Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"

On Jul 8, 1:05 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1183866054.318286.192510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Jul 7, 10:18 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1183706495.639639.19690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 5, 10:36 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1183688564.076453.117240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jul 5, 9:18 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It isn't about the nature of light .. it is independant of the
nature
of
light. One less comlpication for SR
other than to say it travels at C in all frames.
Yes
From Einstein's 1905 paper, "light is always propagated in empty
space
with a definite velocity C which is independent of the state of
motion
of the emitting body."
Here he has postulated a magical property for light, unlike anything
else, and no attempt is made to explain how light does this.
Its an experimental observation .. SR doesn't have to explain why.
Bull***!
Not at all
In 1905 they didn't even know exactly what the speed of
light was.
That doesn't matter
It refutes your statement. If they couldn't measure the exact speed
they didn't know if it was the same.

No .. it doesn't .. it was postulated and shown to be true experimentally

It was not shown experimentally if the experiment did not have the
precision to distinguish if the speed was always the same.

The fact that the speed of light, "is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body." implies that it is a wave as
opposed to ballistic.
No .. it might do to some, though.
For a bullet shot from a car you add the velocities. For sound
emitted from the car the velocity of the car doesn't matter.

That does not mean light has to be particles .. only that it propoagtes as
fast as it is possible to do.

I didn't say it was particles. I was saying if the velocity of the
emitter didn't matter it implied it was a wave.

It can be postulated to be C in all frames
because no way has been found to determine which frame is the frame of
the medium.
And so far that postulate has been expermentally observed to be correct
Never said it wasn't. But Lorentz showed how it can work that way as
opposed to just saying it was so.

But it is so.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never said it wasn't
so. I said isn't it better to show why something is so rather than to
just declare it is so.


You can read Lorentz's reason for why that is, or accept
it on faith.
There is no faith required .. it is expermientally observed
Again, bull***.

So .. you say it is NOT experimentally observed?

Correct, the experiments lack the precision of the mathematical proof.

Or that you should not accept experimental evidence because it requires some
sort of faith?

LET
starts with light traveling at a constant speed only in the aether
frame
Why does it go at a constant speed in the ether
Same reason sound propagates at a more or less constant speed in air.
It is a property of waves in a medium.
.. why is that speed what it is
Probably the size and velocity of the particles making up the aether.
And what is the ether made up of? What can't we detect it?
.. why can't we detect the ether
You can but refuse to accept the evidence.
What evidence?

What do electromagnetic waves wave in? What carries the force between
magnets pushing apart?

A very good question. Something SR doesn't need to address.

I said nothing about SR. You asked about evidence of the aether. You
seem to have a problem keeping track of the discussion.

.. what is the ether made from
Aether particles of course ;-)
And what are they ? What are their properties? Their mass? Their
charge?
Their spin? Their size?...

Considering that the scientific community not only stopped trying to
investigate these things but made it the kiss of death for the
prospects of anyone that did, it's not surprising we don't know.

Indeed .. of course, not being able to detect it, not knowing anything about
any theoretical properties of it doesn't help

But we can detect it. And we have a far better chance of studying it
than we do of dark matter.

Some also
attribute gravity to it. Look up LeSage gravity. BTW there is an
aether equivelent to GR. Look up GET.
... how and why does it make objects contract and clocks slow down
If an objects shape is determined by electromagnetic forces
maintaining the spacing between its particles it will wnd up
contracted when in motion.
Why? How does the ether do that?

I explained that.

Where

Below. Are you dense? Or just a bit slow? Do I need to break it
down into little bits so you can understand it?

For a two way trip over the fixed distance
the wave traveling at c-v takes longer to cover the distance than the
wave traveling at c+v, so the average speed ends up less than c, which
is what it would be if it weren't moving.
For the clock slowing down the light clock doing a zig zag vs straight
up and down works just as well for LET as it does for SR.
That is not an explanation as to why the ehter slows down all clocks and
processes
It works for SR, so why not for LET?

But you said LET explains things .. that's why its better. But it odesn't
explain things .. and so it suffers from the same "problem" as the simpler
SR

What part of the zig zag vs perpendicular path did you not
understand? Your not being bright enough to understand the
explaination is not LET's fault. I can explain it in greater detail
if that will help.


