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: PD on 18 Feb 2010 13:34

On Feb 18, 11:14 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 6:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The rest length of the rod is unchanged. Since this rest length is the
> > length measured in only one frame (the rest frame), I'm reticent to
> > call it an intrinsic property.
>
> I just saw this post for the first time, quoted in someone else's
> response. I actually disagree here, since the rest length of the rod
> is the magnitude of a 4-vector.

The 4-vector is a quantity that involves both spatial and temporal
dimension.
"Length" is a quantity that refers to *spatial* extent. In the rest
frame of the object, the temporal extent is zero, and so the magnitude
of the 4-vector happens to numerically coincide with the length in
that frame. However, in any other frame, the magnitude of the 4-vector
does not change, but the magnitude of the length does. In other words,
the coincidence occurs in one frame only. In fact, the term "rest
length" to me conveys the fact that the magnitude of this 4-vector
coincides with a length in one frame only.

I prefer to label the magnitude of the 4-vector with some other name
that conveys the fact that it is intrinsically a quantity built up out
of both spatial and temporal measurements, precisely to avoid this
semantic confusion.

> What that tells us is that we can
> construct the rest length out of frame dependent measurements. It's
> true that it's only measured as length in one frame but it can be
> built up out of measurements that we take in another frame, which is
> equivalent to accounting for the differences in simultaneity between
> the two frames when we make our measurements. It's certainly an
> invariant property, and it's specific to the rod, so I don't see why
> it shouldn't be called intrinsic.

From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 13:35

On Feb 18, 1:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:48 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 9:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 7:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 16, 6:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 16, 10:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > 'You' do not understand what is occurring physically in a double slit
> > > > > > > > experiment so you invent a new type of object. A particle which in and
> > > > > > > > of itself 'waves'.
>
> > > > > > > It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe.
>
> > > > > > What I choose to believe
>
> > > > > It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe.
>
> > > > Since 'you' do not understand what is occurring in nature in a double
> > > > slit experiment 'you' invented a new type of object. Obviously, this
> > > > was unnecessary and a mistake.
>
> > > On what basis is it a mistake? How can you tell when the
> > > identification of a new object type is a mistake?
>
> > On the basis a new type of object is not required
>
> I'm sorry. Why is recognizing a new type of object a mistake?
> Just because you don't like new?
>

Because it is unnecessary and shows you do not understand what occurs
physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

> > and because the more
> > correct answer than the future determining the past,
>
> And how do you determine which answer is more correct, other than just
> blank assertion?
>

Because I do not have to invent a new type of object or believe the
future determines the past and I have quotes such as this one from
Albert Einstein, "According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable"

> > which you are
> > required to believe in order to justify the new type of object, in a
> > double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is the moving C-60
> > molecule, a particle of matter, physically travels a single path and
> > the associated aether displacement wave propagates the available
> > paths.
>
> > > > The particle has a physical aether
> > > > wave. so. the new type of object was a mistake but for whatever
> > > > 'reasoning' beyond the more correct explanation of what is occurring
> > > > in nature, 'you' insist a particle of matter is able to create an
> > > > interference pattern in and of itself in a double slit experiment.
>
> > > > This state of denial you choose to exist in has now forced you to
> > > > choose to believe the future determines the past.
>
> > > > A moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement
> > > > wave.
>
> > > > > > is matter and the aether are different states
> > > > > > of the same material. What I choose to believe is a moving C-60
> > > > > > molecule and its associated aether displacement wave are a 'one
> > > > > > something'. With this understanding of nature I do not need to invent
> > > > > > a new type of object or choose to believe the future determines the
> > > > > > past. My choices allow for a better understanding of nature than
> > > > > > yours.
>
> > > > > > > > In order to maintain the delusion such an object exists you are
> > > > > > > > required to believe in the absurd nonsense of the future determining
> > > > > > > > the past.
>
> > > > > > > > Once 'you' realize a moving particle has an associated aether wave
> > > > > > > > there is no need for this non-existent made up object of matter which
> > > > > > > > in and of itself waves and there is no reason to have to choose to
> > > > > > > > believe in the absurd nonsense the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > He's
> > > > > > > > > > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly
> > > > > > > > > > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little
> > > > > > > > > > > capability to deal with the real world around him. The kind of
> > > > > > > > > > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond
> > > > > > > > > > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world--
> > > > > > > > > > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad,
> > > > > > > > > > > really. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for
> > > > > > > > > > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and
> > > > > > > > > > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up
> > > > > > > > > > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have. I really
> > > > > > > > > > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think
> > > > > > > > > > > they're mentally healthy enough. And I gather that after years of
> > > > > > > > > > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them?
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious.
>
>

From: PD on 18 Feb 2010 13:38

On Feb 18, 12:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > And how do you determine which answer is more correct, other than just
> > blank assertion?
>
> Because I do not have to invent a new type of object or believe the
> future determines the past and I have quotes such as this one from
> Albert Einstein, "According to the general theory of relativity space
> without ether is unthinkable"

Ah. OK, you've had your attention for today. Back to the straps and
electrodes for you.

From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 13:42

On Feb 18, 1:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > And how do you determine which answer is more correct, other than just
> > > blank assertion?
>
> > Because I do not have to invent a new type of object or believe the
> > future determines the past and I have quotes such as this one from
> > Albert Einstein, "According to the general theory of relativity space
> > without ether is unthinkable"
>
> Ah. OK, you've had your attention for today. Back to the straps and
> electrodes for you.

And the other poster still refuses to respond because they know the
future determining the past is absurd nonsense.

A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.

From: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 13:55

On Feb 18, 1:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > And how do you determine which answer is more correct, other than just
> > > > blank assertion?
>
> > > Because I do not have to invent a new type of object or believe the
> > > future determines the past and I have quotes such as this one from
> > > Albert Einstein, "According to the general theory of relativity space
> > > without ether is unthinkable"
>
> > Ah. OK, you've had your attention for today. Back to the straps and
> > electrodes for you.
>
> And the other poster still refuses to respond because they know the
> future determining the past is absurd nonsense.
>
> A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.

I have told you many many times about the bunnies that pick carrots
from the enchanted forest but you simply refuse to listen. It's
getting ridiculous.