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 21 Feb 2010 20:06

On Feb 21, 12:25 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 11:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 9:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:dba2b7ab-670a-473f-a7f3-5447e3f01e53(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 21, 12:27 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:1c9cf786-36cc-4fce-8b57-7f45f5b88ddd(a)v1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > And if conducted in a laboratory in low earth orbit, with a relative
> > > > > > speed
> > > > > > of 25,000 kph relative to the ether - what will be the measured speed
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > light then?
>
> > > > > The light will be 'measured' to be 'c'. If the Observers in the
> > > > > laboratory in low Earth orbit know how they are moving with respect to
> > > > > the aether they will be able to determine the speed of light to be 'c'
> > > > > with respect to the aether.
>
> > > > > ______________________________________
> > > > > So, according to you, in every inertial reference frame, the measured
> > > > > speed
> > > > > of light is "c", completely independent of how the observer is moving
> > > > > relative to the ether?
>
> > > > Measured, yes.
>
> > > > ____________________________________
> > > > OK, is the speed of light measured as 'c' in every inertial reference
> > > > frame?
>
> > > Measured, yes.
>
> > > _______________________________
> > > How about the rest of the predictions of SR? Will lengths and times measure
> > > according to SR? You have no problem with the 80 foot ladder fitting inside
> > > the 40 foot barn, or the twins "paradox" ?
>
> > I have already explained to you probably twenty times now the atomic
> > clocks 'tick' based upon the aether pressure in which the exist. There
> > may be length contraction at speeds near 'c'.
>
> > What you fail to be able to understand is the rate at which a clock
> > 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. For
> > example, we have a clock on the embankment and a clock on a train and
> > both the train and the embankment exist in the same three dimensional
> > space. Since the state of the aether is determined by its connections
> > with the matter the state of the aether is that it can be considered
> > to be at rest with respect to the embankment. Since the train is
> > moving relative to the embankment the train is not at rest with
> > respect to the train. The clocks on the train will 'tick' slower than
> > the clocks on the embankment.
>
> > This nonsense of the Observer on the train seeing the clock on the
> > embankment 'tick' slower and the Observer on the embankment seeing the
> > clock on the train 'tick' slower is exactly that, complete nonsense.
>
> You have progressed a long way from where you were. It's time to take
> another step. From you previous posts I see you agree that the clocks
> on the train are out of sync with the clocks on the embankment. Now
> consider how the train observers measure the tick rate of a clock on
> the embankment. Viewed from the train the clock at A on the
> embankment passes along the length of the train. No single train
> observer can deterimine the tick rate of A because he only sees A for
> one instant. So the tick rate at A is determined by having multiple
> observers record the reading on clock A and the time of that reading
> *according to their own clock*.
>
> The clocks at A and A' are compared when they pass and the difference
> in their readings noted. Next the clocks at A and B' are compared and
> their difference in reading noted. If that difference has increased
> the train observers must conclude that the clock at A is running slow
> because it has lost time compared to the clock at B' *which is in sync
> with the clock at A'*.
>
> The track observers see what the train observers are doing and realize
> the train observers got a different result because *the clocks at A'
> and B' are out of sync*.
>
> So now maybe you can see that the train observers can *measure* the
> tick rate of the embankment clocks to be slower, even if it is in fact
> faster.
>
> Bruce
>

When the clocks are moved on the train they wind up at A' and B' and
read 12:00:01 and 12:00:00, respectively. Since the embankment is at
rest with respect to the aether when the clocks are moved to A and B
they both read 12:00:00.

