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 14 Feb 2010 00:49

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.
>
> It's also clear that velocities cannot be additive (in the form of
> speed of bullet+speed of gun), and nor can they be subtractive
> relative to a background medium (in the form of speed of propagation
> in medium-speed of source).
>
> Take an illustration:
>
> A C
> B
>
> Where A and B are atoms that pass infinitely close to each other. In
> the illustration, A and B are separated from C by a distance L. A and
> C are stationary relative to each other. B is moving, and approaching
> C at a speed S. A pulse is emitted from both A and B simultaneously
> towards C, at the point when A and B are equidistant from C.
>
> Now, clearly, if velocities were additive, then light from B would
> reach C much quicker than light from A. We don't see that, so we can
> dismiss that immediately.
>
> Next, if velocities were subtractive, like sound, well that seems like
> a compelling explanation for what we see, which is that light from
> both A and B travel towards C at the same speed. But the presence of
> an absolute medium seems to fall down when one considers that, to be
> consistent with observation, the speed of propagation orthogonal to
> the direction of travel must be the same as the speed in the direction
> of travel.
>
> A speed (i.e. a mesure of distance traversed within a period of time)
> cannot possibly be measured constant in all directions within a frame,
> *and* constant between frames, where the frames themselves are moving
> at a speed relative to each other. So how the hell does one reconcile
> this physically?

Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether.

Think of the train and the embankment in Einstein's train gedanken to
be filled with water. Consider the water to be at rest with respect to
the embankment. Consider the clocks on the train to consist of paddles
for the second hand.

Let's have three Observers on the embankment all standing at M and
they synchronize their clocks. Now, have two of the Observers walk to
A and B from M. As two of the Observers walk towards A and B they are
walking through the water. This increases the water pressure on the
paddle and their clocks 'tick' slower than the Observer at M. Once the
Observers get to A and B they stop and now their clocks 'tick' at the
same rate as the clock at M, even though if you could see the time on
all three clocks simultaneously the clocks at A and B would be
slightly behind the clock at M.

There are three Observers on the train at M'. Since the train is
moving through the water the clocks on the train are already 'ticking'
slower than the clocks on the embankment due to the increase the water
pressure the clocks are under because the clocks are moving relative
to the water while the clocks on the embankment are at rest with
respect to the water.

The three Observers on the train synchronize their clocks. Two of the
Observers start walking towards A' and B'. The Observer walking
towards B' will have his clock 'tick' the slowest as they walk because
their clock not only has to deal with the train moving through the
water but their clock also has to deal with the additional rate at
which the clock is moving relative to the water because the Observer
walking towards B' is walking against the flow of the water. The
Observer walking towards A' is walking with the flow of water and
their clock will actually tick faster than the clock which remains at
M'.

Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. The water propagates through
the water at rest with respect to the embankment. The light from the
lightning strikes arrives at M simultaneously. This correlates with
the time on the clocks at A and B.

The light from the lightning strikes at B/B' arrives at M' and then
the light from the lightning strikes at A/A' arrives at M'. Now, if
the Observers on the train do not know their state with respect to the
water they will conclude the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior
to the lightning strike at A/A'. This matches to what the clocks at B'
and A' say occurred. The reason for this is because when the clock was
walked to B' it was under additional water pressure and 'ticked'
slower than the clock walked to A'. Let's use some numbers to try and
make this less confusing. The three Observers on the train synchronize
their clocks to be 12:00:00. Let's say it takes them one minute, as
determined by an outside observer, to walk to A' and B'. Because the
clock being walked to B' is under additional water pressure, when the
Observer gets to B', their clock will read 12:00:59. The clock being
walked to A', since it is under less water pressure and ticks faster,
will read 12:01:01. Now, if the lightning strikes take place at this
moment and the light from B/B' reaches M' and then the light from A/A'
reaches M' all three Observers agree the lightning strike at B/B'
occurred prior to the lightning strike at A/A' because the clock at B/
B' read 12:00:59 and the clock at A/A' read 12:01:01 at the time of
the lightning strikes.

Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are
moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the
Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion
relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning
strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water and
conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature.

From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 01:12

Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are
moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the
Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion
relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning
strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water

_______________________________________
Yes.

and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature.

__________________________________________
No. Nowhere in the 200 lines that preceded this do you show that reference
frame of the water is the reference frame of "nature". It doesn't even make
any sense.

From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 01:21

On Feb 14, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are
> moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the
> Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion
> relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning
> strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water
>
> _______________________________________
> Yes.
>
> and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature.
>
> __________________________________________
> No. Nowhere in the 200 lines that preceded this do you show that reference
> frame of the water is the reference frame of "nature". It doesn't even make
> any sense.

Light propagates at a constant speed with respect to the state of the
medium in which it exists. The Observers on the train know their state
with respect to the state of the water and are able to conclude
correctly the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous, in
nature.

From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 01:29

On Feb 14, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are
> moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the
> Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion
> relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning
> strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water
>
> _______________________________________
> Yes.
>
> and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature.
>
> __________________________________________
> No. Nowhere in the 200 lines that preceded this do you show that reference
> frame of the water is the reference frame of "nature". It doesn't even make
> any sense.

Light propagates at a constant speed with respect to the state of the
medium in which it exists being at rest. The Observers on the train
know their state with respect to the state of the water at rest and
are able to conclude correctly the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B'
were simultaneous, in nature.

From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 01:31

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49c69202-f525-4bba-bfa0-09b662433837(a)s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 14, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are
> moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the
> Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion
> relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning
> strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water
>
> _______________________________________
> Yes.
>
> and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature.
>
> __________________________________________
> No. Nowhere in the 200 lines that preceded this do you show that reference
> frame of the water is the reference frame of "nature". It doesn't even
> make
> any sense.

Light propagates at a constant speed with respect to the state of the
medium in which it exists.

__________________________________________
No.

The Observers on the train know their state
with respect to the state of the water and are able to conclude
correctly the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous, in
nature.

________________________________
If by "in nature", you mean the "in the frame of reference of the earth
considered as an inertial frame", then yes. If "in nature" means something
else, perhaps you should explain exactly what "in nature" is supposed to
mean.