Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Inertial on 13 Jun 2010 04:46 "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:4c149356$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > Inertial wrote: >> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >> news:4c147cfb$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> On 6/12/10 7:58 PM, Hayek wrote: >>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote: >>>>>>> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin >>>>>>> stays younger. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no absolute frames with special >>>>>> properties! >>>>>> >>>>> How does light now at what speed to travel ? >>>> >>>> Light doesn't make a choice-- >>> >>> Right, it does not have a choice. >> >> Well derrrr .. how can it make choices? It is light >> .. not a sentient being. >> >>>> it only exists propagating at the cosmic speed >>>> limit. >>> >>> And what makes "the cosmic speed limit" ? >> >> The way the universe is. Either there is no limit, >> or there is a finite limit. I suspect that if there >> were no limit. >> >>> The masses surrounding the photon. >> >> No .. the local speed of light is always the same at >> any point you choose. > > But if we compare loci, we see that there is a > difference, as in Shapiro delay. And then it turns out > that mass influences the speed of light. It is only > logical that the mass of the universe influences the > speed of light. No .. the speed is still c at every point. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay That does not disagree with what I said > Quote by Einstein > > "In the second place our result shows that, according to > the general theory of relativity, the law of the > constancy of the velocity of light in vacum, which > constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in > the special theory of relativity and to which we have > already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited > validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take > place when the velocity of propagation of light varies > with position. Now we might think that as a consequence > of this, the special theory of relativity and with it > the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the > dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only > conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot > claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold > only so long as we are able to disregard the influences > of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of > light)." � Albert Einstein (The General Theory of > Relativity: Chapter 22 � A Few Inferences from the > General Principle of Relativity) > UNQUOTE Not really relevant, but fine > Le me put it just another way : > > You agree that a clock runs faster on top of the hill > than in the valley. Yes it does. > Well, apply einstein : > My solution was really for the very concept of time, > that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there > is an inseparable connection between time and the > velocity of light. -- Albert Einstein. And that ensures that light is always c > So if the clock runs faster on top of the hill, then the > light speed is faster at the top of the hill, both seen > from the valley, of course. That is not local. I said the local speed of light is always c. That some observer elsewhere where time runs differently will measure a different speed for remote light is irrelevant. So again .. your argument is moot > And yet another way : > The Earth does a minute amount of frame dragging. > > But which frame gets dragged ? The frame of the > universe, being again in some way referential and > preferential. Nope. It can be useful (as can any frame that is relevant to a given analysis).
From: Hayek on 13 Jun 2010 05:02 Inertial wrote: > "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message > news:4c14822b$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >> Inertial wrote: >>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>> news:4c147c04$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>> Inertial wrote: >>>>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>>>> news:4c142d47$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote: >>>>>>>> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin stays >>>>>>>> younger. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are no absolute frames with special properties! >>>>>>> >>>>>> How does light now at what speed to travel ? >>>>> >>>>> Why does it need to 'know' anything .. it just does what it does. >>>> >>>> With the help of the absolute frame. >>> >>> A frame is just a point of view (and which doesn't ahve any special >>> properties, so does not 'exist' as such).. it cannot DO anything >>> >>>> Which is fairly well described in General Relativity, >>> >>> Nope .. you clearly don't understand GR or SR. Get an education first >> >> And you learned there that "it just does what it does" about the photon. > > You asked how it knows how to move that fast. It doesn't KNOW anything > .. it's a photon. Ask sensible questions. With Newton's Bucket the question is also asked, how does the water know that it is rotating. It is just a way of putting the problem. I wonder why you even consider that I would think that a photon is sentient. Uwe Hayek. > >> Nein danke. > > You get what you ask for I ask too much, like a sentient poster, maybe ? Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Hayek on 13 Jun 2010 05:26 Inertial wrote: > "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message > news:4c149356$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >> Inertial wrote: >>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>> news:4c147cfb$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/10 7:58 PM, Hayek wrote: >>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote: >>>>>>>> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin >>>>>>>> stays younger. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are no absolute frames with special >>>>>>> properties! >>>>>>> >>>>>> How does light now at what speed to travel ? >>>>> >>>>> Light doesn't make a choice-- >>>> >>>> Right, it does not have a choice. >>> >>> Well derrrr .. how can it make choices? It is light >>> .. not a sentient being. >>> >>>>> it only exists propagating at the cosmic speed >>>>> limit. >>>> >>>> And what makes "the cosmic speed limit" ? >>> >>> The way the universe is. Either there is no limit, >>> or there is a finite limit. I suspect that if there >>> were no limit. >>> >>>> The masses surrounding the photon. >>> >>> No .. the local speed of light is always the same at >>> any point you choose. >> >> But if we compare loci, we see that there is a >> difference, as in Shapiro delay. And then it turns out >> that mass influences the speed of light. It is only >> logical that the mass of the universe influences the >> speed of light. > > No .. the speed is still c at every point. Loci is the plural of locus, thus we compare points. We look from one frame to another. > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay > > That does not disagree with what I said > >> Quote by Einstein >> >> "In the second place our result shows that, according to >> the general theory of relativity, the law of the >> constancy of the velocity of light in