Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Sam Wormley on 29 Mar 2005 09:50 kenseto wrote: > > Hey idiot runt....the experiment as outlined in my link has not been > performed. So where is the experimental results that contradicted my > theory?? > http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
From: Tom Roberts on 29 Mar 2005 10:00 kenseto wrote: > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message > news:d293gr$1au(a)netnews.proxy.lucent.com... >>It is not mathematically possible for OWLS to be isotropic and have a >>value different from TWLS, which is known to be c for any >>locally-inertial measurement (including numerous highly-accurate >>laboratory measurements). > > For a specific distance of separation between the two synchronized clocks > OWLS can be measured to be the same in all directions (isotropic). However, > the value of OWLS is not c because of the absolute motion of the distant > clock is in the vertical direction. I rigidly nailed both clocks to the surface of the earth, so there is no vertical motion of either clock, "absolute" or otherwise (and I wait until there is no earthquake (:-)). > This causes the first portion of the > light ray to miss the detector All of the light rays hit the detector. I aimed them so this is true. Tom Roberts tjroberts(a)lucent.com
From: kenseto on 29 Mar 2005 10:27 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message news:d2bqi2$fns(a)netnews.proxy.lucent.com... > kenseto wrote: > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts(a)lucent.com> wrote in message > > news:d293gr$1au(a)netnews.proxy.lucent.com... > >>It is not mathematically possible for OWLS to be isotropic and have a > >>value different from TWLS, which is known to be c for any > >>locally-inertial measurement (including numerous highly-accurate > >>laboratory measurements). > > > > For a specific distance of separation between the two synchronized clocks > > OWLS can be measured to be the same in all directions (isotropic). However, > > the value of OWLS is not c because of the absolute motion of the distant > > clock is in the vertical direction. > > I rigidly nailed both clocks to the surface of the earth, so there is no > vertical motion of either clock, "absolute" or otherwise (and I wait > until there is no earthquake (:-)). Sigh....absolute motion is that motion of the distant clock in the vertical direction wrt the defined horizontal light ray. The observed gravitational red shift in the vertical direction is due to absolute motion in the vertical direction. > > > > This causes the first portion of the > > light ray to miss the detector > > All of the light rays hit the detector. I aimed them so this is true. Your assertion would mean that the leading edge of the light ray (the first photon in a train of photons) will hit the detector. This assertion will violate the Uncertainty Principle. > Ken Seto
From: PD on 29 Mar 2005 12:23 kenseto wrote: > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1112032615.040480.171680(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:1111679730.124029.134510(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:1111603845.657565.9240(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > "The Ghost In The Machine" > > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> > > > > wrote > > > > > > in > > > > > > > message news:q887h2-gbu.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net... > > > > > > > > In sci.physics, kenseto > > > > > > > > <kenseto(a)erinet.com> > > > > > > > > wrote > > > > > > > > on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:31:56 GMT > > > > > > > > <w%V%d.6496$rL3.4855(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "robert j. kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > news:3aamtkF6bbkreU2(a)individual.net... > > > > > > Sigh....All objects are observed to be moving wrt us and the universe > > is > > > observed to be in a state of accelerated expansion. Therefore all > > objects in > > > the universe are in a state of moving. > > > > Oh, come on. My coffee cup is not moving with respect to the table. > > But you can't use the table as reference for absolute motion (motion in > space). The table is in a state of absolute motion in space. Therefore your > coffee cup is also in a state of absolute motion in space. And you know this *how*? I am pointing out to you that it is easy to establish whether two objects are in relative motion, but I have no idea how you establish whether any single object is in absolute motion. What is your test for establishing that, other than saying "it just is"? > > >And > > just because the *center* of the next galaxy happens to be moving with > > respect to the *center* of this galaxy does not mean that every star in > > that galaxy is moving with respect to our sun. > > You keep on using other objects as reference for absolute motion. This is > bogus. Absolute motion is not wrt any visible object. Then what IS absolute motion with respect to? If you say the E-matrix, then how do you KNOW that every visible object is in motion with respect to it? > > >I'll give you a simple > > example. I'm driving along a road at 20 mph and I throw my Mickey-D's > > French Fry wrapper backwards out the window at 20 mph. Is the wrapper > > moving or not, and with respect to what? > > Both you and the wrapper are in the same state of absolute motion before you > throw it. After you throw it (apply a force to it) the wrapper will have a > different state of absolute motion than you. Those are relative statements, note -- same state of motion, different state of motion. You keep using other objects as reference for absolute motion. This is bogus. (Quoting you, note.) What is the absolute motion of the wrapper? > > > > I'll give you another example. Suppose I look at the relative motion of > > all the dots painted onto a balloon that is inflating. But the balloon > > is also resting on the table, and one of the painted dots is precisely > > at the point of contact between the table and the inflating balloon. > > Note that, as the balloon inflates, ALL of the dots are in a state of > > relative motion, including the one at the point of contact. But if the > > table defined zero velocity, there is one dot that is not moving, even > > though it has the same relative motion status as all the other dots on > > the balloon. > > Sigh....same example as above. You use the table as reference for absolute > motion. This is a bogus assumption. The table is also in a state of absolute > motion. Yeah, but suppose that there is one object in the universe that has zero absolute motion. > > > > It is simply NOT an empirical fact that everything is moving relative > > to everything else, and it is also thus an improper conclusion from > > that that everything is in a state of *absolute* motion. > > It is an emperical fact that everything is in a state of absolute motion. Reference please. The only empirical fact we have is that all objects are in a state of relative motion. > Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of > their vector components along the line joining A and B. > > > > [Punchline: I'm not arguing with you that everything is in a state of > > motion. > > Yes you are. > > >For every object, one can choose an inertial frame where that > > object is in motion, and since all inertial frames are physically > > equivalent, there is no object that can be said to be absolutely at > > rest. > > Precisely....every objerct in the universe is in a state of absolute motion. > > >However, is it your improper logical jump that everything is > > therefore absolutely in motion. Rather, the proper statement is that > > there is *no such thing* as absolute motion or absolute rest. > > Sigh...if there is no absolute rest that means that all objects are in a > state of absolute motion. Nope, it's not one or the other. Absolute rest is an ill-defined concept. > > It is > > simply not the case that every object in the universe MUST be logically > > categorizable as absolutely at rest or absolutely in motion. Your > > logical misstep is based on this presupposition, which is in fact > > wrong.] > > > > > > > > > > > Observed relative motion for two objects A and B is the vector > > > > > components difference of the vector component of A's absolute > > motion > > > > and the > > > > > vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A > > and > > > > B. > > > > > > > > > > >If it were, you would > > > > > > be able to rank objects in the universe according to their > > absolute > > > > > > motion, and you would be able to calculate or measure the > > absolute > > > > > > velocity of the Earth. > > > > > > > > > > No ....you would not be able to do that. > > > > > > > > Why not? Suppose I determine the absolute velocity of the Earth > > using > > > > your experiment below, and I measure the relative velocity of any > > > > object with respect to the Earth using YOUR algorithm (and I > > quote): > > > > "Observed relative motion for two objects A and B is the vector > > > > components difference of the vector component of A's absolute > > motion > > > > and the vector component of B's absolute motion along the line > > joining > > > > A and B." > > > > Now I algebraically solve for the absolute motion of that object. > > Now I > > > > repeat for other objects, and in the process, rank them by their > > > > absolute motion. Why can I not do this? > > > > > > You can determine the vector component of B's absolute motion this > > way. But > > > you would not know the true magnitude of B's absolute motion. > > > > > > > OK, and here is where your computational weakness is showing through. > > First of all, your definition of observed relative motion is incorrect. > > If I have a passenger on Train A and a passenger on Train B, and the > > two trains are going in opposite directions at 45 mph each on adjacent > > tracks. At the moment where the two passengers are directly across from > > each other (at their point of closest approach), their relative > > velocity with respect to each other is 90 mph. However, the component > > of their relative velocity along the line joining them is zero. > > There are other problems as well, but let's take it one error at a > > time. > > Sigh...you are using relative velocity as absolute motion!!! Relative > velocity is the vector difference of their absolute motions along the line > joining the two trains. Nope, I'm not! because that 45 mph statistic is with respect to the tracks, which themselves are in motion with respect to the sun-earth line, for example. Note that that 45 mph could have been with respect to an observer rolling along at 15 mph, so that the trains would be going 60 mph and 30 mph with respect to the track rails (I did not specify in the original statement -- you assumed it). Nothing in the above statement would change. PD
From: kenseto on 29 Mar 2005 14:21
"PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1112117006.535615.94190(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > kenseto wrote: > > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1112032615.040480.171680(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1111679730.124029.134510(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > > news:1111603845.657565.9240(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > "The Ghost In The Machine" > > > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> > > > > > wrote > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > message > news:q887h2-gbu.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net... > > > > > > > > > In sci.physics, kenseto > > > > > > > > > <kenseto(a)erinet.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote > > > > > > > > > on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:31:56 GMT > > > > > > > > > <w%V%d.6496$rL3.4855(a)fe2.columbus.rr.