Einstein's 4 light postulates
glird
are defined. I will show them here without the extensive
demonstrations and explanations that accompanied them.
_____________
THE PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL MEANINGS OF
EINSTEIN'S FOUR LIGHT POSTULATES.
By du Gabriel, 1999
There are four Light Postulates in Einstein's paper. Each has a
different meaning than the others. Together, they impose an entirely
different basic physical theory than that set forth by the Theory of
Relativity. They require that moving systems physically deform in the
ways Lorentz described in 1904. This will be mathematically
demonstrated herein; thereby proving that Minkowski's thesis, that the
deformations are exclusively due to geometrical reasons, is
mathematically and physically false.
Light Postulate 1 (LP1, below): "Light is always propagated in
empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body."
In a different 1905 article Einstein said that light is made of
particles called "photons", each containing its own "quantum of
energy", each and all moving at a velocity c through empty space. LP1
includes that underlying assumption and sets Newton's "empty space" as
the referent for the thereby absolute velocity of light. In order to
measure such an absolute velocity one would have to attach the origin
of a velocity-vector to a permanently identifiable point of empty
space itself, which is impossible. That's why, as Newton pointed out,
we cannot measure absolute velocities. To here, however, this first
Light Postulate doesn't require any method of measurement. It merely
assumes that light physically moves through empty space at an absolute
velocity, c.
LP2 is given in the form of a definition of "synchronism": "If at
the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine
the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding
the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events.
If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to
determine the time values of events in the immediate neighborhood of
B. But it is not possible without further assumption [namely, that the
two clocks are synchronized with each other] to compare, in respect of
time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an
'A time' and a 'B time'. We have not defined a common 'time' for A and
B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by
definition that the 'time' required by light to travel from A to B
equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A.
"Let a ray of light start at the 'A time' tA from A towards B, let
it at the 'B time' tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and
arrive again at A at the 'A time' tA'. In accordance with definition
the two clocks synchronize if tB - tA = tA' - tB.
"We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from
contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the
following relations are universally valid:-
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at
A synchronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with
the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each
other."\
Whereas LP1 concerns the absolute velocity of light in empty space,
LP2 has now implicitly introduced a co-ordinate system with units of
length and time, and imposed the use of light signals to calibrate its
successive clocks. It is therefore an entirely different Postulate.
Light Postulate 3 (LP3, below): "In agreement with experience we
further assume the quantity
2AB/(tA' - tA) = c,
to be a universal constant -- the velocity of light in empty space."
Whereas LP1 concerns the absolute velocity of light in empty space
and LP2 concerns how to esynch successive clocks of a moving system,
LP3 imposes the additional requirement that regardless of the velocity
of a system through empty space, it must measure the average round-
trip relative velocity of light as equal to c, the absolute velocity
of light in empty space.
Light Postulate 4: "Any ray of light moves in the ‘stationary' [i.e.
moving] system of co-ordinates with the determined [i.e. measured]
velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving
body. Hence
velocity = (light path)/(time interval);
where time interval is to taken in the sense of the definition given
in section 1."
Most textbooks omit (and all relativists ignore) the portions I
italicized. That omission makes it seem as though light really does
move at the same speed relative to all differently moving systems.
That, of course, is physically impossible!
Although LP4 is given in the form of a Postulate, it is actually a
consequence of the prior three. After lengths of moving system have
suitable deformed and the clock-rates have been changed to accord with
LP3 (either manually or for Relativity-ignored physical reasons), and
after the observers adjusted the settings of their clocks by esynching
them to fit LP2, LP4 then holds good.
Unknown by the relativists but mathematically proved above and
elsewhere, their own equations covertly rest on and impose the real
and physical deformations and local-time offsets that the Theory of
Relativity overtly denies. Since that theory therefore doesn't fit the
relativistic equations, it follows that every experiment that verified
the validity of those equations has thereby proved the Minkowski
theory untenable.
