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: Inertial on 17 Feb 2010 22:15

"BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:30e06f32-7ff7-453c-b7b0-faf7c47909fa(a)t31g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 6:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e6140f9f-414d-45b2-8ce2-09e22a201f9b(a)y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 1:22 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 17, 4:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >news:7c117076-4a6e-4d51-ab62-c3014a7e2559(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > > On Feb 16, 6:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> > >>news:da09c070-e346-42f6-a55f-cabf519d20dc(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > >> > On Feb 16, 5:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> > >> >>news:995b34f4-be02-48bb-b9db-463e3437283a(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > >> >> > On Feb 16, 12:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> >> >> On Feb 16, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> >> >> > Picking and choosing your definitions, Ken?
>> >> > >> >> >> > Look at the definitions I highlighted for you.
>> >> > >> >> >> > Look at your freshman physics textbook. Does it tell you
>> >> > >> >> >> > that the
>> >> > >> >> >> > electric field is not physical?
>>
>> >> > >> >> >> In the past you insisted that length contraction in SR is
>> >> > >> >> >> physical
>> >> > >> >> >> and
>> >> > >> >> >> at that time you think that physical means material.
>>
>> >> > >> >> > No, sir, I *never* said length contraction was material. I
>> >> > >> >> > said
>> >> > >> >> > it
>> >> > >> >> > was
>> >> > >> >> > PHYSICAL.
>>
>> >> > >> >> >> You even
>> >> > >> >> >> suggested that length contraction can be measured directly
>> >> > >> >> >> by
>> >> > >> >> >> shooting
>> >> > >> >> >> lasers from the ends of a moving ruler to the rest frame of
>> >> > >> >> >> the
>> >> > >> >> >> observer.
>>
>> >> > >> >> > Yes, it is MEASURABLE. Physical things are measurable.
>> >> > >> >> > Energy is MEASURABLE, it is not material.
>> >> > >> >> > Magnetic fields are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
>> >> > >> >> > Radio waves are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
>>
>> >> > >> >> >> So you see you think that length contraction in SR is
>> >> > >> >> >> material.
>>
>> >> > >> >> > No, it is MEASURABLE. It is not material.
>>
>> >> > >> >> >> Also your SR brother Inertial said in this thread that
>> >> > >> >> >> contraction
>> >> > >> >> >> in
>> >> > >> >> >> SR means that the atoms get closer....this means material
>> >> > >> >> >> contraction.
>>
>> >> > >> >> > Ken, rather than desperately trying to gather excuses to
>> >> > >> >> > support
>> >> > >> >> > your
>> >> > >> >> > mistaken impression, why don't you just take another look at
>> >> > >> >> > the
>> >> > >> >> > correct definitions for physical that I've already shown
>> >> > >> >> > you?
>> >> > >> >> > Why
>> >> > >> >> > don't you reread your freshman physics text again, and check
>> >> > >> >> > whether
>> >> > >> >> > it says the electric field is not physical? If you've made a
>> >> > >> >> > small
>> >> > >> >> > mistake, then CORRECT IT and move on. If you cannot ever
>> >> > >> >> > correct a
>> >> > >> >> > small mistake, you'll never get out of square one. You'll
>> >> > >> >> > spend
>> >> > >> >> > all
>> >> > >> >> > your time searching newsgroups for support for your mistake.
>>
>> >> > >> >> Note that the atoms in a length-contracted rod are physically
>> >> > >> >> closer
>> >> > >> >> together, as measured in the relatively moving inertial frame.
>> >> > >> >> In
>> >> > >> >> that
>> >> > >> >> frame the material that makes up the rod is fitting within a
>> >> > >> >> shorter
>> >> > >> >> distance (ie compressed).
>>
>> >> > >> > Well, I know what you're saying, but I'd be very careful about
>> >> > >> > terminology here to avoid confusion. Seto thinks of compression
>> >> > >> > as
>> >> > >> > being solely the effect of a material interaction, such as a
>> >> > >> > compressive *force* or perhaps a low temperature bath. That's
>> >> > >> > not
>> >> > >> > what's going on here. So yes, the pole is shorter and since no
>> >> > >> > atoms
>> >> > >> > have been lost, then the atoms have a different length, but
>> >> > >> > this
>> >> > >> > does
>> >> > >> > not imply anything squeezing on them (even if Seto can't
>> >> > >> > imagine
>> >> > >> > it
>> >> > >> > happening any other way).
>>
>> >> > >> I didn't say they were squeezed .. I said they were closer
>> >> > >> together.
>>
>> >> > > You didn't say that they were squeezed and I didn't interpret that
>> >> > > they were squeezed. But when you said that the atoms are closer
>> >> > > together I interpreted that the pole is materially really gotten
>> >> > > shorter...iow it is not just a geometic projection effect.
>>
>> >> > It is a geometric projection / rotation. And that projection has
>> >> > physical
>> >> > effects. Just like the geometric projection / rotation of a tilted
>> >> > ladder
>> >> > has the physical effect that it is not as tall and can fit thru a
>> >> > doorway.
>>
>> >> So are you saying that when you tilt the ladder the atoms in the
>> >> ladder get a little closer? I don't think so.
>>
>> >> Ken Seto
>>
>> >> > I don't see why you find this so confusing.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Atoms don't shrink to be flat.
>>
>> Not in their rest frame .. no. So never intrinsically flat.
>>
>> And never completely flat.
>>
>> But their 'geometric projection' in some other relatively moving frame
>> means
>> that they would measure as somewhat flattened (depending how fast the
>> moving
>> frame is moving)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> If they can flatten the physics doesnt' work for the atom.