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "robert j. kolker" <nowhere(a)nowhere.net> wrote in > message > > > > > > > > > > news:3aamtkF6bbkreU2(a)individual.net... > > > > > > > > Sigh....All objects are observed to be moving wrt us and the > universe > > > is > > > > observed to be in a state of accelerated expansion. Therefore all > > > objects in > > > > the universe are in a state of moving. > > > > > > Oh, come on. My coffee cup is not moving with respect to the table. > > > > But you can't use the table as reference for absolute motion (motion > in > > space). The table is in a state of absolute motion in space. > Therefore your > > coffee cup is also in a state of absolute motion in space. > > And you know this *how*? I am pointing out to you that it is easy to > establish whether two objects are in relative motion, but I have no > idea how you establish whether any single object is in absolute motion. > What is your test for establishing that, other than saying "it just > is"? You need to do the experiment described in the following link to establish the existence of absolute motion (page 3). http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf > > > > > >And > > > just because the *center* of the next galaxy happens to be moving > with > > > respect to the *center* of this galaxy does not mean that every > star in > > > that galaxy is moving with respect to our sun. > > > > You keep on using other objects as reference for absolute motion. > This is > > bogus. Absolute motion is not wrt any visible object. > > Then what IS absolute motion with respect to? If you say the E-matrix, > then how do you KNOW that every visible object is in motion with > respect to it? Motion of an object in the E-Matrix is absolute motion. I know that every object is in a state of absolute motion because no object is in a state of absolute rest. Absolute motion will affect the rate of a clock and the light path length of a rod. That's the reason for the observed time dilation and rod contraction. > > > > > >I'll give you a simple > > > example. I'm driving along a road at 20 mph and I throw my > Mickey-D's > > > French Fry wrapper backwards out the window at 20 mph. Is the > wrapper > > > moving or not, and with respect to what? > > > > Both you and the wrapper are in the same state of absolute motion > before you > > throw it. After you throw it (apply a force to it) the wrapper will > have a > > different state of absolute motion than you. > > Those are relative statements, note -- same state of motion, different > state of motion. You keep using other objects as reference for absolute > motion. This is bogus. (Quoting you, note.) What is the absolute motion > of the wrapper? Sigh....you have to do experiment in the rest frame of the wrapper to determine its absolute motion. Any object in your rest frame will have the same state of absolute motion as you. I really don't know what is your problem with that statement. > > > > > > > I'll give you another example. Suppose I look at the relative > motion of > > > all the dots painted onto a balloon that is inflating. But the > balloon > > > is also resting on the table, and one of the painted dots is > precisely > > > at the point of contact between the table and the inflating > balloon. > > > Note that, as the balloon inflates, ALL of the dots are in a state > of > > > relative motion, including the one at the point of contact. But if > the > > > table defined zero velocity, there is one dot that is not moving, > even > > > though it has the same relative motion status as all the other dots > on > > > the balloon. > > > > Sigh....same example as above. You use the table as reference for > absolute > > motion. This is a bogus assumption. The table is also in a state of > absolute > > motion. > > Yeah, but suppose that there is one object in the universe that has > zero absolute motion. So?? > > > > > > > It is simply NOT an empirical fact that everything is moving > relative > > > to everything else, and it is also thus an improper conclusion from > > > that that everything is in a state of *absolute* motion. > > > > It is an emperical fact that everything is in a state of absolute > motion. > > Reference please. The only empirical fact we have is that all objects > are in a state of relative motion. And relative motion between two objects is the vector difference of the vector components their absolute motions along the line joining them. > > > Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference > of > > their vector components along the line joining A and B. > > > > > > [Punchline: I'm not arguing with you that everything is in a state > of > > > motion. > > > > Yes you are. > > > > >For every object, one can choose an inertial frame where that > > > object is in motion, and since all inertial frames are physically > > > equivalent, there is no object that can be said to be absolutely at > > > rest. > > > > Precisely....every objerct in the universe is in a state of absolute > motion. > > > > >However, is it your improper logical jump that everything is > > > therefore absolutely in motion. Rather, the proper statement is > that > > > there is *no such thing* as absolute motion or absolute rest. > > > > Sigh...if there is no absolute rest that means that all objects are > in a > > state of absolute motion. > > Nope, it's not one or the other. Absolute rest is an ill-defined > concept. It is only an ill-defined concept for a naive SR religious nut like you. > > > > > It is > > > OK, and here is where your computational weakness is showing > through. > > > First of all, your definition of observed relative motion is > incorrect. > > > If I have a passenger on Train A and a passenger on Train B, and > the > > > two trains are going in opposite directions at 45 mph each on > adjacent > > > tracks. At the moment where the two passengers are directly across > from > > > each other (at their point of closest approach), their relative > > > velocity with respect to each other is 90 mph. However, the > component > > > of their relative velocity along the line joining them is zero. > > > There are other problems as well, but let's take it one error at a > > > time. > > > > Sigh...you are using relative velocity as absolute motion!!! Relative > > velocity is the vector difference of their absolute motions along the > line > > joining the two trains. > > Nope, I'm not! because that 45 mph statistic is with respect to the > tracks, Yes you are. You assumed that the track is in a state of absolute rest and thus the 45 mph is absolute motion. The track is itself in a different state of absolute motion than the trains and the treains are also in different state of absolute motions. >which themselves are in motion with respect to the sun-earth > line, for example. Note that that 45 mph could have been with respect > to an observer rolling along at 15 mph, so that the trains would be > going 60 mph and 30 mph with respect to the track rails (I did not > specify in the original statement -- you assumed it). Nothing in the > above statement would change. You are hopeless. You keep on using observed relative motion as reference for absolute motion. Ken Seto |