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 24 Feb 2010 09:33

On Feb 24, 3:48 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > How do you work out your speed "relative to the ether"? What makes you
> > > > think
> > > > it exists at all?
>
> > > What you can determine is your state, or approximate state, with
> > > respect to the aether.
>
> > > _________________________________
> > > How, exactly? How can you work out your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > The speed of one reference frame with respect to the aether can be
> > determined relative to another reference frame.
>
> > ______________________
> > How?
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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".
>
> > ________________________________
> > GPS satellites cannot be used to measure ether speed. Time dilation for
> > GPS
> > satellites is exactly as predicted by Relativity, which does not include a
> > component for ether speed. So if that is your test of ether theory, it
> > failed.
>
> Time is a concept. There is no such thing as spacetime. The rate at
> which atomic clocks tick is based on the aether pressure in which they
> exist. Thinking time actually changes is incorrect.
>
> If you dropped a clock with a paddle off of a boat and the deeper it
> was dropped into the ocean the slower it 'ticked', as determined by a
> clock on the boat, would you say time has changed or would you say the
> increase in hydrostatic pressure is causing the clock to 'tick'
> slower?
>
> > Can you describe a single experiment which you believe would show a
> > different result from SR if your theory was correct?
>
> ______________________________
> Short answer, no, you cannot name a single experiment where your theory is
> different to SR. You therefore believe that an 80 foot ladder can fit inside
> a 40 foot barn, and the twins "paradox". Welcome to reality.

If the ladder is less at rest with respect to the aether and the barn
is more at rest with respect to the aether, the ladder, if it is
traveling at close to 'c' and length contraction is physical, will fit
in the barn. If the barn is less at rest with respect to the aether
and the ladder is more at rest with respect to the aether, the ladder,
if it is traveling at close to 'c' and length contraction is physical,
will not fit in the barn.

Motion is not relative between frames of reference. Motion is with
respect to the aether.

If the spaceship is moving fast enough, the twin and the atomic clock
on the spaceship, will exist under more aether pressure than the twin
on the Earth. The atomic clock on the spaceship will 'tick' slower. It
is unknown if the additional aether pressure on the twin will cause
the twin to age less, or more. The rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'
has nothing to do with time. Even though the atomic clock on the
spaceship 'ticks' slower than a similar clock on the Earth and even
though there is additional aether pressure on the twin in the
spaceship, it is not known if the twin on the spaceship will age less,
and even if the twin on the spaceship ages less, it is not because
time has changed. Time does not change. Time is a concept.

From: Jerry on 24 Feb 2010 10:43

On Feb 24, 6:44 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> On 2/24/2010 3:19 AM, Androcles wrote:
> > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:0baac22d-ad06-4136-b1b2-d7144955080f(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 24, 12:31 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> You're acting like using a letter to refer to a velocity is something
> >> magic. It's not, it's just a shorthand.
>
> > The term "c" has multiple meanings.
>
> > There exists a demonstrable maximum possible speed of
> > communications, designated "c".
>
> Still just a shorthand--there's no specific, known value that c is
> compelled by theory to have.
>
> That's why "if the velocity of light is different from c" is
> meaningless. It's like saying "if your height was different from your
> height" or "if the population of New York was different from the
> population of New York".

You are still confused by the PUN that exists on the term "c".

Instead of saying
"if the velocity of light is different from c..."
you should rather say
"if the measured speed of photons is different from the measured
maximum possible speed of information transfer..."

These are two VERY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS which, since they have
unfortunately become rolled up into one term, are leading you
into semantic contortions.

Jerry

From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 10:59

On Feb 24, 3:48 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > How do you work out your speed "relative to the ether"? What makes you
> > > > think
> > > > it exists at all?
>
> > > What you can determine is your state, or approximate state, with
> > > respect to the aether.
>
> > > _________________________________
> > > How, exactly? How can you work out your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > The speed of one reference frame with respect to the aether can be
> > determined relative to another reference frame.
>
> > ______________________
> > How?
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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".
>
> > ________________________________
> > GPS satellites cannot be used to measure ether speed. Time dilation for
> > GPS
> > satellites is exactly as predicted by Relativity, which does not include a
> > component for ether speed. So if that is your test of ether theory, it
> > failed.
>
> Time is a concept. There is no such thing as spacetime. The rate at
> which atomic clocks tick is based on the aether pressure in which they
> exist. Thinking time actually changes is incorrect.
>
> If you dropped a clock with a paddle off of a boat and the deeper it
> was dropped into the ocean the slower it 'ticked', as determined by a
> clock on the boat, would you say time has changed or would you say the
> increase in hydrostatic pressure is causing the clock to 'tick'
> slower?
>
> > Can you describe a single experiment which you believe would show a
> > different result from SR if your theory was correct?
>
> ______________________________
> Short answer, no, you cannot name a single experiment where your theory is
> different to SR. You therefore believe that an 80 foot ladder can fit inside
> a 40 foot barn, and the twins "paradox". Welcome to reality.

