Prev: What's your guys' take on Moving Dimensions Theory? Vs. String Theory / LQG?
Next: Oldest Object In Universe - Massive Star Exploding - Indicates Big Bang Not Its Origin
From: kenseto on 2 Nov 2009 09:58
On Nov 1, 6:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:04a251eb-18ca-4ad9-a9e5-38f15571c6a6(a)p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 3:43 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 31 Okt., 19:01, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 30, 4:53 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> > > That is plainly an aether concept.
>
> >> > No....SR claims that EVERY OBSERVER will measure the speed of light to
> >> > be istropic. LET claims that only the ether observer will measure the
> >> > speed of light to be isotropic.
>
> >> False. LET claims that our rulers and clocks are distorted in such
> >> a way that, despite the fact that true light speed would be
> >> anisotropic,
> >> the light speed as measured with the distorted rulers and clocks
> >> appears isotropic.
>
> > Question:
> > Does the ruler contracts differently when it is not oriented in the
> > direction of absolute motion?
>
> How do you mean differently?  The compression is only in the direction of
> absolute motion in LET.  There is no compression in the directions
> orthogonal to the motion.

That's the point: if compression is only in the direction of absolute
motion then how can the speed of light is isotropic in all
directions???

Ken Seto

>
> > If the answer is yes then it can not
> > give isotropy of the speed of light.
>
> It does.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 2 Nov 2009 10:10
On Nov 2, 3:21 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 1 Nov., 20:51, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 3:43 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > False. LET claims that our rulers and clocks are distorted in such
> > > a way that, despite the fact that true light speed would be
> > > anisotropic,
> > > the light speed as measured with the distorted rulers and clocks
> > > appears isotropic.
>
> > Question:
> > Does the ruler contracts differently when it is not oriented in the
> > direction of absolute motion? If the answer is yes then it can not
> > give isotropy of the speed of light.
>
> They contract only in the direction of absolute motion. In the
> directions
> orthogonal to absolute motion there is no Lorentz contraction.
>
> And it can give isotropy - but of course only if combined with
> time dilation and the Einstein synchronization procedure.

This is wrong....you cannot have isotropy of the speed of light if
contraction is only happened in the direction of absolute motion. This
means that your assertion that LET says that the speed of light is
isotropic in all inertial frame is also wrong. So that means that what
I claimed originally that LET says that the speed of light is
isotropic only in the rest frame of the ether is correct.

From: rotchm on 2 Nov 2009 10:17
On Nov 2, 1:14 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> Closing speed doesn't exist in anything but SR.


??

Strange... the notion of closing speed appears in highschool
kinematics, galilean relativity etc... You were never introduced to
closing speed before SR? No wonder why you fear the expression so
much. CLOSING SPEED ... Booh! Haha, that made you jump didnt it?

Closing speed is the difference in speed between two entities, as
measured by a chosen observer.

That defintion is independent of, and thus applies to: SR, Gal. R,
Newton...

WhoaH... A new defintion for wilson... you are going to have
nightmares tonight!
From: PD on 2 Nov 2009 11:03
On Nov 2, 8:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 3:33 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:f84fcdc0-c756-4908-b6f9-d671a037f14c(a)d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > On Nov 1, 4:08 am, "Inertial" wrote:
>
> > > <  LET says all distances compress,
> > > but how is that any different to space contracting .. can space truly
> > > be said to be not-compressed when every length IS?  Similarly, does it
> > > make sense to say time is unaffected when every process is slowed? >
>
> > >  In STR's LTE, distances don't compress;  moving lengths contract in
> > > their direction of motion in empty space.
>
> > And the distances between thing get shorter.
>
> > > As defined by Einstein and
> > > as used in str equations, "time" is the indications of the hands of a
> > > clock. If clock A runs slower than clock B, its time runs slower
> > > accordingly.
>
> > And similarly space gets contracted
>
> > > < Is there really any difference between the two .. in any tangible
> > > measureable sense? >
>
> > > In physics, nobody knows nor asks about "reality".
>
> > >> Other than the aether notion raising even more unanswered questions. >
>
> > > Ask, and I will answer any such question you pose.
>
> > How does the aether cause ALL objects to compress,
>
> It doen't. The physical length of an object remains the same in all
> frames of reference.

Assertion is not an argument.

>
> > all types of fields to
> > compress .. everything to compress.  
>
> Fields are stresses in the ether and stress in the ether is caused by
> the absolute motion of an object in the ether.

Assertion is not an argument.

>
> >How does the aether cause all types of
> > processes to slow down by exactly the same amount?  
>
> It doesn't....nothing is slowdown according to absolute time. The
> observed time dilation is due to a clock second contains a different
> amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of
> absolute motion).

Assertion is not an argument.

>
> >How can the aether
> > behave like a perfect solid and yet allow matter to move through it totally
> > unimpeded by it?
>
> Matter particles are repulsive to the aether and thus they maintain
> their motion without dlowing down.

This doesn't work in any other medium. Do you know why?

>
> > What it the aether made of and what is its physucal
> > properties?
>
> Hey idiot it is made of the ether.
>
> > How large is the arther?  
>
> Stupid question.
>
> Ken Seto

From: rotchm on 2 Nov 2009 15:39

> I'm not disputing that this is the SR view. SR effectively says that every
> observer possesses an 'absolute aether'

Dont play with the meaining of words... you will get confused and
confuse others. The term 'eather' has many different meainings.

The correct phrasing is... SR effectively says that every
observer possesses a frame...his rest frame.

> Anything that moves wrt his frame experiences a Lorentz type contraction.

Yes, that is one of the implications of SR.


> However, in SR these contractions are not physical.

Wrong. They are physical just as much they are not physical. It
depends on the *defintion* of 'physical'. Good SR descriptions do not
use the word 'physical' in that context.

> They are purely observational.

Correct. If you measure quantities the way SR prescribes ( defines)
it, SR algebra will predict the value you will obtain.

What we observe is the only quantities we can observe !



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: What's your guys' take on Moving Dimensions Theory? Vs. String Theory / LQG?
Next: Oldest Object In Universe - Massive Star Exploding - Indicates Big Bang Not Its Origin