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 19 Feb 2010 06:38

On Feb 19, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:27f905eb-2174-433f-b24d-03c80bd81617(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 11:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:6576dabb-16ea-43d9-8741-c2d1af70b789(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:0f10e987-c21e-44cc-beec-03d48b731317(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 18, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth
> > > > > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > claim?
>
> > > > > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect
> > > > > to
> > > > > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v'
> > > > > with
> > > > > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my
> > > > > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment.
>
> > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with
> > > > > respect
> > > > > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is
> > > > > always
> > > > > c
> > > > > ?
>
> > > > The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
>
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is
> > > > c,
> > > > according to you?
>
> > > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes.
>
> > > ____________________________________
> > > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all
> > > inertial
> > > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You
> > > should be telling the OP why he is wrong.
>
> > But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why.
>
> > ________________________________
> > You can invent any explanation you like, as long as it is consistent with
> > the observed fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. I assume
> > you also agree with all the other predictions that SR makes? If not, are
> > there any you disagree with?
>
> My fundamental differences with SR are two. One is, SR implies the
> light travels at 'c' from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' in
> nature. This is incorrect. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the
> aether.
>
> ________________________________
> You said in your immediately previous post light always travels at c with
> respect to the observer.
>
> Which means it cannot possibly travel at c with respect to the ether, unless
> all observers are also stationary with respect to the ether, according to
> what you claimed in your previous post.
>
> How can light be travelling at c with respect to the observer if it is
> travelling at c with respect to the ether, unless the observer is at rest
> compared to the ether?
>

I said the Observers in each inertial frame of reference will
determine the light to travel at 'c'. I did not say the light is
actually traveling at 'c' in nature.

Three Observers get together at M' on the train and synchronize their
clocks. The Observers will determine the light to travel at 'c'
because the clock being moved to B' on the train 'ticks' slower while
being moved because it is being moved against the 'flow' of aether.
The clock being moved to A' 'ticks' faster than both the clocks at M'
and B' while being moved because it 'ticks' faster because it is being
moved with the 'flow' of the aether and is more at rest with respect
to the aether while being moved than both the clocks at M' and B'.
When the clocks stop being moved they are no longer synchronized but
the Observers are unable to know this. When the clocks are stopped
being moved they all exist under the same amount of aether pressure
and all 'tick' at the same rate.

The non-synchronized clocks on the train allow the Observers on the
train to conclude the light travels at 'c' with respect to the train.

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

> And you haven't answered my other question. Is there any other prediction of
> SR that you disagree with, or do you think that the equations of SR
> correctly explain what happens in inertial frames of reference? If you
> disagree with any of the equations, which one(s)?

It is not so much a prediction but an understanding of nature. SR
assumes time changes the faster something is moving. That is
incorrect. Clocks 'tick' slower the faster they are moving with
respect to the aether because the faster the clock is moving with
respect to the aether the more aether pressure exerted on the clock
causing it to 'tick' slower.

From: mpc755 on 19 Feb 2010 06:46

On Feb 19, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:27f905eb-2174-433f-b24d-03c80bd81617(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 11:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:6576dabb-16ea-43d9-8741-c2d1af70b789(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:0f10e987-c21e-44cc-beec-03d48b731317(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 18, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth
> > > > > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > claim?
>
> > > > > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect
> > > > > to
> > > > > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v'
> > > > > with
> > > > > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my
> > > > > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment.
>
> > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with
> > > > > respect
> > > > > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is
> > > > > always
> > > > > c
> > > > > ?
>
> > > > The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
>
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is
> > > > c,
> > > > according to you?
>
> > > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes.
>
> > > ____________________________________
> > > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all
> > > inertial
> > > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You
> > > should be telling the OP why he is wrong.
>
> > But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why.
>
> > ________________________________
> > You can invent any explanation you like, as long as it is consistent with
> > the observed fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. I assume
> > you also agree with all the other predictions that SR makes? If not, are
> > there any you disagree with?
>
> My fundamental differences with SR are two. One is, SR implies the
> light travels at 'c' from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' in
> nature. This is incorrect. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the
> aether.
>
> ________________________________
> You said in your immediately previous post light always travels at c with
> respect to the observer.
>
> Which means it cannot possibly travel at c with respect to the ether, unless
> all observers are also stationary with respect to the ether, according to
> what you claimed in your previous post.
>
> How can light be travelling at c with respect to the observer if it is
> travelling at c with respect to the ether, unless the observer is at rest
> compared to the ether?
>

You would already know the answers to the questions if you read the
posts you refuse to read.