BURT
There is unphysical light.
harry
> In a 1990 paper, the four light postulates in Einstein's 1905 paper
> are defined.
He intended it to be a single one...
> I will show them here without the extensive
> demonstrations and explanations that accompanied them.
> _____________
>
> THE PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL MEANINGS OF
> EINSTEIN'S FOUR LIGHT POSTULATES.
> By du Gabriel, 1999
> There are four Light Postulates in Einstein's paper. Each has a
> different meaning than the others. Together, they impose an entirely
> different basic physical theory than that set forth by the Theory of
> Relativity. They require that moving systems physically deform in the
> ways Lorentz described in 1904. This will be mathematically
> demonstrated herein; thereby proving that Minkowski's thesis, that the
> deformations are exclusively due to geometrical reasons, is
> mathematically and physically false.
>
> Light Postulate 1 (LP1, below): "Light is always propagated in
> empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
> state of motion of the emitting body."
In fact that is the most accurate light postulate, as it is, as he
claimed, "based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies".
> In a different 1905 article Einstein said that light is made of
> particles called "photons", each containing its own "quantum of
> energy", each and all moving at a velocity c through empty space. LP1
> includes that underlying assumption and sets Newton's "empty space" as
> the referent for the thereby absolute velocity of light. In order to
> measure such an absolute velocity one would have to attach the origin
> of a velocity-vector to a permanently identifiable point of empty
> space itself, which is impossible.
Well put; the corresponding phrase in Einstein's paper is rarely
understood.
That's merely a definition of simultaneity (as the title also
suggests); he even formulates ("assumes", not postulates) c without
any of that, as below.
> Light Postulate 3 (LP3, below): "In agreement with experience we
> further assume the quantity
> 2AB/(tA' - tA) = c,
> to be a universal constant -- the velocity of light in empty space."
> Whereas LP1 concerns the absolute velocity of light in empty space
> and LP2 concerns how to esynch successive clocks of a moving system,
> LP3 imposes the additional requirement that regardless of the velocity
> of a system through empty space, it must measure the average round-
> trip relative velocity of light as equal to c, the absolute velocity
> of light in empty space.
He just forgot to clarify that that is based on the first postulate...
> Light Postulate 4: "Any ray of light moves in the ‘stationary' [i.e.
> moving] system of co-ordinates with the determined [i.e. measured]
> velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving
> body. Hence
> velocity = (light path)/(time interval);
> where time interval is to taken in the sense of the definition given
> in section 1."
He had to wriggle out of the original meaning of "stationary" which he
refused to apply; which forced him to squeeze upfront some of the
first postulate inside the second one. Thus he transformed the
original physical meaning into an operational meaning. The light
postulate, as he later clarified, was commonly accepted at the time;
obviously that referred to the first formulation.
> Most textbooks omit (and all relativists ignore) the portions I
> italicized.
No italics in ASCII!
> That omission makes it seem as though light really does
> move at the same speed relative to all differently moving systems.
> That, of course, is physically impossible!
> Although LP4 is given in the form of a Postulate, it is actually a
> consequence of the prior three. After lengths of moving system have
> suitable deformed and the clock-rates have been changed to accord with
> LP3 (either manually or for Relativity-ignored physical reasons), and
> after the observers adjusted the settings of their clocks by esynching
> them to fit LP2, LP4 then holds good.
>
> Unknown by the relativists but mathematically proved above and
> elsewhere, their own equations covertly rest on and impose the real
> and physical deformations and local-time offsets that the Theory of
> Relativity overtly denies.
No such thing. Perhaps you have been brainwashed by writings of
geometers (starting with Minkowski), while such as those of Lorentz,
Einstein and Langevin state quite the contrary.
> Since that theory therefore doesn't fit the
> relativistic equations, it follows that every experiment that verified
> the validity of those equations has thereby proved the Minkowski
> theory untenable.
Minkowski's philosophy of spacetime you mean? I'm not even sure that
it was really what he believed, or if it's just a caricature, created
by some of his followers. Who thinks that he really believed that
space and time were doomed to fade away?
