Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Jul 2010 09:53 On 7/25/10 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Jul 24, 9:49 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The speed of light, a fundamental constant of the universe, does not >> need any human originated units to exist. It is a constant, Seto! All >> observer measure is speed the same, c! > > Hey idiot....how can the speed of light be a fundamental constant when > the clock second use to measure light speed is not a universal > interval of time??....for example the passage of a clcok second in A's > frame corresponds to the passage of 1/gamma second in B's frame. > So wormy the speed of light is a defined contant ratio of > (1 light-second/1 second). > > Ken Seto The speed of light, as far as science can tell, is a fundamental physical constant of the universe--independent of how we measure or define it, Seto. Do I need to repeat: The speed of light is a fundamental physical constant of the universe--independent of how we measure or define it. Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Increased_accuracy_and_redefinition_of_the_metre
From: Edward Green on 25 Jul 2010 10:05 On Jul 24, 11:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: <...> > >No....the speed of light in the aether is c. > > Well, since the speed of light in a vacuum is c, we must conclude that > what you call "aether" is really the vacuum, therefore you are stating the > aether doesn't exist. Mary wears a blue dress. Since Sally wears a blue dress, we must conclude that Mary is really Sally, and Mary doesn't exist. Hmm... that's logical syllogism for you. :^} <...>
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Jul 2010 12:25 On 7/25/10 8:42 AM, JT wrote: > On 25 Juli, 15:40, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/25/10 6:21 AM, JT wrote: >> >> >> >>> ... if there really is any such creature like time dilation by Lorentz gamma >>> factor which is highly suspectfull. >> >> Time dilation measurement are made in supernovae explosions, in >> cosmic ray muons, etc. Do you not read the literature, JT? >> >> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > Bwahahahaha you are funny Sam. > > JT Glad you find verification of time dilation so funny, JT! Enjoy your ignorance.
From: JT on 25 Jul 2010 14:31 On 25 Juli, 18:25, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/25/10 8:42 AM, JT wrote: > > > > > > > On 25 Juli, 15:40, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/25/10 6:21 AM, JT wrote: > > >>> ... if there really is any such creature like time dilation by Lorentz gamma > >>> factor which is highly suspectfull. > > >> Time dilation measurement are made in supernovae explosions, in > >> cosmic ray muons, etc. Do you not read the literature, JT? > > >> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > Bwahahahaha you are funny Sam. > > > JT > > Glad you find verification of time dilation so funny, JT! Enjoy your > ignorance. Well if you measure it with a banana i guess you measured banana units. JT
From: Michael Moroney on 25 Jul 2010 22:25
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 24, 11:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >> Sounds like a pretty useless concept, because light always moves at c >> >> relative to all observers. >> >No....the speed of light in the aether is c. >> >> Well, since the speed of light in a vacuum is c, we must conclude that >> what you call "aether" is really the vacuum, therefore you are stating the >> aether doesn't exist. I'll add "aether" to the list of words you've >> redefined. >Uou are an idiot....the aether occupies all of space (vacuum). Well, if you want to claim that something that is not detectable and has absolutely no effects on ordinary matter or energy is there, you are free to say so of course, just as I am free to claim the room I am in is full of invisible pink elephants that nobody can see, hear or otherwise detect. But we know what Occam's Razor has to say about things like that. Einstein, too, when he stated his work would not involve the lumiferous aether. >>> The relativevelocity of an object wrt light is c-/+V_a >> >> Nope, all observers always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c. >> This is a fundamental basis of physics, and has been measured to high >> accuracy for years. >Hey idiot the one-way speed of light never been measured. The reason >is that it involves the relativity of simultaneity, or in other words, the synchronization of two separated clocks requires two-way lightspeed communication between them. >> So, in order for your statement to be true, we can only conclude the >> variable you call V_a must always be zero, therefore the "absolute motion" >> of all objects is zero, so "absolute motion" is a meaningless term. >No idiot....frequency shift between the source and the detector is >indication of difference in absolute motion between the source and the >detector. The wavelength of a frequency shifted photon changes in inverse proportion to its frequency, so its speed (frequency * wavelength) is *still* c. For example, a photon with a 600 GHz frequency when emitted by a star whose redshift from Earth is so large that it has a 300 GHz frequency upon arrival on Earth, will have a wavelength of about 0.5 mm upon emission. Upon arrival on earth it will have a wavelength of about 1.0 mm. Guess what. At both the source and the Earth, its speed is the frequency * wavelength, and in both cases it's c! So once again, since the speed of the unshifted photon is c, and the speed of the frequency shifted photon is c, the difference is always 0, so what you call "absolute motion" is always 0. Since the V_a term is always zero, your "absolute motion" concept, which must always be zero, is a pretty useless concept. >> In fact the reason why the meter has been redefined in terms of c is >> because of the fact that c is a fundamental constant of the universe, like >> h, or G, or alpha or several others. >No the speed of light is defined to be c to fix SR. Nope, it was *always* measured to be c, before the redefinition. The redefinition makes perfect sense, why make the definition of a fundamental dimension of physics (length) in terms of some physical property or other, when you can define it *more accurately* in terms of another fundamental dimension of physics (time) and a universal constant (speed of light)? |