Re: "How Does Light 'Know' How Fast to Travel?"

On Sep 18, 8:48 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"xray4abc" <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1190156229.505519.208620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Sep 16, 6:50 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"xray4abc" <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1189981776.162833.320190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sep 15, 11:21 am, "Pmb" <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"xray4abc" <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1189868769.213779.260740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sep 14, 9:51 pm, "Pmb" <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"xray4abc" <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1189777196.169219.15590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My present belief is that, relativistic effects are
in fact a MEASUREMENT ISSUE, resulted from a limited
value of the speed at which interaction can be transmitted and
information can be acquired.

I had neglected to comment on this comment in my last response so
here
goes - Actually what you say is not far from the truth.

I think I am able to demonstrate that!

But while you might
take that to be an illusion, a close analysis of these things show
that
there are actual, physically measureble, changes in length and
changes
in
time periods with changes in the relative speeds of two inertial
frames
of
reference.
Let me ask you something:
Is there any difference in the spectra of hydrogen atoms
from Earth and from galaxies moving fast away from us
AS THEY ARE EMITTED (that is, in their own reference frames,
and they are in similar physical state) ?

No.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi
Somehow my answer did not get through, so I
have to repeat it !
If atoms work the same way HERE and THERE, then
clocks tick at same rate too (neglecting gravitational effects)!

LET says that as well .. when HERE and THERE are fixed places in the
absolute reference frame. But if they move at different speeds relative
to
that ether, then the clocks tick at different absolute rates. The odd
thing
about the math is that, even if I am moving slower in the ether compare
to
you (and so my clock in absolute terms is physically ticking faster than
yours) you will see my clock ticking slower. In LET everything we
measure
is an illusion and not true reality.

In SR (ignoring gravitational effects) all (correct) clocks tick at the
correct rate and correctly measure time (not some faster and some slower
because of where they are). But when you look at a moving clock its
projecting into you inertial frame will tick slower .. but that is
correct
because time is running slower as well.

That means, no physical changes are involved when
changing reference frames.

In LET there are when there is a difference in absolute (ie relative to
ether) speed

Yet, when we are doing measurements concerning time and
dimensions/distances in moving IRFs, we can get only some DYNAMICAL
values because of the availability of limited-speed
signals only! (and which are of the same speed in all IRFs)
From here, a new, mostly UNDECLARED, postulate is
being used, which mixes things up and makes them
depart from the realm of reality IMHO and as such
very difficult to follow.
I think you know which postulate I am referring to !
Regards, LL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have never understood why somebody
would care about "what can be seen" :
"see the clock from the other IRF", for an example.
It has no relevance whatsoever IMHO.
We have to talk only of measurements and their
interpretation.

Then change "can be seen" to "can be measured" .. see in that context means
observed (ie measured) .. its just a shorter word.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No.
You got this one wrong!
One can measure something ONLY in his/her
reference frame.
As for other frames, he calculates/attributes
values supposed to be valid for those frames,
based on certain assumptions.
Then, these values are as good as the
underlying assumptions/postulates.
Anyway, the concept of a "quantity, as seen" is
totally inadequate.
Regards, LL

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space
    ... and connecting them to a central clock unit. ... > Since car speeds are very slow relative to light, ... The truly OWLS measurement is as follows: ... How does the absolute motion affect lightspeed? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space
    ... and connecting them to a central clock unit. ... > Since car speeds are very slow relative to light, ... The truly OWLS measurement is as follows: ... How does the absolute motion affect lightspeed? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "How Does Light Know How Fast to Travel?"
    ... in fact a MEASUREMENT ISSUE, ... But if they move at different speeds relative ... yours) you will see my clock ticking slower. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "How Does Light Know How Fast to Travel?"
    ... AS THEY ARE EMITTED (that is, in their own reference frames, ... But if they move at different speeds relative to ... yours) you will see my clock ticking slower. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: one way light speed
    ... You can use one clock to measure the two-way speed of light ... In the case of a one-clock two-way measurement the, ... it compared the two-way speeds in different directions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)