Atoms don't care whether you can do the physics

> Can anybody argue that atoms are lopsided?

Lopsided?


From: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 00:40

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7b417f4-cdc4-414a-a24c-3f2e7fc4c67d(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(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?

Replace 'earth' with 'train' and read my responses if you want to know
the answer.

____________________________
So you refuse to answer (again). Shows how much confidence you have in your
own theories.

From: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 00:44

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46849840-7da4-4627-aaa7-89b021fca2ba(a)g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 17, 12:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:02 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:f45910fe-89b2-4a09-9dcb-fcaf4686df7a(a)w12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> > > 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?
>
> > > _________________________________
> > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> > Then the tabletop is the train.
>
> Tabletops are trains. Excellent. Have another pill.

The poster is referring to a tabletop moving at 'v' with respect to
the aether. My explanation refers to a train moving at 'v' with
respect to the aether.

With respect to the aether, the type of object moving at 'v' with
respect to the aether which the clocks are moved on/in is irrelevant.

_______________________________
Terrific. Earth is moving at speed v relative to the ether. Speed of light
is measured on earth in the direction we are moving relative to the ether.
Is it c, c+v, c-v or something else. Simple question. What is the answer?


From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 00:57
On Feb 18, 12:40 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c7b417f4-cdc4-414a-a24c-3f2e7fc4c67d(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(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?
>
> Replace 'earth' with 'train' and read my responses if you want to know
> the answer.
>
> ____________________________
> So you refuse to answer (again). Shows how much confidence you have in your
> own theories.

I have a great deal of confidence in my theory but why am I going to
waste my time having to go back through my posts and replace 'train'
with 'tabletop', or replace 'train' with 'Earth'?

If you think the clocks being moved on a moving tabletop or the clocks
being moved on the flat bed cars of a moving train makes a difference
then this 'conversation' is pointless.
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 01:04
On Feb 18, 12:44 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46849840-7da4-4627-aaa7-89b021fca2ba(a)g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 12:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 8:02 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:f45910fe-89b2-4a09-9dcb-fcaf4686df7a(a)w12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> > > > 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?
>
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> > > Then the tabletop is the train.
>
> > Tabletops are trains. Excellent. Have another pill.
>
> The poster is referring to a tabletop moving at 'v' with respect to
> the aether. My explanation refers to a train moving at 'v' with
> respect to the aether.
>
> With respect to the aether, the type of object moving at 'v' with
> respect to the aether which the clocks are moved on/in is irrelevant.
>
> _______________________________
> Terrific. Earth is moving at speed v relative to the ether. Speed of light
> is measured on earth in the direction we are moving relative to the ether..
> Is it c, c+v, c-v or something else. Simple question. What is the answer?

If you want to understand how Observers moving with respect to the
aether determine the speed of light then you have to understand the
simultaneity of lightning strikes as determined by Observers on the
train and Observers on the embankment and objects and clocks moving
with respect to the aether. In order to understand the simultaneity of
lightning strikes as determined by Observers in different frames of
reference, which is the basis for understanding what the Observers
determine the speed of light to be, then you need to read my responses
having to do with the train and the embankment.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
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