An Embarrassing Question for Relativists
in [Relativity]
|
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: Inertial on 1 Nov 2009 18:47 "kenseto" <kenseto(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. > If the answer is yes then it can not > give isotropy of the speed of light. It does.
From: Inertial on 1 Nov 2009 18:56 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:s2tre5hknhdd6573o4qshktpnoemlctam5(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 07:35:09 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> > wrote: > >>On Oct 31, 3:43 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On Oct 31, 2:26 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >>> >> Funny! that sounds just like Netonian definition of speed. >>> >>> >That's how it's defined. Now, you will notice that this closing speed >>> >does not correspond to a *measurable* quantity. The *measured* >>> >relative speed between those two bodies is the measurement done by one >>> >of the bodies. And in that case you find that the measured value does >>> >not match the numerical difference found in the closing speed. This is >>> >where the break with Newtonian physics happens. >>> >>> OK let's get this straight. >>> >>> We know that the true closing speed of S1's light on O1 is c.... because >>> the >>> two are MAR. >>> There is a theory called SR that says that closing speed is c-v to an >>> observer, >>> O3, who is moving wrt S1. >> >>The closing speed between any object and light is c as measured in the >>object's frame of reference. If an observer sends a light pulse toward >>an object then the closing speed between that light pulse and the >>object is c+v or c-v. > > I assume the object is moving at v wrt the absolute aether. There is no absolute aether in SR. What theory is it you are misunderstanding this time? > In that case, you will argue that the object's rods and clocks are > contracted > such that they will always MEASURE OWLS to be c...so your first statement > is > correct in aether theories... In LET .. yes. Most other aether theories are already refuted > The second statement says that the closing speed is independent of source > speed > and so the closing speed is just the sum of c and the object's absolute > speed > wrt the aether. No .. the sum of c and the object's speed relative to the observer > So you have correctly stated the aether theory case. > > LET is such a nice theory. What a pity there is no aether. > > There IS one thing that worries me. Ie you don't understand. I think your estimate of 'one' is a little low > S.......................................-v<-O1.............O2->v > > Here, source S is at rest in the absolute aether. So we are talking about LET rather that SR now? > O1 and O2 are moving at v in > opposite directions relative to the aether. OK > How can they both measure the speed of light from S to be always c when > its > closing speeds are c+v and c-v and their rods and clocks contract by the > same > amount according to the LTs? Due to the compressing of objects and fields and the slowing of all processes that happens as a result of motion through the aether. That also results in clocks the appear synchronised to observers moving with them actually NOT being synchronised. As with SR .. you need to consider all three things .. the contraction/compression, the time dilation/slowing, and the change in clock synchronization. If you consider only one or two in isolation you get contradictions .. you need to consider all three as that is what both SR and LET require. Gees .. that's pretty basic LET and SR stuff.
From: Inertial on 1 Nov 2009 23:10 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:56lse5hig53t5v67pbb9960pblr78mc6r3(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:08:48 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Nov 1, 3:27 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:17:47 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On Oct 31, 3:14 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:38:06 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >> >> That doesn't alter the fact that if a particular observer sees two >>> >> >> rays closing >>> >> >> on a particular observer at different speeds those rays cannot >>> >> >> possibly be >>> >> >> traveling at the same speed. >>> >>> >> >SR says that an observer will memasure the speed of light to be c >>> >> >relative to HIMSELF, not "relative to" someone else. >>> >>> >> Well, if the speed of S2's light is definitely known to be c wrt O2 >>> >> and SR says >>> >> it is closing on O2 at c-v, why would anyone want to take any further >>> >> interest >>> >> in theory that is known to give a wrong answer? >>> >>> >Careful. The speed of light from S2, as measured by O2, is c. That's >>> >in O2's rest frame. >>> >The closing speed of light from S2 on O2, as measured in the frame in >>> >which O1 is at rest, is c-v. That's the case you drew. >>> >Notice that it's important to specify the frames. Otherwise the >>> >statements have no meaning. >>> >>> Careful. There is only one relative speed involved. >> >>There's one relative speed and a closing speed. They are different >>things, as they are defined differently. > > They are actually the same. Nope. Not in any theory. Because the definitions are different. One involves a singe object and an observer, the other involves two objects and an observer. Though they will always have the same value if Galilean transforms apply. That is due to the nature of the transforms, not because the definitions are the same (which clearly they cannot possibly be). >>You seem to be having a vocabulary problem here. >> >>It's a little like someone showing you a bushel of styrofoam that >>weighs a half a kilogram and a brick of steel that weighs 5 kilogram, >>and you fussing that someone told you that there was more steel there >>than styrofoam and someone else told you there was more styrofoam than >>steel. "There is only one 'bigger' here," you mutter. > > not a good analogy... But it is. You think the closing speed and relative speed are both just the one thing .. speed. And you can't get it into your head that they are different concepts.