> And you haven't answered my other question. Is there any other prediction of
> SR that you disagree with, or do you think that the equations of SR
> correctly explain what happens in inertial frames of reference? If you
> disagree with any of the equations, which one(s)?

From: Peter Webb on 19 Feb 2010 06:52

>
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum
> > > > is
> > > > c,
> > > > according to you?
>
> > > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes.
>
> > > ____________________________________
> > > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all
> > > inertial
> > > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You
> > > should be telling the OP why he is wrong.
>
> > But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why.
>
> > ________________________________
> > You can invent any explanation you like, as long as it is consistent
> > with
> > the observed fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. I assume
> > you also agree with all the other predictions that SR makes? If not, are
> > there any you disagree with?
>
> My fundamental differences with SR are two. One is, SR implies the
> light travels at 'c' from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' in
> nature. This is incorrect. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the
> aether.
>
> ________________________________
> You said in your immediately previous post light always travels at c with
> respect to the observer.
>
> Which means it cannot possibly travel at c with respect to the ether,
> unless
> all observers are also stationary with respect to the ether, according to
> what you claimed in your previous post.
>
> How can light be travelling at c with respect to the observer if it is
> travelling at c with respect to the ether, unless the observer is at rest
> compared to the ether?
>

I said the Observers in each inertial frame of reference will
determine the light to travel at 'c'. I did not say the light is
actually traveling at 'c' in nature.

___________________________
That's fine. I have no idea what "in nature" is supposed to meand, but what
SR predicts is that each person measuring the speed of light in a vacuum
will get the same answer of c, irrespective of their local reference frame.
You seem to agree.

Three Observers get together at M' on the train and synchronize their
clocks. The Observers will determine the light to travel at 'c'
because the clock being moved to B' on the train 'ticks' slower while
being moved because it is being moved against the 'flow' of aether.
The clock being moved to A' 'ticks' faster than both the clocks at M'
and B' while being moved because it 'ticks' faster because it is being
moved with the 'flow' of the aether and is more at rest with respect
to the aether while being moved than both the clocks at M' and B'.
When the clocks stop being moved they are no longer synchronized but
the Observers are unable to know this. When the clocks are stopped
being moved they all exist under the same amount of aether pressure
and all 'tick' at the same rate.

The non-synchronized clocks on the train allow the Observers on the
train to conclude the light travels at 'c' with respect to the train.

_________________________________________
Sorry, not interested in the whole train thing.

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

_______________________________________
But you agree with the SR in that all observers measure the speed of light
as c, completely irrespective of any motion they may have relative to the
ether? Because that is exactly what SR predicts, and I believe to be true.

> And you haven't answered my other question. Is there any other prediction
> of
> SR that you disagree with, or do you think that the equations of SR
> correctly explain what happens in inertial frames of reference? If you
> disagree with any of the equations, which one(s)?

It is not so much a prediction but an understanding of nature. SR
assumes time changes the faster something is moving. That is
incorrect. Clocks 'tick' slower the faster they are moving with
respect to the aether because the faster the clock is moving with
respect to the aether the more aether pressure exerted on the clock
causing it to 'tick' slower.

__________________________________
Putting aside your mumbo-jumbo explanation, I just want to confirm that you
agree that what SR predicts is exactly what happens. If not, and you have
any experiment, test, measurement or observation where you think that the
results would not be different from what SR predicts, what are these
experiments, tests, measurements or observations?

