Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:36:54 -0700
Subject: Re: The velocity of light going pass a
moving train.
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
O'Barr comments:
But we all now know that I was not trying to
say that we were obtaining the real length of
the train as it would be in the ether, I was only
saying that we had to have the true or correct
length of the moving train as measured in the
frame of the tracks.
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So let me see if I get what you are saying. Are you
saying that the track frame observer needs to know
the rest length of the train in order to measure
closing velocity of light relative to the train?
O'Barr comments:
I never said that anyone needed to know the rest
length of the train in any frame at any time. I
really think that you are only trying to occupy my
time and make problems even when no problems exist.
Why is that? Can't you think on your own?
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If so, that isn't the case.
O'Barr comments:
And I assume this is true with a lot of ***if
so's***! And if it were a true ***if so***, then you
would have quoted what I said where I said that we
had to have ***the rest length of the train***
measurement. What fun you seem to want to make
things. Again, is there a reason for all these
questions? What was required, and what was said, was
that those in the frame of the tracks had to know the
length of the train while it was moving at its
velocity of v. And I even gave the way in which such
a measurement could be done.
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In the track frame one only needs to know the
velocity of the train and the velocity of the light.
They simply add +-c-+v.
O'Barr comments:
Certainly this is correct. But I guess you missed
the whole point of the post. People were saying that
these relative velocities could not be directly
measured. They were only the assumptions that they
were your +-c-+v. So I showed you all a way to
determine or make a relative velocity measurement
without actually knowing either c or v. What I did
was to measure the relative velocity directly. This
was the intent of the post, and that is what I did.
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Knowing the rest length isn't necessary.
O'Barr comments:
Yes, we all know this, and so did you. So again,
why are you mentioning things that were never in
dispute? Is this careless reading on your part or
are you just looking for problems?
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And by the way, SO WHAT? So according to the track
frame the light can close on the train faster than c
or separate faster than c. Thats no big deal.
Light can close or separate slower than c according
to the track frame. That does not change the fact
that lightspeed is c according to coordinate systems
of both frames.
O'Barr comments:
The big deal is, what is reality? And who is it
that gets to determine what reality really is? This
is the big deal! And SR experts are totally wrong to
decide that reality is only what is measured in your
own frame. Everyone who exists, who uses proper SR
tools, has a right to measure all of reality around
them. There is nothing in SR theory that prevents
this from being done.
In fact, if SR did say that one frame was more
special than all other frames, it would kill SR
immediately, because the deriving of SR involves the
equality of all frames. And thus, when you take all
the observations that SR provides, we find that light
is not always c, as measured by SR frames. That is
the point. And the point stands. And thus SR
experts can no longer say that light goes by every
frame with a velocity of c. In fact, the majority of
SR observations give us a velocity other than c. And
this is a big deal, whether you want to believe it or
not. Learn to live with it.
Now not only are there SR observers who see and
measure light going by frames with a velocity
different than c, these SR observers also are able to
explain why these others who measure c are able to
measure c. These SR observers who are able to
measure c are able to measure c not because it really
is c, but only because of the changes that are seen
in their tools. These are SR observers doing this.
They are doing this by using SR correct measurements.
And thus what they measure has to be accepted by all
SR experts. And thus, we see that SR actually
confirms LET. We find that LET is always correct,
but SR experts are always wrong. So what is the big
deal? Why don't you tell me!
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And once more the track frame _is not_ special.
O'Barr comments:
Absolutely, the track frame is not special. It is
a true SR frame just like millions and millions of
other correct SR frames, and every single one of them
reports that the velocity of light in any moving
frame around them is not c. How many times do I have
to tell you, SR shows that the motion of light across
a frame is not c. This is what SR shows us. And SR
experts better not ever again say that it is c. All
that SR experts can say is that it can be measured to
be c, but SR shows that it is more likely to be every
velocity except c.
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I keep reminding you of LET for one simple reason.
No frame is special in it. All frames are
indistinguishable from the ether rest frame. Since
any frame in LET is equivalent to the ether rest
frame the train frame is equivalent to the track
frame. End of story. Nothing is special about the
track frame.
O'Barr comments:
What? Is an SR expert actually willing to talk
about the ether? So let me say what you said in a
more correct way:
I keep reminding you of LET for one simple reason.IN TERMS OF MAKING MEASUREMENTS!