Harald
Androcles
"harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:8cb51f4b-04f6-4ba1...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
No italics in ASCII!
Harald
==============================================
You just forgot to clarify that you are a babbling moron.
Jens Stuckelberger
> There is unphysical light.
Of course! The moron had to chip in with his useless drivel.
Inertial
>> In a 1990 paper, the four light postulates in Einstein's 1905 paper
>> are defined.
There's only 1
>> Light Postulate 1 (LP1, below): "Light is always propagated in
>> empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
>> state of motion of the emitting body."
And that's it
>> In a different 1905 article Einstein said that light is made of
>> particles called "photons", each containing its own "quantum of
>> energy", each and all moving at a velocity c through empty space.
Unrelated to relativity (and the 1950 paper), does not depend on that.
>> LP2 is given in the form of a definition of "synchronism":
Which is not a postulate .. it is simply derived directly from the existing
postulates of SR.
The definite speed of light c means light must travel at c between fixed
point A and fixed point B, and at c for the equidistant return journey. So
the time taken for both journeys must be the same, so any clocks that are
properly synchronized must show that fact, otherwise they are 'lying'
>> Light Postulate 3 (LP3, below): "In agreement with experience we
>> further assume the quantity
>> 2AB/(tA' - tA) = c,
>> to be a universal constant -- the velocity of light in empty space."
Same thing ... this is just the first postulate again
>> Light Postulate 4: "Any ray of light moves in the �stationary' [i.e.
>> moving] system of co-ordinates with the determined [i.e. measured]
>> velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving
>> body. Hence
>> velocity = (light path)/(time interval);
>> where time interval is to taken in the sense of the definition given
>> in section 1."
Again , that is simply the definition of what a speed is.
rotchm
> >> LP2 is given in the form of a definition of "synchronism":
>
> Which is not a postulate .. it is simply derived directly from the existing
> postulates of SR.
Thats a little oups there Inertial. The defintion of the (e)-
synchronism came before the light postulate.
This definition was chosen as to make the first postulate possible.
Read Poincare's ~1898 texts where he clearly points this out. Einstein
just "garbeled" all together into his two postulate.
The "synchronism" can not be derived from the existing postulate of
SR because the postulate uses the word "speed" ( or velocity...) and
"speed" is (implicitely) defined by "synchronism". There is alot going
on in the background of SR's postulates.
Actually, today, there is no need of Einsteins postulate(s) due to the
defintions of position and time. The modern definition of these two
words imply that the speed of light in vacuum will always be constant.
From these two definitions, its a "simple" exercice in Boolean Logic
to show those relativistic predictions.
glird
>
>< Actually, today, there is no need of Einsteins postulate(s) due to the definitions of position and time. The modern definition of these two words imply that the speed of light in vacuum will always be constant.
From these two definitions, its a "simple" exercise in Boolean Logic
to show those relativistic predictions. >
In Physics, many modern definitions were framed to avoid fatal flaws
in the prior definitions, and are either ambiguous or equally false.
Even so, please give us the present definitions of position and time.
(If you can, add your explanation of how they lead to the conclusion
that c will always be constant regardless of the states of motion of
various observers who measure it.
glird
PD
> On Nov 25, 10:25 am, rotchm wrote:
>
> >< Actually, today, there is no need of Einsteins postulate(s) due to the definitions of position and time. The modern definition of these two words imply that the speed of light in vacuum will always be constant.
>
> From these two definitions, its a "simple" exercise in Boolean Logic
> to show those relativistic predictions. >
>
> In Physics, many modern definitions were framed to avoid fatal flaws
> in the prior definitions, and are either ambiguous or equally false.
Example, please.
rotchm
You really dont know, or you cant figure it out by reading the many
formulations?
Note that the definitions below are operational definitions, to be
performed ideally in vacuo and in an inertial frame. A "master" clock
is a main counting device to coordinate position and time. Technical
details omitted...