From: Inertial on 1 Nov 2009 23:27 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:7mmse5h6g8k718qn2v0drfhn8vj078klfj(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:56:02 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:s2tre5hknhdd6573o4qshktpnoemlctam5(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 07:35:09 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Oct 31, 3:43 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >On Oct 31, 2:26 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> >>>>> >> Funny! that sounds just like Netonian definition of speed. >>>>> >>>>> >That's how it's defined. Now, you will notice that this closing speed >>>>> >does not correspond to a *measurable* quantity. The *measured* >>>>> >relative speed between those two bodies is the measurement done by >>>>> >one >>>>> >of the bodies. And in that case you find that the measured value does >>>>> >not match the numerical difference found in the closing speed. This >>>>> >is >>>>> >where the break with Newtonian physics happens. >>>>> >>>>> OK let's get this straight. >>>>> >>>>> We know that the true closing speed of S1's light on O1 is c.... >>>>> because >>>>> the >>>>> two are MAR. >>>>> There is a theory called SR that says that closing speed is c-v to an >>>>> observer, >>>>> O3, who is moving wrt S1. >>>> >>>>The closing speed between any object and light is c as measured in the >>>>object's frame of reference. If an observer sends a light pulse toward >>>>an object then the closing speed between that light pulse and the >>>>object is c+v or c-v. >>> >>> I assume the object is moving at v wrt the absolute aether. >> >>There is no absolute aether in SR. What theory is it you are >>misunderstanding this time? >> >>> In that case, you will argue that the object's rods and clocks are >>> contracted >>> such that they will always MEASURE OWLS to be c...so your first >>> statement >>> is >>> correct in aether theories... >> >>In LET .. yes. Most other aether theories are already refuted >> >>> The second statement says that the closing speed is independent of >>> source >>> speed >>> and so the closing speed is just the sum of c and the object's absolute >>> speed >>> wrt the aether. >> >>No .. the sum of c and the object's speed relative to the observer >> >>> So you have correctly stated the aether theory case. >>> >>> LET is such a nice theory. What a pity there is no aether. >>> >>> There IS one thing that worries me. >> >>Ie you don't understand. I think your estimate of 'one' is a little low >> >>> S.......................................-v<-O1.............O2->v >>> >>> Here, source S is at rest in the absolute aether. >> >>So we are talking about LET rather that SR now? > > I was all along. I was replying to Seto. > >>> O1 and O2 are moving at v in >>> opposite directions relative to the aether. >> >>OK >> >>> How can they both measure the speed of light from S to be always c when >>> its >>> closing speeds are c+v and c-v and their rods and clocks contract by the >>> same >>> amount according to the LTs? >> >>Due to the compressing of objects and fields and the slowing of all >>processes that happens as a result of motion through the aether. That >>also >>results in clocks the appear synchronised to observers moving with them >>actually NOT being synchronised. As with SR .. you need to consider all >>three things .. the contraction/compression, the time dilation/slowing, >>and >>the change in clock synchronization. If you consider only one or two in >>isolation you get contradictions .. you need to consider all three as that >>is what both SR and LET require. Gees .. that's pretty basic LET and SR >>stuff. > > I don't think you explained that very well. Your problems understanding what people post are legendary > Maybe you meant this: > Each observer sets up two separated and presyched clocks with which he > intends > to measure the OWLS of S's (or any light) light. How does he sync the clocks? > The clocks are separated by a rod, the length of which is physically > contracted > by gamma. Yeup > The four clocks are also slowed by the same factor gamma and so they > get the same value for the speed of light through the aether. Yeup .. one you take into account the RoS that is implicit in your synchronising of the clocks. > That is OK if there is an aether. As we were talking about LET, then there is > The theory is plausible. > However, Einstein merely turned that conclusion of LET into a postulate LET has a 'postulate' that motion thru the aether compresses all object and all types of fields, and slows all types of processes and as a result also puts clocks our of synch. Given that there is no evidence of such an aether, there is no good reason to assume motion through it would do that, other than it then gives you a constant speed for light. > and > became famous as a result. SR is just LET in another cloak. Nope. > It is just as incorrect, too. Nope. Not that you've ever been able to show .. despite your so-called 'embarrassing question'.
From: rotchm on 1 Nov 2009 23:38
> >Note that in your example, you havent specified wrt which observer you > >want the speeds. ALWAYS specify the observer (frame). > > I always do. The observer is YOU looking at the screen. Liar. You have not specified the observer. Google kept a record. > According to SR, Diaper and inertial, the closing speed is c + vsin(t/T) You are missing information. That is the closing speed between which two things and relative to which frame? Be specific. First diag: Relative to me: O at rest, S2 SinpleHarmonic(SH). (L)ight sent from O2 toward O. Closing speed between O and L ( wrt me) is the speed of L (wrt me) - speed of O: c - 0 = c. Closing speed between L and O2 (wrt me)is c +- v*sin(...) Second diag: Relative to me: O is SH and S2 is at rest. Closing speed between O and L ( wrt me) is c +- v*sin(...) Closing speed between L and O2 (wrt me)is c - 0 = c. Note that in the calculation of the closing speeds, I specified which two "thing" we are comparing the speeds of, and I specified the observer (ME). *You* must do the same when you discuss such matters. |