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 20 Feb 2010 16:32

On Feb 20, 12:22 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:76046417-462a-4e57-8c52-dcbbba501e66(a)h12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 7:31 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(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.
>
> How does you unwillingness to read the response which answers your
> questions reflect on anyone but yourself? I have asked you dozens of
> times to read the explanation as to what occurs in nature in order for
> the Observers on the train to conclude light travels at 'c' with
> respect to the train at the same time light is traveling at 'c' with
> respect to the aether.
>
> > You said light moves with speed c relative to
> > the observer,
>
> Again, I have not said light moves at 'c' with respect to the
> Observers on the train. I have said, repeatedly, the Observers on the
> train will conclude/determine the light speed to be 'c'. I never said
> it was actually propagating at 'c' with respect to the train. I have
> said light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether.
>
>
>
> > 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?
>
> How does your unwillingness to read a response which actually answers
> your questions reflect on anyone but yourself?
>
> Atomic clocks are separted on a train moving relative to the
> aether. The clock moving towards the front of the train is under
> greater aether pressure then the clock being moved to the back of the
> train. The clock being moved to the front of the train is under more
> aether pressure because that clock is being walked against the 'flow'
> of the aether. The clock being walked to the back of the train is
> under less aether pressure because that clock is being walked with the
> 'flow' of the aether. While the clock is being walked to the front it
> 'ticks' slower than the clock being walked to the back of the train
> because of the additional aether pressure the clock being walked to
> the front of the train is under.
>
> Let's assume after the clocks are walked to A' and B' the clocks at
> A', M', and B' read 12:00:02, 12:00:01, and 12:00:00 respectively if
> you could see all three clocks at the same time. The clock at A'
> 'ticked' faster than the clock at M' while it was being walked to A'
> because it was being walked with the 'flow' of the aether and was more
> 'at rest' with respect to the aether than the clock at M' was and was
> therefore under less aether pressure than the clock at M' was while it
> was being walked to A'.
>
> Once all of the clocks are at A', M', and B', they are all at rest
> with respect to the train and they are all under the same amount of
> aether pressure and will 'tick' at the same rate.
>
> So, even though the Observers synchronized their clocks, once the
> clocks are walked to their destination, the clocks are out of sync, in
> nature.
>
> Now, a flash of light occurs at M' at 12:00:01. The light propagates
> with the flow of the aether to A' and takes two seconds to arrive
> there. The light propagates against the flow to B' and takes four
> seconds to get there. When the light arrives at A' and B' both clocks
> read 12:00:04. As far as the Observers at A', B', and C' are concerned
> the lightning strikes were simultaneous.
>
> Now, the light is reflected by mirrors at A' and B'. Since the light
> traveled with the 'flow' of the aether and was reflected after two
> seconds by the mirror at A' and will take four seconds to travel back
> to M' and since the light traveled against the 'flow' of the aether
> and was reflected after four seconds by the mirror at B' and will take
> two seconds to travel back to M' the light from the flash at M'
> arrives simultaneously back at M' and the clock at M' reads 12:00:07.
>
> When the Observers get back together and calculate how far the light
> traveled and the time of the arrival of the light based upon the time
> on their atomic clocks, the Observers on the train conclude the light
> waves propagated at 'c' with respect to the train.
>
> The light waves actually propagated at 'c' with respect to the aether
> but the Observers are unaware they are moving relative to the aether.
> If the Observers were aware they were moving relative to the aether
> they would then be able to calculate where the light traveled from
> with respect to the aether and determine the light waves propagated at
> 'c' with respect to the aether.
>
> ______________________________________
> Here's a much simpler question, which has no mirrors, trains, embankments,
> lightning etc.
>
> Lets say the earth is moving relative to the ether at speed v. We measure
> the speed of light in a vacuum on earth in the direction in which the earth
> is moving through the ether. What do we measure the speed of light to be in
> that laboratory on earth? c? c+v? c-v? Something else?

The speed of light is 'measured' to be 'c'. It depends on the state of
the laboratory on Earth with respect to the aether if the speed of
light is 'c' with respect to the laboratory in nature. Since the
aether is at rest, or almost at rest, with respect to the surface of
the Earth, and since I am assuming the laboratory exists on the
surface of the Earth, then the light waves in the laboratory are
propagating at 'c' with respect to the aether which is at rest with
respect to the laboratory. So, in this situation, the light waves are
physically propagating at 'c' with respect to the laboratory.

From: mpc755 on 20 Feb 2010 16:53

On Feb 20, 4:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 12:11 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > First you said that light always travels at c with respect to the observer.
>
> I never said the light travels at 'c' with respect to an observer
> moving with respect to the aether. Find where I said that.
>

What I have said is for an observer moving with respect to the aether
they will determine the speed of light to be 'c'.

> > Then you said that light always travels at c with respect to the ether.
>
> > First you said that you agreed with the equations of SR.
> > Then you said the equation for time dilation in SR is wrong.
>
> > Again:
>
> > Q1. You believe light always travels at c with respect to:
> > a) The observer, or
> > b) The ether
> > c) neither of the above
>

b) Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. Observers
moving with respect to the aether will determine the light to
propagate at 'c', even though the light waves are physically
propagating at 'c' with respect to the aether the Observers are moving
with respect to. In my response you refuse to read the Observers on
the train are moving with respect to the aether. Even though the
Observers on the train are moving with respect to the aether, they
still determine the speed of light to be 'c'.