.. lots of unanswered questions in LET.
That must be one of them retorical questions :-)
No .. its just one of the many questions that Let raises and for which
there
is no answer.
LET doesn't pretend to have all the answers. You defended SR against
the same attack by saying it doesn't matter, so there is your answer.

And there goes your argument for LET being better .. its not. That's why SR
is the preferred theory

Thanks for playing

In that particular instance it is not better, but it is not worse
either. In other instances LET is better than SR. So there is no
reason to prefer SR.

and shows how it ends up being measured to travel at C in all
frames.
Whereas in SR light is postulated as travelling at c .. SR doesn't
need
to
explain WHY it does that. Just like we don't need to explain why
inertia
makes objects keep moving.
Anyone can see, literally, that a body in motion tends to stay in
motion.
And anyone (with the right equipment) can see that light travels at c
That is not seeing, literally, and it certainly doesn't make the
measurement in two frames at the same instant.

We can measure the speed of light as c. Its always the same

Show me the experiment that measured the same beam of light to have
the same velocity in two different frames to within one meter per
second. Put up or shut up!

The idea that a beam of light has the same speed relative to
both a stationary and moving observer is a whole different animal.
No .. its something that we 'see' .. just like objects in motion
remaining
in motion.
You can't see anything happening at the speed of light, and you
certainly can't see it from the perspective of two frames at the same
instant.

We can do the equivalent .. showing that it doesn't matter what speed the
source of the light has

That is not the same thing. Two sound waves will travel at the same
speed. It doesn't matter what the speed of the source is. But their
velocity is different when measured from two different frames.

We
are used to things having different speeds depending on whether we are
standing on the side of the road or riding in a car.
Yes, we are.
When you
contradict what we normally observe an explaination is in order.
Minkowski space explains it nicely
It may describe what happens but it doesn't tell you why that is the
correct math to use.

Its a model .. like any math .. and it works.

It is not the model, it describes a model. The model is the
underlying mechanism.

So .. why does space have three dimensions?

If the underlying mechanisem were different
then different equations whould be needed to describe what happens.
What is the underlying mechanisem that causes the observed results?
Minkowski space describes it well. And without mysterious ether particle
Like I said before, it may describe what happens but it doesn't
explain why that is the math that applies.

The math applies because its a valid model for reality.

Try again. What does the math represent?





even though its
closing speed with objects moving in the aether frame is not C.
Same with SR and minkowski spacetime
No, in SR the only time anyone wants to hear about the closing speed
of light being anything but C is when relative simultaniety is
explained.
Because its not a useful concept .. that other objects are moving
about
while light is travelling has no bearing on how fast the light
travels.
That is one of the things that makes RS so difficult for
many new students. They can see the closing speed is not C and
can't
understand how the moving observer could measure it to be C.
Then it needs to be exaplined .. just as it does in LET
You just said the LET explaination was a useless concept.
No, I did not.
Look back, it is still there.

No .. its not. All I said is that closing velocity is not a useful concept.

Sure it is. It explains that just because the velocity is C in one
frame doesn't mean it is in another. The different frames get
different measurments because they are using different coordinate
systems.

LET has just as much (if not more) weirdness that needs explaining as SR.
Yes, but it starts with everything the way we are used to.
It didn't start with light that behaved unlike anything we have ever seen
before.

So its better and correct because it just feel right to some people are more
comfortable with it?

If it is easier for them to understand and gives the same answers it
is certainly as good.





And if
they refuse to accept it on faith they are either given the same
explaination over and over or have their intelligence questioned.
That shows that teachers arent teaching it well enough .. why do you
think
teachers using LEt wouldn't do the same thing?
Because they wouldn't expect students to accept that light magicly
travels at C in relation to all observers while at the same time
telling them that an observer, "is hastening toward the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the light coming from
A." Is light traveling at C for this observer or not? Is it the same
C or a different one? How can it possibly be the same C if it takes
longer for the beam from behind to overtake him?
Minkowski space explains it nicely without mysterious undetectable ether
that slows down clock and shrinks objects. Maybe we should just say the
God
does it?
My turn to play dumb. How does Minkowski space explain it?

The same way Galilean transforms and 3D space explain classical physics.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try again. Most students grew up with classical physics but don't
know squat about Minkowski space.

.

Loading