Position ( length, distance). (relative to a chosen origin): Send an
EM from Origin O to point A where it is reflected back to O. Note the
total time as indicated by O as T. Divide this value by 2 and multiply
by the integer 299792458. The value obtained is the position of A wrt
O, the "distance". It is given the units meters. IOW, D = (T/2)
*299792458, T the twls indicated by O.
Time: The value indicated by a clock located at an event in
question, a clock which has been synchronized with the "master"
clock. The synch procedure to be used is the e-synch procedure:
Details:
e-synch (also known as the Poincare synch procedure, formally called
the telegraphers synch procedure in the early 1800rds)
Call O the master clock and A the clock to be e-synched with it.
Send an EM from O to A where it is reflected back to O. Call the
total time as indicated by the master clock as T. Resend an EM from O
at time say zero. As A receives the signal
it sets itself to the value D/(T/2) where D is the distance of A to O
as measured by the above definition of Position.
> (If you can, add your explanation of how they lead to the conclusion
> that c will always be constant regardless of the states of motion of
> various observers who measure it.
What ever the state of motion of the (O)bserver (and his attached
inertial frame F):
Let the EM go from say O (event E1, say at time zero) to another
point A (event E2) of F. We want to find the speed of this EM between
O a nd A:
-Since it is declared as an EM, it can be used in our above
definitions.
-The distance between O and A is....D = T / 2 * 299792458, where T is
the time as indicated by O's clock between the event of initial
passage of the EM (say zero) and its reception after being reflected
at A as in the definition.
The time of the event E2 is the value indicated by an esynched clock
at E2. This value is found by the passage of the EM from O to A
reflected back to O giving T, resending the EM from O to A where the
clock at A takes the value of T/2 as defined by the synch
procedure.
Thus, the time of occurrence of E2 is T/2 and at a distance of D = T/
2*299792458. Speed is defined as distance / time, = (T/2*299792458) /
( T/2 ) = 299792458 . A constant!
Detail ommited but I trust you can fill in your blanks.
BURT
You can get behind light and ahead.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:16a2f4e7-730e-47ad...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >> LP2 is given in the form of a definition of "synchronism":
>>
>> Which is not a postulate .. it is simply derived directly from the
>> existing
>> postulates of SR.
>
>
> Thats a little oups there Inertial.
Nope
> The defintion of the (e)-
> synchronism came before the light postulate.
I'm not surprised .. its pretty straight forward. If you send fixed speed
signals between two clocks, then the clocks would be said to be synchronised
if they show the same times for the transmission.
> This definition was chosen as to make the first postulate possible.
It really can't be anything else.
> Read Poincare's ~1898 texts where he clearly points this out. Einstein
> just "garbeled" all together into his two postulate.
I might have a read sometime if i feel like delving into some history
> The "synchronism" can not be derived from the existing postulate of
> SR because the postulate uses the word "speed" ( or velocity...) and
> "speed" is (implicitely) defined by "synchronism". There is alot going
> on in the background of SR's postulates.
I think you're being rather pedantic there. The measurement of a speed
requires synchrnoisation .. saying light travels at the same definite speed
does not.
> Actually, today, there is no need of Einsteins postulate(s) due to the
> defintions of position and time. The modern definition of these two
> words imply that the speed of light in vacuum will always be constant.
We define them that way becausae the speed of light has been show to be
constant. So it gives the most accurate and reproducible method of defining
our units
> From these two definitions, its a "simple" exercice in Boolean Logic
> to show those relativistic predictions.
So a constant speed for light lets you synch the clocks.
Inertial
news:56c6fe6c-735f-43d0...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fuck off .. why do you spam your crap ?
rotchm
> > The defintion of the (e)-
> > synchronism came before the light postulate.
>
> I'm not surprised .. its pretty straight forward. If you send fixed speed
> signals between two clocks, then the clocks would be said to be synchronised
> if they show the same times for the transmission.
The "fixed speed" signals have nothing to to with the fundamentals of
SR. The speed may vary
in between and is inconsequential to SR.
