Re: Einstein's Second Postulate Violates His First.

On Nov 27, 7:57 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:04 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:



On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:39:55 +0100, Jürgen Clade <cl...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson schrieb:

1) Maxwell's equations are laws of physics from which the speed of
light is derived.

...the speed of light wrt the absolute medium that maxwell and others believed
existed.

What exists in reality is independent of what Maxwell or others imagined
or believed in.

Maxwell's equations apply in all inertial frames of
reference, as far as can be measured in the weak field limit.

Maxwell's eequation for the derivation of c does not apply in field free space
because neither constant has any real value.

?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html:

"2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous."

Empty space doesn't have permittivity or permeability.
If you try to measure it, you just get the value for the apparatus used..

    That is not true. An apparatus can contain a region which is
completely empty of material, and the apparatus need only extend its
electromagnetic field into that region to measure permittivity and
permeability.
    If you look in any physics textbook, or any handbook of physics,
you can find what scientists and engineers call the permeability and
permittivity of free space. There is even a "space cloth" resistivity,
in ohms per cm, that describes "vacuum." These values do not vary with
the apparatus used, as they are properties of empty regions of space.



   Maxwell's equations, which have a constant c, is a law of physics.
The constant, c, has units of speed. However, it is not defined as a
speed of a real object. If c was different in different frames, then
Maxwell's equation would have to change in the different frames.

The constant c is just that, a universal constant. It is frame independent.

     No, it is not frame dependent. If you measure the permittivity of
a capacitor, with a vacuum dielectric, it is the same in any frame. If
you measure the inductance of a coil, with vacuum in the coil, it has
a certain value independent of frame. If you take the inverse square
root of the permeability and permittivity in MKS units, you get the
speed of light whose value does not depend on frame. These are all
electrical measurements that don't include an actual measurement for
"speed."
     If GR is true, then one can measure "the speed of light" by
measuring the speed of gravity waves. Although this would be a
"speed", it would not be a speed of light. Obviously, "speed of light"
is a parameter.
    This parameter does not vary with reference frame, as far as has
been measured. Taking experiments measuring "speed: with one way trips
does not measure this parameter, it measures speeds that may be
related. The "speed of light" in special relativity is a universal
constant that does not necessarily relate to the speed of light in one
way trips. That is part of your problem.> >> As far as we can tell, 'c' also happens to be the speed of EM in its source
frame. It says nothing about the speed of light in other frames.

Since Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant, it comes out that 'c'
is the speed of EM waves not only in the rest frame of the source, but
also in every other inertial frame of reference.

It is a postulate of the theory with which you have been indoctrinated. It is
completely unproven.

     I don't know what you mean by proven, here. All results of
experiments have been consistent with these postulates.
    There seems to be some logical contradiction between the
postulates of quantum mechanics and general relativity. This is
frequently acknowledged and physicists are trying to find a larger
theory that can contain both. Furthermore, Einstein did not like
quantum mechanics with its "random" measurements.
    Suppose physicists were really as blind and bigoted as you claim.
I temporarily accept this hypothesis to see where it will lead. Please
answer the following two questions:
1) Why would physicists acknowledge a logical contradiction between GR
and quantum mechanics, but suppress the knowledge of a logical
contradiction inside relativity?
2) How did quantum mechanics with its "random measurements" become so
popular, when Eistein couldn't accept it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
    ... relative to a set of coordinates where observers at rest in the frame ... coordinate system to make his measurements. ... This is an axiom of Relativity. ... then relative and closing speeds must mean the same thing. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "How Does Light Know How Fast to Travel?"
    ... But if they move at different speeds ... yours) you will see my clock ticking slower. ... projecting into you inertial frame will tick slower .. ... We have to talk only of measurements and their ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "How Does Light Know How Fast to Travel?"
    ... But if they move at different speeds ... yours) you will see my clock ticking slower. ... projecting into you inertial frame will tick slower .. ... We have to talk only of measurements and their ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "How Does Light Know How Fast to Travel?"
    ... But if they move at different speeds ... yours) you will see my clock ticking slower. ... projecting into you inertial frame will tick slower .. ... We have to talk only of measurements and their ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Second Postulate Violates His First.
    ... If you try to measure it, you just get the value for the apparatus used. ... a capacitor, with a vacuum dielectric, it is the same in any frame. ... it measures speeds that may be ... quantum mechanics with its "random" measurements. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)