If the train is moving fast enough the clocks on the train should be
ticking slow enough that the difference in the times at A' and B'
should be outweighed by the slowness of the ticking. For example,
let's say B' and A are co-located at 12:00:00. It takes 3 seconds, as
determined by the clock at B', to go from A to B. It takes 5 seconds
as determined by the clock at A to go from B' to A'. When B' and B are
co-located their clocks will read 12:00:03 and 12:00:05, respectively.
When A' and A are co-located their clocks will read 12:00:04 and
12:00:05, respectively. All of the Observers conclude the clocks on
the train 'tick' slower than the clocks on the embankment.
> > If the Observer on the embankment can see the clock on the train the
> > Observer on the embankment will determine the clock on the train to be
> > 'ticking' slower than the clock on the embankment. If the Observer on
> > the train can see the clock on the embankment the Observer on the
> > train will determine the clock on the embankment to be 'ticking'
> > faster than the clock on the train.
>
> > If the Observers one the embankment and on the train have this
> > information the Observers will conclude the embankment is more at rest
> > with respect to the aether than the train is.
>
> > > But it is the reason why it it measure to be 'c' which
> > > is the important part when discussing what occurs physically in
> > > nature. The 'reference frame' is moving with respect to the aether.
> > > When Observers synchronize clocks and then move to their respective
> > > destinations they are not moving the same with respect to the aether.
> > > As in the train example, the Observer moving towards B' is moving
> > > against the 'flow' of the aether and their clock 'ticks' slower than
> > > the clock at M'. The Observer moving towards A' is moving with the
> > > 'flow' of aether and their clock 'ticks' faster than the clock at M'.
> > > This unsynching of the clocks offsets the fact the light propagates at
> > > 'c' with respect to the aether. A flash of light at M' will reach A'
> > > and then B' but the clocks at A' and B' will read the same due to
> > > their not be synchronized. The light will be reflected by mirrors and
> > > now travel in the exact opposite direction in terms of the 'flow' from
> > > A' back to M' and from B' back to M' so the light waves reach M'
> > > simultaneously.
>
> > > Flash of light occurs at M'. Light waves propagate with the 'flow' of
> > > aether towards A' and propagate against the 'flow' of aether towards
> > > B'. The light waves arrive at A' prior to arriving at B', in nature.
> > > But the time on each clock will read the same when the light arrives.
> > > The light waves then reflect off a mirror at A' and propagate against
> > > the 'flow' of aether towards M' and the light waves then reflect off a
> > > mirror at B' and propagate with the 'flow' of aether towards M'. The
> > > light from A' and B' arrives back at M' simultaneously. The Observers
> > > measure the speed of light to be 'c' while at the same time the light
> > > waves have propagated at 'c' with respect to the aether.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>

From: mpalenik on 21 Feb 2010 20:09

On Feb 21, 8:01 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Feb, 23:10, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 4:57 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we were to extrapolate a trend from history, then physics has not
> > > yet given us a single equation which describes how the universe
> > > functions. It has given us some rules of thumb and some cumbersome
> > > approximations.
>
> > This just further illustrates that you don't understand how physics
> > actually works. The history of physics isn't a series of blunders
> > that we've thrown out as we get better and better equations, hampered
> > by our belief in the old equations. Rather, physics at just about
> > every point in time since the renaissance has been a journey from very
> > specific to more general rules--criteria by which any new physics must
> > be constrained.
>
> Rubbish.

Absolutely not rubbish. Thank you for showing your ignorance.

>
> > For example, Kepler, while not really a physicist per-se, devised
> > descriptions of the elliptical orbits that planets must follow.
>
> A description which in fact they don't follow, hence the need for GR.

As a matter of fact, the point here was that in a system where angular
momentum is conserved, on a conformally flat manifold, you will get
elliptical orbits.

The only reason GR affects the perihelion of mercury is because
spacetime is not flat near the sun. However, replace the sun with a
charged body, instead of a massive one, or move farther out from the
sun, and you have conserved angular momentum on a flat manifold--and
it reproduces Kelper's orbits.

If GR weren't capable of reproducing Kelper's orbits in some limit, it
would be wrong.

Thank you for ignoring the rest of my post where I explain this,
though.

From: mpalenik on 21 Feb 2010 20:12

On Feb 21, 8:01 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> > For example, Kepler, while not really a physicist per-se, devised
> > descriptions of the elliptical orbits that planets must follow.
>
> A description which in fact they don't follow, hence the need for GR.
>
> > Newton, then, discovered that this is a special case of the
> > conservation of angular momentum, which is a much more general
> > principle--however, conservation of angular momentum MUST be able to
> > reproduce the elliptical orbits of planets, or else it is wrong.
> > Kepler's rules constrained Newton's theories.
>
> > Special relativity then changed Newton's laws, a bit. The basic
> > principles, like F = dp/dt remained, but Special relativity says that
> > space and time must transform differently than they do in Newtonian
> > mechanics. However, Newtonian mechanics is still a special case of
> > special relativity--as the speed of an object approaches zero, the
> > laws begin to reproduce Newton's laws.
>
> In other words "Newtonian mechanics are valid, as long as nothing is
> moving". Which somewhat defeats the purpose of mechanics, which is to
> describe movement, no? I think you're rewriting history Mark.
>
No, you are completely misunderstanding this. It almost seems
deliberate.