vacum, which >> constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in >> the special theory of relativity and to which we have >> already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited >> validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take >> place when the velocity of propagation of light varies >> with position. Now we might think that as a consequence >> of this, the special theory of relativity and with it >> the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the >> dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only >> conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot >> claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold >> only so long as we are able to disregard the influences >> of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of >> light)." � Albert Einstein (The General Theory of >> Relativity: Chapter 22 � A Few Inferences from the >> General Principle of Relativity) >> UNQUOTE > > Not really relevant, but fine Let me take out the very relevant part : "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuum, [..]cannot claim any unlimited validity" > >> Le me put it just another way : >> >> You agree that a clock runs faster on top of the hill >> than in the valley. > > Yes it does. > >> Well, apply einstein : >> My solution was really for the very concept of time, >> that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there >> is an inseparable connection between time and the >> velocity of light. -- Albert Einstein. > > And that ensures that light is always c You forgot to say "local", this time. >> So if the clock runs faster on top of the hill, then the >> light speed is faster at the top of the hill, both seen >> from the valley, of course. > > That is not local. You keep yelling "local, local" I keep saying "compare frames, compare frames, not local, not local" Try to see the complete picture. > I said the local speed of light is always c. You forgot it once. > That > some observer elsewhere where time runs differently will measure a > different speed for remote light is irrelevant. Time and the speed of light are linked. They are both controlled by the mass distribution around the test point. Uwe Hayek. > So again .. your argument is moot > >> And yet another way : >> The Earth does a minute amount of frame dragging. >> >> But which frame gets dragged ? The frame of the >> universe, being again in some way referential and >> preferential. > > Nope. It can be useful (as can any frame that is relevant to a given > analysis). > > -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Inertial on 13 Jun 2010 05:43 "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:4c149eae$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > Inertial wrote: >> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >> news:4c14822b$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>> Inertial wrote: >>>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>>> news:4c147c04$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>>> Inertial wrote: >>>>>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>>>>> news:4c142d47$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote: >>>>>>>>> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin stays >>>>>>>>> younger. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are no absolute frames with special properties! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> How does light now at what speed to travel ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Why does it need to 'know' anything .. it just does what it does. >>>>> >>>>> With the help of the absolute frame. >>>> >>>> A frame is just a point of view (and which doesn't ahve any special >>>> properties, so does not 'exist' as such).. it cannot DO anything >>>> >>>>> Which is fairly well described in General Relativity, >>>> >>>> Nope .. you clearly don't understand GR or SR. Get an education first >>> >>> And you learned there that "it just does what it does" about the photon. >> >> You asked how it knows how to move that fast. It doesn't KNOW anything >> .. it's a photon. Ask sensible questions. > > With Newton's Bucket the question is also asked, how does the water know > that it is rotating. It is just a way of putting the problem. > > I wonder why you even consider that I would think that a photon is > sentient. From the silly question you asked .. that somehow it is up to the photon to know how fast it is going or that it has any 'choice' in that. Changes in electric and magnetic fields propagate as fast as the universe allows that information to be propagated. AS information cannot instantly cross from one side of the universe to the other .. that it takes finite time .. means that light speed is finite.
From: Hayek on 13 Jun 2010 05:56
Inertial wrote: > "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message > news:4c149eae$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >> Inertial wrote: >>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>> news:4c14822b$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>> Inertial wrote: >>>>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>>>> news:4c147c04$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>>>> Inertial wrote: >>>>>>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:4c142d47$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote: >>>>>>>>>> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin stays >>>>>>>>>> younger. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are no absolute frames with special properties! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How does light now at what speed to travel ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why does it need to 'know' anything .. it just does what it does. >>>>>> >>>>>> With the help of the absolute frame. >>>>> >>>>> A frame is just a point of view (and which doesn't ahve any special >>>>> properties, so does not 'exist' as such).. it cannot DO anything >>>>> >>>>>> Which is fairly well described in General Relativity, >>>>> >>>>> Nope .. you clearly don't understand GR or SR. Get an education first >>>> >>>> And you learned there that "it just does what it does" about the >>>> photon. >>> >>> You asked how it knows how to move that fast. It doesn't KNOW >>> anything .. it's a photon. Ask sensible questions. >> >> With Newton's Bucket the question is also asked, how does the water >> know that it is rotating. It is just a way of putting the problem. >> >> I wonder why you even consider that I would think that a photon is >> sentient. > > From the silly question you asked .. that somehow it is up to the > photon to know how fast it is going or that it has any 'choice' in that. It is just silly that you took it literally. And then even continued to take it literally. > > Changes in electric and magnetic fields propagate as fast as the > universe allows that information to be propagated. AS information > cannot instantly cross from one side of the universe to the other .. > that it takes finite time .. means that light speed is finite. And General Relativity tells you that the masses of the universe set this speed. If only you would open your eyes, in stead of blaming your discussion partners that they have silly ideas about sentient photons. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill. |