If the ladder is less at rest with respect to the aether and the barn
is more at rest with respect to the aether, the ladder, if it is
traveling at close to 'c' with respect to the aether and length
contraction is physical, will fit in the barn. If the barn is less at
rest with respect to the aether and the ladder is more at rest with
respect to the aether, the ladder, if the barn is traveling at close
to 'c' with respect to the aether and length contraction is physical,
will not fit in the barn.

Motion is not relative between frames of reference. Motion is with
respect to the aether.

If the spaceship is moving fast enough, the twin and the atomic clock
on the spaceship, will exist under more aether pressure than the twin
on the Earth. The atomic clock on the spaceship will 'tick' slower. It
is unknown if the additional aether pressure on the twin will cause
the twin to age less, or more. The rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'
has nothing to do with time. Even though the atomic clock on the
spaceship 'ticks' slower than a similar clock on the Earth and even
though there is additional aether pressure on the twin in the
spaceship, it is not known if the twin on the spaceship will age less,
and even if the twin on the spaceship ages less, it is not because
time has changed. Time does not change. Time is a concept.

From: Androcles on 24 Feb 2010 11:01

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7eb767cf-4880-4ede-9a65-4e3f895ca755(a)g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 24, 6:44 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> You are still confused by the PUN that exists on the term "c".
>
> Instead of saying
> "if the velocity of light is different from c..."
> you should rather say
> "if the measured speed of photons is different from the measured
> maximum possible speed of information transfer..."
>
> These are two VERY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS which, since they have
> unfortunately become rolled up into one term, are leading you
> into semantic contortions.
>
===============================================
All speeds are relative, light is no exception; you two are creating puns
and are VERY DIFFERENT IDIOTS.

From: Paul Stowe on 24 Feb 2010 11:22

On Feb 24, 7:43 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 6:44 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/24/2010 3:19 AM, Androcles wrote:
> > > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >news:0baac22d-ad06-4136-b1b2-d7144955080f(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 24, 12:31 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >> You're acting like using a letter to refer to a velocity is something
> > >> magic. It's not, it's just a shorthand.
>
> > > The term "c" has multiple meanings.
>
> > > There exists a demonstrable maximum possible speed of
> > > communications, designated "c".
>
> > Still just a shorthand--there's no specific, known value that c is
> > compelled by theory to have.
>
> > That's why "if the velocity of light is different from c" is
> > meaningless. It's like saying "if your height was different from your
> > height" or "if the population of New York was different from the
> > population of New York".
>
> You are still confused by the PUN that exists on the term "c".
>
> Instead of saying
> "if the velocity of light is different from c..."
> you should rather say
> "if the measured speed of photons is different from the measured
> maximum possible speed of information transfer..."
>
> These are two VERY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS which, since they have
> unfortunately become rolled up into one term, are leading you
> into semantic contortions.
>
> Jerry

Indeed! There is a very big and distinct difference between saying
"the measured speed of light" (c) and "the speed of light". Logic
dictates that, if the measured speed of light is, actually, equal TO
the speed of light, AND! speed is additive (v' = v1 + v2), you must
have the ballistic model of c + v/c - v for any speed v > 0. If,
instead if c is independent of motion and invariant the any round trip
transit of light in a moving system 'actually' increases by g (1/
Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2)). Then, in turn, if these ray paths also increase
by this same factor the resultant is that the speed is measured as the
same. It's not, but the measurer's time and distances are dilated in
such a manner as to provide such an illusion. It is mathematically
equivalent to declare that light speed c in any moving frame changes,
(slows) relative to the observer by c/g... Couple this with the
observable CMBR and Doppler shifts relative to it, and you can
determine the absolute velocity and actual speed of light for any and
all systems in our universe. The resultant is just as physically
viable as SR.

Paul Stowe