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: Inertial on 14 Feb 2010 07:13
"JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c8371e4-034d-4880-972e-579a266e7aa0(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 Feb, 12:40, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:444e7b76-4ff5-4218-a732-40ef60116be1(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 14 Feb, 12:08, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:3a7bc432-defb-4936-b794-236b877d9cc9(a)q29g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > 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,
>>
>> >> Why not. it is in SR (which is consistent and correctly predicts what
>> >> happens in reality)
>>
>> >> > and at the same time be constant when travelling
>> >> > between two objects in two different frames.
>>
>> >> You do realize that points exist in ALL frames. There's no such thing
>> >> as
>> >> objects being in two different frames. They are all in every frame.
>>
>> > I think he you are the one who do not realise that the points
>> > intervall and extension must have same magnitude within all frames.
>>
>> Nope .. they don't need to.
>>
>> [snip nonsense]
>>
>> > You are correct though that the objects are in every frame but the
>> > local universal frame of SR
>>
>> Every frame is universal
>>
>> > use variant units
>>
>> No .. they use the same units in each frame. But that does not mean (nor
>> require) that the units in one frame are the same when measured by other
>> frames. We know experimentally that they aren't.
>
> You are an idiot,

Far from it

]snip nonsense]

>> There are, of course, measurements that ARE frame independent, eg proper
>> length of a rod.
> You are an idiot
Far from it

> you use no proper length for either distances nor
> lengths all measurements within SR

Wrong. You do use them.

> use framedependent unit meters.

Proper length has the same units

[snip nonsense]

> Using a proper length B,C,D,E,F would measure objects A to have same
> length and also measure the same distance to it.
>
> You Sir is an idiot even worse you are a lier and wordjuggler.

I am neither. You, though, are a stupid fuckwit


From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 08:34
On Feb 14, 1:31 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(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.

As long as any Observer is able to factor in their state with respect
to the state of the medium in which the light propagates being at rest
then the Observer is able to conclude when the lightning strikes
occurred in nature.

If an infinite number of Observers in an infinite number of frames of
reference all exist in the same medium in which the light waves
propagate and all of the Observers are able to determine their state
with respect to the state of the medium the light waves propagate
through being at rest all of the Observers will arrive at the same
conclusion as to when the lightning strikes occurred in nature.

Even if the Observers themselves do not exist in the same medium in
which the light waves propagate, as long as every one of the infinite
Observers are able to factor in the light waves propagating through
the medium at rest, all of the Observers will arrive as to when the
lightning strikes occurred in the medium, in nature. All of the
Observers will arrive at the same conclusion as to when the lightning
strikes occurred. If an infinite number of Observers all arrive at the
same conclusion as to when the lightning strikes occurred then the
infinite number of Observers have determined when the lightning
strikes occurred in nature.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 08:37
On Feb 14, 3:52 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:df5fb519-7beb-4edd-af0c-3267b08153e9(a)o3g2000yqb.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 being at rest.
> ___________________________
> Whatever that is supposed to mean.
>
> 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.
>
> ________________________
> Whatever "in nature" is supposed to mean.

If an infinite number of Observers all arrive at the same conclusion
as to when the lightning strikes occurred based on their ability to
understand their state with respect to the state of the medium the
light waves propagate through then the infinite number of Observers
have all arrived at a determination as to when the lightning strikes
occurred in nature.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 08:58
On Feb 14, 12:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

When the Observers arrive at A and B their clocks will be slightly
behind the clock at M because the clocks moved relative to the clock
at M. Lets say the clock at M reads 12:01:00 and the clocks at A and B
read 12:01:00.5. The Observers at A and B, using SR, know their clocks
ticked slower than the clock at M and factoring this in the Observers
at A and B reset their clocks accordingly to 12:01:00. If you could
see all three clocks simultaneously all three will be the same time.

When the Observers arrive at A' and B' they also factor in the SR
calculations based up their motion relative to the clock at M'. When
the Observers arrive at A' and B' their clocks stated the time as
12:00:59.5 and 12:00:58.5, respectively. The Observers at A' and B'
reset their clocks to 12:01:01 and 12:00:59, respectively. If you
could see the clocks at A', M', and B' simultaneously the clocks would
read 12:01:01, 12:01:00, and 12:00:59, respectively.

It is easy to understand how lightning strikes on the embankment
arrive at the 'correct' times regardless if there are lightning strike
at A and B which arrive at M or a single lightning strike at M which
arrives at A and B.

It is not as straight forward when discussing the lightning strikes on
the train. Let's first assume the Observers on the train do not
realize they are moving relative to the water. Lightning strikes at A/
A' and B/B' determined to be simultaneous by the Observer at M will
occur at A' at 12:01:01 and at B' at 12:00:59. The train is moving
relative to the water the light waves propagate through. The light
from B' is flowing with the water relative to the train and the light
from A' is flowing against the water relative to the train. The light
from B' will arrive prior to the light from A'. When the three
Observers on the train discuss when the lightning strikes occurred,
they are all in agreement the lightning strike at B' occurred prior to
the lightning strike at A'. If there is a single lightning strike at
M' at 12:01:00. The light waves propagating towards B' are propagating
against the flow of water relative to the train and the light waves
propagating towards A' are propagating with the flow of water relative
to the train. Let's assume it takes two seconds for the light waves to
reach B' and one second for the light waves to reach A'. When the
light waves reach the Observers at A' and B' both of their clocks read
12:01:02. When the three Observers discuss when the lightning strike
occurred at M', they are all in agreement the lightning strike at M'
occurred at 12:01:01.

Now, again for the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are
moving relative to the water the light waves propagate through and
factor this in when determining when the lightning strikes occurred in
nature, the Observers on the train, and in fact any Observer in any
frame of reference, will all arrive at the same conclusion as to when
the lightning strikes occurred in nature.
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 09:44

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24b1dbfc-e19c-4c2e-a7f7-6a3601ea13da(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 14, 1:31 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(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.

As long as any Observer is able to factor in their state with respect
to the state of the medium in which the light propagates being at rest
then the Observer is able to conclude when the lightning strikes
occurred in nature.

______________________________________

So the inertial reference frame of nature is the rest frame in which light
moves at a constant rate?

What reference frame is that, relative to the Sun?


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
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