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: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 02:25

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c4c4cf2-3e1d-49fd-bdf0-25a72564d157(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
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.
_________________________
Say earth is moving at speed v relative to the ether. The 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. Why won't you answer?

From: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 02:30

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e724cb5-1db0-47c2-aa3d-5ed7150295ea(a)f15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
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'?

__________________________________
Nobody is asking you to. I am asking you a very simple question about your
theory. Say the earth is moving at speed v relative to the ether. The speed
of light in the direction the earth is travelling is measured in a
laboratory on earth. What is its measured speed?

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.

_________________________________
There are in fact 4 possibilities:

a) c
b) c+v
c) c-v
d) something else.

You could just answer 'a', 'b', 'c' or 'd'. That is only typing a single
character; that's not too much work for you, is it?

From: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 05:08

On Feb 17, 2:14 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 18:04, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 12:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Feb, 16:07, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 10:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four
> > > > > > dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to
> > > > > > entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that
> > > > > > is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third
> > > > > > dimension? This turns out to be very answerable.
>
> > > > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these
> > > > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be
> > > > > credible.
>
> > > > Well, how could they seem credible to people who don't hold them
> > > > credible?
>
> > > I fear the answer follows naturally from the question: they don't seem
> > > credible, to people who don't hold them to be credible.
>
> > That is true by definition
>
> I know, which makes one wonder why you asked the question in the first
> place.

I was trying to find out why you even made the statement in the first
place. You might as well have said "the only people who are tall are
the ones who aren't short."

From: Ste on 18 Feb 2010 09:03

On 17 Feb, 21:47, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:38 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Document that, please. The definition I gave of both those terms is
> > > the one that is generally accepted in the physics profession. Do you
> > > have evidence otherwise?
>
> > Yes, you provided the evidence yourself with "string theory",
>
> I believe I conveyed to you that, speaking to each other, physicists
> usually do not call "string theory" a theory, for precisely the reason
> that it fails to meet the criteria of a theory. However, physicists do
> use the term "string theory" in colloquial language for the sake of
> readers of popularizations and general public periodicals and TV
> shows. This is an attempt to make the subject accessible to that
> audience, though at the expense of accuracy, exactly as I alluded to
> earlier.

I simply disagree. Physicists *do* call "string theory" a theory.

> > and
> > indeed you don't commit yourself any stronger than talking of the
> > "generally accepted definition". And yet, as I say, this convention is
> > regularly flouted, and it just becomes ludicrous to justify it in
> > terms of "well they are a minority", "that was a popularisation", etc.
>
> On the contrary, I just got through explaining to you that scientists
> DO use conventional language in popularizations, with full risk that
> it may introduce verbal ambiguity and lead to misconceptions, because
> the aim of popularization is not to teach but to inspire readers to
> read more carefully prepared materials suitable for teaching.

Rubbish. Words mean what people understand them to mean - the idea
that physicists "speak a different language at work", or go into some
sort of mode of "serious discussion" where they use only the special
meanings, is just ludicrous. The word "theory" has no consistent
special definition amongst the scientific community, and I'm simply
not willing to accept your contentions otherwise. At best, I'm willing
to accept that *you* attribute a specialised meaning to the word, but
that reinforces my view that too many people here spend too long
arguing about words, which are in fact being used correctly within
their accepted definitions and context, instead of getting on with a
substantive argument.

> > As for "material", as I say, if you're discussing anything
> > philosophical then it alludes to "materialism",
>
> Philosophy is not physics.

It is when we're talking about the nature of the real world, which is
exactly the context in which these words cropped up.

> > Broadly I agree that words should be used within their correct
> > definitions, and this is one situation where a correction would be in
> > order.
>
> > But there is no argument that words, like "theory", should be given an
> > unwarranted narrower definition than their legitimate everyday
> > meaning, simply because one is talking to a specialist - unless, of
> > course, it is expressly stipulated that the narrower definition will
> > be used for the time being for the sake of necessary accuracy.
>
> I disagree. In a teaching environment, that is EXACTLY the stipulation
> that is made, over and over again as the terms come up in the course
> of study. "Momentum", "velocity", "energy", "heat", "field",
> "potential", "mass" are all examples of terms that are very carefully
> segregated from conventional usage in the context of physics.

But the point is that, within physics, words like velocity *are* used
very consistently in their specialised meaning, and they have a very
rigorous definition. "Theory" is completely the opposite - it is
consistently used as loosely as the everyday meaning even amongst
professionals, and it's alleged specialised meaning is very ill-
defined.

From: JT on 18 Feb 2010 09:32

On 18 Feb, 11:08, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:14 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 Feb, 18:04, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 12:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 17 Feb, 16:07, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 17, 10:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four
> > > > > > > dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to
> > > > > > > entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that
> > > > > > > is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third
> > > > > > > dimension? This turns out to be very answerable.
>
> > > > > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these
> > > > > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be
> > > > > > credible.
>
> > > > > Well, how could they seem credible to people who don't hold them
> > > > > credible?
>
> > > > I fear the answer follows naturally from the question: they don't seem
> > > > credible, to people who don't hold them to be credible.
>
> > > That is true by definition
>
> > I know, which makes one wonder why you asked the question in the first
> > place.
>
> I was trying to find out why you even made the statement in the first
> place. You might as well have said "the only people who are tall are
> the ones who aren't short."- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -

At least he do not use tall meters and short meters like you. Length
units can not be shorter and longer.

Just as their can be no mutual timedilation time units can not be
shorter and longer because of their state of motion, the units remain
the same although there can be effects on the measuring equipment.

JT

JT