SR must have Newtonian mechanics as a limiting case. That is, as
speed->0 SR must approach Newtonian mechanics. If SR approaches
something OTHER than newtonian mechanics when speed goes to zero, then
it is wrong.

But the equations of SR *DO* approach the equations of Newton when
speed goes to zero. This is not a tough concept.

> > Newton's laws, in this way,
> > constrain Special Relativity. Because if it did *NOT* reproduce
> > Newton's laws at low speeds, it would be wrong.
>
> > General relativity came along and it turns out that special relativity
> > only works as a limiting case of general relativity, specifically,
> > when there is no mass or energy present. As the amount of mass and
> > energy present goes to zero, general relativity reproduces special
> > relativity. If it could not do this, it would be wrong.
>
> In other words, SR is correct until it is applied to anything real.
> Again, given that science is supposed to describe reality...

No, the equations of GR approach the equations of SR as the stress
energy tensor goes to zero. If they approached some other set of
equations as the stress energy tensor went to zero, it would be wrong.

It is entirely possible that you could make a theory that *doesn't*
reproduce the equations of SR when the stress energy tensor goes to
zero. Such a theory would be wrong.

>
> > Any new physics must be able to reproduce the old physics in the
> > regimes in which it has been tested. Any new theory that cannot do so
> > is necessarily wrong because it has already been ruled out by
> > experiment.
>
> > There's no way to know whether at some higher energy or smaller
> > distance than we've observed the laws of physics actually are
> > different than what we believe. But even so, these new laws must
> > reduce to the old ones at lower energies and larger distances.
>
> I don't think there is any necessity that new laws encompass the old,
> so long as the new law is consistent with data.

The new law can't be consistant with the data without encompasing the
old. that's the whole point.

From: Ste on 21 Feb 2010 20:13

On 22 Feb, 00:47, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:42 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Feb, 22:28, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 4:57 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 21 Feb, 01:45, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not
> > > > > >> because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted
> > > > > >> correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In
> > > > > >> any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM
> > > > > >> amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any
> > > > > >> truth more fundamental than that.
>
> > > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > > >> The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the
> > > > > >> eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more
> > > > > >> truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy.
>
> > > > > >> Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you
> > > > > >> don't
> > > > > >> understand physics.
>
> > > > > > On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed
> > > > > > with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the
> > > > > > mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative
> > > > > > physical concepts - what I've referred to as an explanation at the
> > > > > > the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to
> > > > > > distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to
> > > > > > be systematically deprecated and devalued.
>
> > > > > You should look up, and learn, Minkowski space time. This gives a
> > > > > practical/mechanical explanation of SR that most physicists find very easy
> > > > > to use and understand. However even simple explanantions do involve high
> > > > > school mathematics. Like I said, it can only be "dumbed-down" so far.
>
> > > > Peter, will you please stop treating me as an idiot, as though I
> > > > somehow don't understand the nature of Minkowski spacetime.
>
> > > You don't. What makes it Minkowski spacetime? How do space and time
> > > behave under rotation in a way that is different from a rotation in
> > > non-Minkowskian spacetime? What shape is a curve made up of points
> > > equidistant from the origin? Why is it different from regular,
> > > euclidean space? What is it about a moving object that makes it look
> > > like it's rotated in a 4 dimensional, Minkowskian manifold?
>
> > I've no idea, but I know none of it has any connection with a
> > "practical-mechanical explanation".
>
> It actually does, you simply don't accept that reality works that
> way. What you want is an explanation that:
> 1) Physically describes what is happening
> and
> 2) conforms to your preconcieved notions about how reality works.
>
> 1) is possible but there does not and *cannot* exist an explanation
> that satisfies 2).

I think you overestimate the degree to which I have "preconceived
notions". The only substantial requirements of my "preconceptions" are
that a theory is philosophically realistic/materialistic, that it
works with the existing 4 dimensions, that it gives an observer- and
measurement-independent description, and that things relate in a
broadly mechanistic way (i.e. in a way that is broadly compatible with
classical mechanics).

