers we humans
> assign to the speed of light is arbitrary!
>
> Units of distance are DERIVED from the speed of light, not the
> other way around.

ROTFLOL....hey wormy do you realize what you are saying???? The speed
of light is born from a material meter stick. Hey wormy do you deny
that your mother is not your mother?

From: eric gisse on 13 Feb 2010 18:40

kenseto(a)erinet.com wrote:

[...]

> 3. I have developed a new theory of relativity called Improve
> Relativty Theory (IRT). IRT says that physical or material length
> remains the same in all frames of reference.

How is it improved when you can't derive the equations yourself?

[...]

From: Sam Wormley on 13 Feb 2010 20:48

On 2/13/10 5:06 PM, kenseto(a)erinet.com wrote:
> On Feb 13, 1:31 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/13/10 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
>>> Light path length of the observer's physical ruler (299,792,458 m
>>> long) is assumes to be its physical length/the absolute time content
>>> for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
>>
>> I can come up with an infinite number of ratios to come up with
>> the nine digits from the human definition of the speed of light!
>>
>> The real point is that the speed of light is a PHYSICAL CONSTANT
>> observed in nature. How it is defined and what numbers we humans
>> assign to the speed of light is arbitrary!
>>
>> Units of distance are DERIVED from the speed of light, not the
>> other way around.
>
> ROTFLOL....hey wormy do you realize what you are saying???? The speed
> of light is born from a material meter stick. Hey wormy do you deny
> that your mother is not your mother?

Seto--The speed of light exist independent of human. Meter sticks
are not require for it relativistic effects to show up. The speed
of light has been observed as an unchanging constant for so long
that human adopted it as part of the definition of the meter, a
unit of distance!

I'm glad you get a good laugh out of that, Seto!

From: BURT on 13 Feb 2010 23:09

On Feb 13, 5:48 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/10 5:06 PM, kens...(a)erinet.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 1:31 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/13/10 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
> >>> Light path length of the observer's physical ruler (299,792,458 m
> >>> long) is assumes to be its physical length/the absolute time content
> >>> for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
>
> >> I can come up with an infinite number of ratios to come up with
> >> the nine digits from the human definition of the speed of light!
>
> >> The real point is that the speed of light is a PHYSICAL CONSTANT
> >> observed in nature. How it is defined and what numbers we humans
> >> assign to the speed of light is arbitrary!
>
> >> Units of distance are DERIVED from the speed of light, not the
> >> other way around.
>
> > ROTFLOL....hey wormy do you realize what you are saying???? The speed
> > of light is born from a material meter stick. Hey wormy do you deny
> > that your mother is not your mother?
>
> Seto--The speed of light exist independent of human. Meter sticks
> are not require for it relativistic effects to show up. The speed
> of light has been observed as an unchanging constant for so long
> that human adopted it as part of the definition of the meter, a
> unit of distance!
>
> I'm glad you get a good laugh out of that, Seto!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

When frames are traveling behid light. Light diverges in distance. You
can have a speed behind light. When it goes ahead it is then a
relative that is less.

Mitch Raemsch