>
> > This definition was chosen as to make the first postulate possible.
>
> It really can't be anything else.
Yes it can... there are many different synch procedures. There are the
inertial synch procedures
exposed by Poincare, developed further by Selleri ( the Selleri
transformations). All those synch procedures have the quality of
leaving the TWLS constant, but not necesarely the owls. Then there are
the many GR sync procedures for non inertial frames...by=ut thats a
different story.
> I might have a read sometime if i feel like delving into some history
Its more than just history, its about the fundamentals of SR.
> I think you're being rather pedantic there. The measurement of a speed
> requires synchrnoisation .. saying light travels at the same definite speed
> does not.
? I never said that light travels at the same speed between two
points.
There are many interpretations to "the speed of light is constant". It
is constant in the sense that when one measures its speed ( by the
usual procedures) you get a constant value. When you "measure" the
owls, you may get any desired value but "measure" is not the usual
sense of the word here.
> > Actually, today, there is no need of Einsteins postulate(s) due to the
> > defintions of position and time. The modern definition of these two
> > words imply that the speed of light in vacuum will always be constant.
>
> We define them that way because the speed of light has been show to be
> constant.
No, not quite. It was defined that way to make physics "simpler", to
make the first postulate true.
It is unknown if the "speed of light" is "constant" and even unknown
if its twls is constant. But since the current definition makes it
such, then we need not to bother ourselves if its "constant" or not.
It makes physics simpler by removing unnecessary unknowns.
>So it gives the most accurate and reproducible method of defining
> our units
Correct. Its the physically and to some, theoretically, simplest one.
> So a constant speed for light lets you synch the clocks.
No, not in that sense. A speed measurement always involves a twls. In
between the "speed" may be variable. But since the definition does not
use the "in between" features, this becomes irrelevant and "speed"
just means twls.
The speed from A to B is not the speed from A to B: the words 'speed'
here have two completely different meanings. Its just to show you that
"constant speed" may have many different meanings and one must take
care when using such words.
Dono.
>
> It was defined that way to make physics "simpler", to
> make the first postulate true.
You can't MAKE a postulate true. It either is or it isn't. Why do you
keep posting such nonsense.
> It is unknown if the "speed of light" is "constant" and even unknown
> if its twls is constant.
There is ample experimental confirmation that the speed of light is
independent of the motion between source and receiver.
There is ample experimental confinement put on OWLS anisotropy. Why do
you write such nonsense? All these years in this forum and you still
haven't learned anything.
>
> The speed from A to B is not the speed from A to B:
Don't be an idiot, the many experiments constraining OWLS anisotropy
confirm that the speed from A to B is the same as the speed from B to
A. Actually they constrain the anisotropy for any arbitrary angle.
rotchm
> You can't MAKE a postulate true. It either is or it isn't. Why do you
> keep posting such nonsense.
Ah... mr dono who dono nothing as usual. Remember the prior arguments
we had?
I ended tell you to go bother DvDM or Tom Roberts. You did and they
laughed at you showing you were wrong. Google kept a record. You want
to start that again!?
"postulate" here has a meaning, not the meaning YOU want it to be.
You are out of context again.
> > It is unknown if the "speed of light" is "constant" and even unknown
> > if its twls is constant.
>
> There is ample experimental confirmation that the speed of light is
> independent of the motion between source and receiver.
The "motion" between source and receiver? Motion of what again?
> There is ample experimental confinement put on OWLS anisotropy.
Name one.
>Why do
> you write such nonsense? All these years in this forum and you still
> haven't learned anything.
DirK and Tom told you otherwise.
> > The speed from A to B is not the speed from A to B:
>
> Don't be an idiot,
Again, you failed to understand that sentence... I even hinted its
meaning with the sentence following it and you still didnt get it.
Still trying to catch up to Seto are yah !
BURT
If you can flow through space behind light then there is absolute
motion.
Mitch Raemsch
Dono.
> > keep posting such nonsense.