From: mpc755 on 21 Feb 2010 20:15

On Feb 21, 2:01 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Feb, 18:51, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 12:43 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 11:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 21, 11:28 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > And if conducted in a laboratory in low earth orbit, with a relative speed
> > > > > > > of 25,000 kph relative to the ether - what will be the measured speed of
> > > > > > > light then?
>
> > > > > > The light will be 'measured' to be 'c'. If the Observers in the
> > > > > > laboratory in low Earth orbit know how they are moving with respect to
> > > > > > the aether they will be able to determine the speed of light to be 'c'
> > > > > > with respect to the aether.
>
> > > > > > ______________________________________
> > > > > > So, according to you, in every inertial reference frame, the measured speed
> > > > > > of light is "c", completely independent of how the observer is moving
> > > > > > relative to the ether?
>
> > > > > He is with good company on this point. Read the 1904 paper by
> > > > > Lorentz.
>
> > > > >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena
>
> > > > > "It is to be remarked that the formulae for a system without
> > > > > translation are implied in what precedes. For such a system the
> > > > > quantities with accents become identical to the corresponding ones
> > > > > without accents; also k=1 and l=1. The components of (27) are at the
> > > > > same time those of the electric force which is exerted by one
> > > > > polarized particle on another."
>
> > > > > Lorentz showed that the moving observer would measure the speed of
> > > > > light to be c in his own frame. Because of this there is no way to
> > > > > tell if you are at rest WRT the ether. But that doesn't prevent you
> > > > > from translating to the coordinates of another frame. If you just
> > > > > consider yourself to be at rest WRT the ether and work it out you get
> > > > > the same answer as you get by doing a two step translation from your
> > > > > frame to the ether to the other frame. Assuming you are at rest WRT
> > > > > the ether gives the same math as SR.
>
> > > > > Bruce
>
> > > > I think where I differ from Lorentz is in the 'ticking' rate of atomic
> > > > clocks. Two frames are moving relative to one another. I think Lorentz
> > > > is saying each Observer in a reference frame 'sees' the other
> > > > Observer's clock as 'ticking' slower than their own. This I disagree
> > > > with. The more at rest with respect to the aether an atomic clock is
> > > > the faster it 'ticks'. If the embankment is at rest with respect to
> > > > the aether and the train is moving with respect to the aether then the
> > > > clock on the embankment 'ticks' faster than the clock on the train.
>
> > > But you don't *know* that the embankment is at rest WRT the ether.
> > > All you really know is how their clock syncs relate to each other due
> > > to their relative motion.
>
> > Correct. But what about length contraction at speeds near 'c'. Won't
> > the train moving near 'c' with its shorter measuring rod measure the
> > train at rest with respect to the embankment to be longer and vice
> > verse? Where the train at rest with respect to the embankment and its
> > longer measuring rod to measure the train moving near 'c' with respect
> > to the aether to be shorter?
>
> Good point since they claim mutual time dilation and their is no
> prefered rest frame, how can they even claim that one object should be
> the contracted one....
>
> Well i asked them so many times, but their theory lack consistency
> most paradoxes and answers is just AdHoc speculation and lack total
> connection with reality. So i do not expect you to get an answer at
> that question.
>
> JT
>

That's where Aether Displacement is different. In Aether Displacement
everything is with respect to the aether. I discuss the frames of
reference as being more, or less, at rest with respect to the aether.

I also like Einstein's description of the aether as, "the state of the
[ether] is at every place determined by its connections to the matter
and the state of the ether in neighboring places".

Since the aether exists through out the Earth surrounding each nuclei
which is the matter which is the Earth, the aether at the surface of
the Earth is at rest, or almost at rest, with respect to the surface
of the Earth.

If the embankment is at rest with respect to the surface of the Earth
and the train is moving with respect to the embankment, the embankment
is more at rest with respect to the aether than the train is.

If the train is moving relative to the embankment then the frames of
reference are not equal because they both do not exist in the same
state with respect to the aether.

> > I still prefer Einstein's concept of "the state of the [ether] is at
> > every place determined by its connections with the matter and the
> > state of the ether in neighboring places" versus an 'absolutely
> > stationary space'.
>
> > The state of the aether's displacement is at every place determined by
> > its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in
> > neighboring places.
>
> > Since matter and aether are different states of the same material, the
> > aether is displaced by the matter. A moving C-60 molecule has an
> > associated aether displacement wave.
>
> > > > The Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train will
> > > > arrive at the same conclusion which is the clock on the embankment
> > > > 'ticks' faster than the clock on the train.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> > - Visa citerad text -
>
>