From: Peter Webb on 19 Feb 2010 07:31

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:caf06774-b01d-4536-90fa-7086e39b3df5(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:27f905eb-2174-433f-b24d-03c80bd81617(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 11:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:6576dabb-16ea-43d9-8741-c2d1af70b789(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:0f10e987-c21e-44cc-beec-03d48b731317(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Feb 18, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on
> > > > > > earth
> > > > > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > claim?
>
> > > > > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect
> > > > > to
> > > > > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v'
> > > > > with
> > > > > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my
> > > > > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment.
>
> > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves
> > > > > with
> > > > > respect
> > > > > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is
> > > > > always
> > > > > c
> > > > > ?
>
> > > > The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
>
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum
> > > > is
> > > > c,
> > > > according to you?
>
> > > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes.
>
> > > ____________________________________
> > > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all
> > > inertial
> > > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You
> > > should be telling the OP why he is wrong.
>
> > But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why.
>
> > ________________________________
> > You can invent any explanation you like, as long as it is consistent
> > with
> > the observed fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. I assume
> > you also agree with all the other predictions that SR makes? If not, are
> > there any you disagree with?
>
> My fundamental differences with SR are two. One is, SR implies the
> light travels at 'c' from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' in
> nature. This is incorrect. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the
> aether.
>
> ________________________________
> You said in your immediately previous post light always travels at c with
> respect to the observer.
>
> Which means it cannot possibly travel at c with respect to the ether,
> unless
> all observers are also stationary with respect to the ether, according to
> what you claimed in your previous post.
>
> How can light be travelling at c with respect to the observer if it is
> travelling at c with respect to the ether, unless the observer is at rest
> compared to the ether?
>

You would already know the answers to the questions if you read the
posts you refuse to read.
________________________________
Well, for whatever reason I don't know. But you seem very shy about
explaining what you believe. You said light moves with speed c relative to
the observer, but you have also said light moves with speed c relative to
the ether. The only way both of these can be true is if the observer is
always at rest relative to the ether. Unless you have some other
explanation.

> And you haven't answered my other question. Is there any other prediction
> of
> SR that you disagree with, or do you think that the equations of SR
> correctly explain what happens in inertial frames of reference? If you
> disagree with any of the equations, which one(s)?

______________________________________
You didn't answer that question, either. You are very shy. Are you scared we
will laugh at you?

From: Vern on 19 Feb 2010 08:35

On Feb 18, 5:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:18 am,Vern<vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > Paul, I wanted to get your perspective on motion relative to the
> > ether. If you use the CMBR, the Earth is moving at approx. 640 km/s
> > around the galactic center as opposed to approx. 30 km/s around the
> > Sun. The Lorentz contraction can't account for both for MMXs done on
> > the Earth's surface and as the 640 km/s is more of the actual
> > velocity, that is the figure that should be used. Obviously, Lorentz
> > was not aware of the motion of the solar system wrt the galactic
> > center. Given the results of Sagnac-type experiments and the above
> > reasoning, I think the evidence indicates that there are circulatory
> > (and inflow) ether patterns around all celestial objects superimposed
> > upon the stationary ether assumed in the luminferous aether days (the
> > CMBR). This obviously would account for the null of the MMX without
> > the need for the Lorentz contraction but doesn't nullify the Lorentz
> > contraction concept for any motion wrt the ether, such as in GPS. I
> > wondered though, how this jives with your concepts of shadowing models
> > (Le Sage) for gravity.
>
> >Vern
>
> Actually it canVern. Mathematically, differential speed yields
> differential contraction, that why SR/LET works. Nature must, 'to its
> own self, be true'. Internal consistency is a requirement.

I understand that the Lorentz contraction formula works for both
velocities. The CMBR is certainly evidence of a stationary ether, but
the Sagnac effect and ether drag affecting orbits if we assume the
higher velocities of planets and stars through that stationary ether
are correct would seem to indicate circulatory flows around the
planets and stars. The MMX can also be explained if there is a local
circulatory flow. Does the pushing gravity model work for either a
stationary ether or local circulatory flows? Or does the Le Sage
model favor one over the other? Tom VanFlandern was adamantly against
a local circulatory flow (for other reasons), but I'm not sure Tom had
considered the Le Sage model with the higher orbital velocities wrt to
the CMBR.

Vern

Vern