>
> Ah... mr dono who dono nothing as usual. Remember the prior arguments
> we had?
Yes, I remember you being a pretentious ignorant, like in the Moliere
plays. Nothing has changed.
>
> > There is ample experimental confinement put on OWLS anisotropy.
>
> Name one.
>
Idiot:
* Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look
for variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.
* Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731–734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the Earth and separated by a
21-km fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between
them. They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100
m/s.
* Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), pg 241. Champeney, Isaak
and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965). Isaak et al., Phys.
Bull. 21 (1970), pg 255.
Uses a rotating Mössbauer absorber and fixed detector to place
an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s.
* Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252.
Uses a rotating source and fixed Mössbauer detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/s.
* Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), pg
1767.
A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent
with SR.
* T.W. Cole, “Astronomical Tests for the Presence of an Ether”,
Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. (1976), 175 93P-96P.
Several VLBI tests sensitive to first-order effects of an æther
are described. No æther is detected, with a sensitivity of 70 m/s.
* Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on
direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.
A “one-way” test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in
glass and the return ray in air. The interferometer is by design
particularly robust against mechanical perturbations, and temperature
controlled. The limit on the anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s.
...and some more recent ones:
H. Müller, S. Herrmann, C. Braxmaier, S. Schiller, and A. Peters,
"Modern Michelson-Morley experiment using cryogenic optical
resonators", Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 020401 (2003).
H. Müller, S. Herrmann, T. Schuldt, M. Scholz, E. Kovalchuk, and A.
Peters, "Offset compensation by amplitude modulated sidebands in
optical frequency standards", Opt. Lett. 28, no. 22, 2186-2188 (2003)
H. Müller, C. Braxmaier, S. Herrmann, O. Pradl, C. Lämmerzahl, J.
Mlynek, S. Schiller, and A. Peters: "Testing the foundations of
relativity using cryogenic optical resonators", Int. J. Mod. Phys. D,
11, 1101-1108 (2002).
H. Müller, C. Braxmaier, S. Herrmann, A. Peters, and C. Lämmerzahl:
"Electromagnetic cavities and Lorentz invariance violation", hep-ph/
0212289, Phys. Rev. D 67, 056006 (2003).
A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, "Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
Space", Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549 (1979).
Inertial
>
>> > The defintion of the (e)-
>> > synchronism came before the light postulate.
>>
>> I'm not surprised .. its pretty straight forward. If you send fixed
>> speed
>> signals between two clocks, then the clocks would be said to be
>> synchronised
>> if they show the same times for the transmission.
>
> The "fixed speed" signals have nothing to to with the fundamentals of
> SR.
They have to do with how to synhchronise clocks
> The speed may vary
> in between and is inconsequential to SR.
What speed?
>>
>> > This definition was chosen as to make the first postulate possible.
>>
>> It really can't be anything else.
>
> Yes it can...
Nope .. if two clocks record different times for fixed speed signals to
travel between them, they cannot be synchrnoized
> there are many different synch procedures.
Yes. . lots of ways to achieve clocks which satisfy synchrnoistion.
> There are the
> inertial synch procedures
> exposed by Poincare, developed further by Selleri ( the Selleri
> transformations). All those synch procedures have the quality of
> leaving the TWLS constant, but not necesarely the owls.
They would also then not show same times for same speed signals. So not
synchrnoised by any sensbiel understanding of the word
> Then there are
> the many GR sync procedures for non inertial frames...by=ut thats a
> different story.
>
>
>> I might have a read sometime if i feel like delving into some history
>
>
> Its more than just history, its about the fundamentals of SR.
i understand those just fine
>> I think you're being rather pedantic there. The measurement of a speed
>> requires synchrnoisation .. saying light travels at the same definite
>> speed
>> does not.
>
> ? I never said that light travels at the same speed between two
> points.
SR does
> There are many interpretations to "the speed of light is constant".
Nope
> It
> is constant in the sense that when one measures its speed ( by the
> usual procedures) you get a constant value.
