Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"

<bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1183953824.655178.204840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 8, 2:55 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1183876830.161006.148590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
Which experiment are you talking about?
You don't know? You are the one that claimed there was experimental
proof of the postulate.

MMX for instance showed the speed of light in two different directions was
the same .. but it didn'tneed to know what that speed was

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.

Sorry typo .. then that does not mean light has to be waves .. only that
it
propoagtes as fast as it is possible to do.

Prior to SR it was assumed that there was no limit to how fast a
particle could go given enough energy. The fact that light always
traveled about the same speed implied that it was a wave. That was
the prevailing thought of the day and SR said nothing to contradict
that idea. SR doesn't care about the mechanics behind the
transmission of light.

Exactly what I was saying

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?
No
I never said it wasn't so.
Good .. so ther eis no problem
I said isn't it better to show why something is so rather than to
just declare it is so.
It isn't just declaring .. its not some sort of royal decree .. it IS so.
If you have no proof than you *are* just declaring.

No more than you are .. if you aren't familiar with the experiments .. go
and research.

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.
So the experiment show light is NOT c?
You are the one that made the claim that it was experimentally proven,

I did not "make up" any claims.

so it is up to you to name the experiment that *you* think proved it.
My claim was that any experiment that *you* choose would lack the
precision needed to be considered proof.

Thee is plenty of evidenec to support constant speed of light .. nothing the
refutes it. You know that as well as i do.

Also, I would read your
previous statements to mean that it was experimentally proven prior to
the writing of SR in 1905,

I said nothing of the sort .. your comprehension problem are not my concern.

so please limit yourself to experiments
prior to that date.

No

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 gave me none .. you asked a question
Fine, if you want to play that game, electromagnetic waves and forces
between magnets are evidence of an aether.

Really .. and how do they show an ether exists?

You seem to have a problem keeping track of the discussion.
Not at all .. so .. what evidence is there that ether exists?
What do you think would constitute evidence?

Some experiment showing it would be a nice start.

You're the one so big on experimental evidence. PROVE that this ether
exists

.. 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.
How?
Magnets

Really? So for the last century all we had to do was get a couple of
magnets and we could detect the ether. You must be a genius. When are you
going to publish this amazing discovery?

And we have a far better chance of studying it than we do of dark
matter.
Not when it has never been detected.
My point exactly, dark matter has never been detected ;)

There you go then.

OTOH effects
that may be caused by aether are observed all the time.

How do you know they are caused by ether?

At least we know there is something there to be studied.

No .. we don't

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?
No .. but the matter of my body is
Or just a bit slow?
Compared to the speed of light, yes
Do I need to break it down into little bits so you can understand it?
That would be nice .. off you go then
Not going to waste my time. It has been done before. Google is your
friend.

Then use 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?
What zig-zag path? We've got a little clock ticking away .. and ehter
slows
it down .. and slows down all clocks, no matter how they work, by the
same
aount.
Your not being bright enough to understand the explaination is not
LET's
fault.
You've not provided any explanation
I can explain it in greater detail if that will help.
Fine .. go ahead an explain how this undetectable mystical ether makes
slows
slow down, goout of sync, and shrinks matter and the spaces between
matter.
Again I am not going to waste my time.

Didn't think you sould

Look it up in "Spacetime Physics". The same explaination that works for
SR works for LET.

No .. its completely different

They use the same math and I don't think they would lie about it
working for SR.

Same math .. different underlying reality .. So .. how does LET explain the
physical shrinking of all matter by the same amount, and the physical
slowing down of all clocks and processes by the same amount, and that amount
being preceisly what is required for lorentz transforms? In LET this is a
physical process .. so there needs to be a physical explanation for it.
Surely.

.. 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.
I see no cases where LET is superior .. other than, perhaps, being
something
initially one can more readily visualise
So there's one place. And for some LET will always be easier to
visualize.

Bully for them .. some people just have problems visualising.

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!
Why 1m/s?
The published speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Sure looks to me
like they claim a 1m/s accuracy. How big a margin of error do you
need?

Well . .there you go .. obviously the speed of light has bene measured
accurately enough .. you happy now?

Do you think that light is NOT the same in all frames of reference? can
you
site experiments that show it is not?
Put up or shut up!
You are the one that made the initial claim. The ball is in your
court.

I'm not playing your little game

Really .. this discussion is all quite pointless .. SR and LET have the same
math and the same predictions of measured lengths and times. If the speed
of light is constant in one, it is constant in the other. If you REALLY
think there is no experimental evidence that supports a constant speed of
light in all frames, then I suggest you do some research .. however, I do
not think you are being serious here, and rather just being deliberately
argumentative, as the same prediction come from your pet little LET theory.

The difference between LET is its physical implementation .. it has a
special frame of reference in which length contraction and time dilation are
actually physical shrinking and slowing of clocks and processes, and has a
mystical undetectable ether that somehow magically causes this shrinking and
slowing by exactly the right amount. Why should we accept the idea of an
ether when we cannot detect it, nor explain the processes involved? Surely
you must have a reason for thinking it is correct?


.