No frame is special in it
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE PHYSICS, WHEN IT COMES TO
PROVIDING EXPLANATIONS, AND CAUSES, THEN LET AND AN
ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME BECOMES AN ABSOLUTE
NECESSITY!
All frames areIN TERMS OF MAKING MEASUREMENTS!
indistinguishable from the ether rest frame
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE PHYSICS, WHEN IT COMES TO
PROVIDING EXPLANATIONS, AND CAUSES, THEN THESE THINGS
BECOMES AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY!
Since any frameONLY IN TERMS OF MAKING MEASUREMENTS!
in LET is equivalent to the ether rest frame
the train frame is equivalent to the track frame
WHEN IT COMES TO THE PHYSICS, WHEN IT COMES TO
PROVIDING EXPLANATIONS, AND CAUSES, THEN LET BECOMES
AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY!
End of story.THE END OF THE WRONG STORY THAT HAS BEEN TOLD BY
SR EXPERTS FOR MUCH TOO LONG, BUT THE BEGINNING OF A
NEW UNDERSTANDING BY US ALL!
Nothing is special about the track frameIN TERMS OF MAKING MEASUREMENTS!!!!!!!!!
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE PHYSICS, WHEN IT COMES TO
PROVIDING EXPLANATIONS, AND CAUSES, THEN LET AND THE
ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME BECOMES AN ABSOLUTE
NECESSITY!
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allow me to ask you for answer to the following
gedanken.
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Assume LET. You and I are in a spaceship which
moves at .9c wrt the ether rest frame. We haven't
measured this velocity, it is given. So our clocks
are running alot slower than those resting in the
ether rest frame, right? Now you take a trip which
first reduces your speed so that you rest in the
ether rest frame. Now you can spend as much time
resting in the ether rest frame as you like. Lets
just assume that you can live for many centuries.
Stay as long as you wish resting in the ether frame
aging much faster than me. Then take the trip back
and meet me in the future.
Who will have aged more? Me in the space-ship
moving at .9c wrt the ERF or you who rested in the
ERF for as long as you cared to?
O'Barr comments:
Doing this in the ether makes it easy. And of
course, everyone already knows that the twin who does
not change his direction (remains inertial) will be
the oldest, and the one who changes his direction,
will be the younger. So the twin who is going at a
constant 0.9c, will certainly, in the end, be older
than the one who stays in the ether for part of these
events.
So let us do this problem in the ether rest frame,
where you are using correct length rulers, and
correctly set clocks, and everything becomes exactly
as it is said that it is. If a thing is going at c,
or at 0.9c, it is really going at these exact values,
exactly!
Let twin A remain stationary in the ether for one
full year. This means that twin B went 0.9 ly, and
twin B's clock showed that twin B aged only SQRT(.19)
years.
At the end of this year, let us assume that twin A
takes off at c, and catches up with twin B. Thus we
instantly know that when twin A catches twin B, twin
A's clock will show exactly one year. This was easy.
So now all we need to know is the final time on twin
B's clock. To get twin B's time, all we need to know
is the total ether time, and multiple it by
SQRT(.19).
So again, in the ether, all this is easy. The
time, t, for twin A to reach twin B is this:
c*t = .9 + .9c*t
(all these values are in light years)
or t = .9/ (.1c) = 9 years.
So the total time in the ether is 10 years, the
one year that twin A just sat still, and the 9 years
that it chased after twin B. The time on twin B's
clock then ends up being: 10*SQRT(.19) or a value of
about 4.359 years.
So again, we see that we get the expected answer,
the twin who remained inertial was over 3 years older
than the twin who had remained at rest in the ether
for one of the events, and of course while he was at
rest in the ether, he was the one who got older, but
things are not linear in SR, and the second half of
the events made up more than what was necessary to
produce the correct final SR answer.
Now I did not see anything productive in your
question. Anyone could have answered it, either
using SR or LET. And anyone could have picked a
dozen ways of doing it. I am not here to answer such
questions. Why are you not taking up the problem
that is really at hand? SR is a stupid and silly
belief. It is not even physically possible. SR is
dead as a real meaningful theory, and no person alive
is going to continue to believe in what SR experts
have been saying. It is just too stupid of a belief
for any thinking individual.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
Remove ... for e-mail.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- From: Phil
- Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- From: Phil
- The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- Prev by Date: Re: SR WITHOUT THE LIGHT POSTULATE?
- Next by Date: Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- Previous by thread: Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- Next by thread: Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