That's the only meaning it can have
> When you "measure" the
> owls, you may get any desired value but "measure" is not the usual
> sense of the word here.
If you stuff up your clocks so not synchronised, then you can get an
incorrect measurement for the frame of reference in which you are supposedly
measureing
>> > Actually, today, there is no need of Einsteins postulate(s) due to the
>> > defintions of position and time. The modern definition of these two
>> > words imply that the speed of light in vacuum will always be constant.
>>
>> We define them that way because the speed of light has been show to be
>> constant.
>
> No, not quite.
Yes .. quite
> It was defined that way to make physics "simpler", to
> make the first postulate true.
Wrong .. totally
> It is unknown if the "speed of light" is "constant"
it is as well known as anything in physics
> and even unknown
> if its twls is constant.
You're in denial of experimental evidence
> But since the current definition makes it
> such, then we need not to bother ourselves if its "constant" or not.
Wrong .. we already determined it was constant, and so it was sensible to
define length in terms of it because it is the more accurate and
reproducible way to define a length
> It makes physics simpler by removing unnecessary unknowns.
Wrong
>>So it gives the most accurate and reproducible method of defining
>> our units
>
> Correct. Its the physically and to some, theoretically, simplest one.
Nothing wrong with simple
>> So a constant speed for light lets you synch the clocks.
>
> No, not in that sense.
Yes it does
> A speed measurement always involves a twls.
Doesn't matter .. one doesn't need to measure owls to sync clocks knowing
that light speed is constant
> In
> between the "speed" may be variable.
Not according to SR postulate. .. and that is what this post was about ..
that the sync definition is not a postulate and is simply the only sensible
definition for clock synchronisation given the two postulates of SR
> But since the definition does not
> use the "in between" features, this becomes irrelevant and "speed"
> just means twls.
In that case, we can never measure the speed of anything, as we cannot know
that its 'inbetween' speed does not vary
> The speed from A to B is not the speed from A to B
It is in SR
> the words 'speed'
> here have two completely different meanings.
Nope
> Its just to show you that
> "constant speed" may have many different meanings and one must take
> care when using such words.
One meaning
rotchm
definition of TWLS, not the one that was being discussed. Are you
related to henri wilson?
Here, this is taken from you favorite site:
"...Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic.
These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light
is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic
only in an æther frame..."
OWLS <> one way light path... You really need to understand the
meaning of the words used before drooling nonsense out of your mouth.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Acceleration black holes are when you leave light behind in your
motion.
Mitch Raemsch
Dono.
What did I tell you? You are still the SAME ignorant. Experiments
constraining light speed anisotropy are not TWLS, imbecile. If they
were, the anisotropy would cancel out. How stooopid are you?
> Here, this is taken from you favorite site:
>
> "...Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
> and find isotropy,
...meaning that, contrary to your idiotic claims, these are OWL
experiments
> they are inherently unable to rule out a large
> class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic.
> These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light
> is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic
> only in an æther frame..."
>
You do not even begin to understand what the above sentence means. You
NEED the above ASSUMPTION in order to be able to TEST for light speed
anisotropy. You NEED to go OUTSIDE SR in order to be able to test SR.
It doesn't help that Tom has insisted on using the somewhat ambigous
language that confuses idiots. Like you , for example.
Inertial
> <sig>. Those are all TWLS experiments. Again, you are using your own
> definition of TWLS, not the one that was being discussed. Are you
> related to henri wilson?
>
> Here, this is taken from you favorite site:
>
>
> "...Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
> and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
> class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic.
> These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light
> is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic
>
>
> OWLS <> one way light path... You really need to understand the
> meaning of the words used before drooling nonsense out of your mouth.
Yeup .. the experiments are compatible with those like LET that say the
'real' speed (which we cannot determine or measure at all) is not isotropic,
but that in any two way trip you get an average of c.