> > Q2. You believe the equations of SR are:
> > a) Correct
> > b) Correct except for the time dilation one
> > c) Neither of the above.
>
>

d) Equations are correct. Clocks do in fact 'tick' slower the faster
the clock is moving with respect to the aether. The difference is, in
AD, the clock 'ticks' slower because of the increase in the aether
pressure on the clock associated with the clocks motion with respect
to the aether.

Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists.
An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the
object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether
pressure. Whatever energy the object requires to displace the aether
the aether returns to the object as it 'displaces back'. The pressure
associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.

The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to
displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the
clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a
clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite
clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure
associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure
on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth
"causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day".
Combining the pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS
satellite moves with respect to the aether and the pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS
satellites tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the
ground".
(quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).

From: Peter Webb on 20 Feb 2010 20:12

Again:

Q1. Do you believe light always travels at c with respect to:
a) The observer, or
b) The ether
c) neither of the above

Q2. Do you believe the equations of SR are:
a) Correct
b) Correct except for the time dilation one
c) Neither of the above.

From: Peter Webb on 20 Feb 2010 20:24

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec15dd9a-7b73-405d-8872-e3e885013206(a)t21g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 20, 4:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 12:11 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > First you said that light always travels at c with respect to the
> > observer.
>
> I never said the light travels at 'c' with respect to an observer
> moving with respect to the aether. Find where I said that.
>

What I have said is for an observer moving with respect to the aether
they will determine the speed of light to be 'c'.

> > Then you said that light always travels at c with respect to the ether.
>
> > First you said that you agreed with the equations of SR.
> > Then you said the equation for time dilation in SR is wrong.
>
> > Again:
>
> > Q1. You believe light always travels at c with respect to:
> > a) The observer, or
> > b) The ether
> > c) neither of the above
>

b) Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. Observers
moving with respect to the aether will determine the light to
propagate at 'c', even though the light waves are physically
propagating at 'c' with respect to the aether the Observers are moving
with respect to. In my response you refuse to read the Observers on
the train are moving with respect to the aether. Even though the
Observers on the train are moving with respect to the aether, they
still determine the speed of light to be 'c'.

__________________________________________
Just to clarify, according to you, all observers in all intertial frames
will measure light as travelling at c? Exactly as predicted by SR?

> > Q2. You believe the equations of SR are:
> > a) Correct
> > b) Correct except for the time dilation one
> > c) Neither of the above.
>
>

d) Equations are correct.

_______________________________________________
You believe all the equations of SR are correct. None of them mention the
ether. Therefore your ether cannot be detected by any physical experiement.
That is correct, right? If it is wrong, what equations does ether speed
appear in, and how would you detect its existence?

Clocks do in fact 'tick' slower the faster
the clock is moving with respect to the aether. The difference is, in
AD, the clock 'ticks' slower because of the increase in the aether
pressure on the clock associated with the clocks motion with respect
to the aether.

Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists.
An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the
object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether
pressure. Whatever energy the object requires to displace the aether
the aether returns to the object as it 'displaces back'. The pressure
associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.

The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to
displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the
clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a
clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite
clock to "result in a delay of about 7 �s/day". The aether pressure
associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure
on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth
"causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 �s/day".
Combining the pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS
satellite moves with respect to the aether and the pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS
satellites tick approximately 38 �s/day faster than clocks on the
ground".
(quoted text from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).

______________________________________
None of the quoted text mentions the ether. So it is impossible to see what
relevance it has. As I understand it, you believe that the equations of SR
are all correct, including the one that says the speed of light is constant
in inertial frames. Unless you have some disagreement about the predictions
of SR, or can derive the equations of SR in a novel way, then you appear to
have nothing to say.

From: Peter Webb on 20 Feb 2010 20:35

> ______________________________________
> Here's a much simpler question, which has no mirrors, trains, embankments,
> lightning etc.
>
> Lets say the earth is moving relative to the ether at speed v. We measure
> the speed of light in a vacuum on earth in the direction in which the
> earth
> is moving through the ether. What do we measure the speed of light to be
> in
> that laboratory on earth? c? c+v? c-v? Something else?

The speed of light is 'measured' to be 'c'. It depends on the state of
the laboratory on Earth with respect to the aether if the speed of
light is 'c' with respect to the laboratory in nature. Since the
aether is at rest, or almost at rest, with respect to the surface of
the Earth,

______________________________________
Ohh yeah. That's a pretty unfortunate co-incidence. So lets wait 6 months
until August 21st 2010; the earth will have moved 180 degrees in its orbit
around the Sun and be moving the the opposite direction, and hence have a
relative speed to the to ether of 60 kms/sec. What is the measured speed of
light in a laboratory on earth moving at speed 60 kms/sec relative to the
ether?

and since I am assuming the laboratory exists on the
surface of the Earth, then the light waves in the laboratory are
propagating at 'c' with respect to the aether which is at rest with
respect to the laboratory. So, in this situation, the light waves are
physically propagating at 'c' with respect to the laboratory.

________________________________
And if the experiment is conducted 6 months from now, when the earth will be
moving at a speed of 60 kms/sec relative to the ether, what will be the
measured speed? c + 60 kms/sec ? c - 60 kms/sec ? c? something else?