All OWLS measurements that we have devised need two clocks (or the
equivalent of them)
However, SR postulates (the subject of this thread) say that light has a
definite which is the same in all frames of reference. Given that
definition, the speed from A to B must be the same as from B to A, and so
can be used to synchronize clocks .. clocks that would not satisfy that
clock synch criteria cannot be in any meaningful way be said to be correctly
synchronied (as they produce incorrect results for travel time for light and
so for any other fixed speed signals). Of course we can define
"synchronous" to mean something stupid .. like in any pair of clocks, the
clock to the left must be an hour slower that the one on the right) .. but
that would not make any sense.
Inertial
> <sig>. Those are all TWLS experiments. Again, you are using your own
> definition of TWLS, not the one that was being discussed. Are you
> related to henri wilson?
>
> Here, this is taken from you favorite site:
>
>
> "...Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
> and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
> class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic.
> These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light
> is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic
Some of the experiments dono listed seem to not be dependant on clock sync
(eg looking at changes in interference patterns)
I'd like to see them explained more clearly in terms of how (or how not)
they require a two-way-trip to be c, but not one way
rotchm
> > SR.
>
> They have to do with how to synhchronise clocks
Nope. Nowhere in the esynch procedure is specified the behavior of the
"in between speed".
> The speed may vary
> > in between and is inconsequential to SR.
>
> What speed?
The "in between speed".
>
> > ? I never said that light travels at the same speed between two
> > points.
>
> SR does
Not SR. SR says that if you measure the speed of light by the usual
procedure, you will get c. SR says nothing of the 'in between' speed
of light. In fact, is does not even mention such an expression. It is
"we" who interpret it that way. That is why I say that there are many
interpretations of "speed". We need to be clear on what we are talking
about.
>
> > There are many interpretations to "the speed of light is constant".
>
> Nope
Yes. Anybody may interpret a sentence the way they want hence many
interpretations. Here, does it mean the 'in between' speed? the owls
or twls speed? or the "c' ?
> > It was defined that way to make physics "simpler", to
> > make the first postulate true.
>
> Wrong .. totally
Take it up with the standards bureau. They clearly state in their
documents that the definition of the meter was so chosen because it
made physics simpler as judged by physicist. They also discuss other
reasons why they adopted such definitions.
From Poincare: "...La simultanéité de deux événements, ou l’ordre de
leur succession, l’égalité de deux durées, doivent être définies de
telle sorte que l’énoncé des lois naturelles soit aussi simple que
possible..."
IOW, choose your definitions as to make physics (its laws or
principles) simple. The BIMP/... has chosen to do so and explicitly
said it in their documents.
> > A speed measurement always involves a twls.
>
> Doesn't matter .. one doesn't need to measure owls to sync clocks knowing
> that light speed is constant
One does not need to measure owls NOR to measure TWLS. The esynch
procedure is independent
of whether the "speed" of light is constant or not.
> > In
> > between the "speed" may be variable.
>
> Not according to SR postulate. .. and that is what this post was about ..
> that the sync definition is not a postulate and is simply the only sensible
> definition for clock synchronisation given the two postulates of SR
The second postulate of SR involves the word speed. What is the
definition of speed? Which definition shall we use? The definition
chosen is the one that makes the "postulate" true because this makes
physics "simpler". These definitions say nothing about the "in
between" speed and does not need such a concept.
> In that case, we can never measure the speed of anything, as we cannot know
> that its 'in between' speed does not vary
Exactly! Which is why we do not use the concept of "in between speed".
But "speed", as defined in physics, is a well defined an measurable
quantity.
-The value obtained by the measurement procedure is the speed.
-there is no defined measurement procedure to measure 'in between'
speed.
> > The speed from A to B is not the speed from A to B
>
> It is in SR
>
> > the words 'speed'
> > here have two completely different meanings.
>
> Nope
Yes! Its my sentence and I have implied two different meanings to it.
You may apply any meaning you want to it.
rotchm
>
> Some of the experiments dono listed seem to not be dependant on clock sync
> (eg looking at changes in interference patterns)
>
> I'd like to see them explained more clearly in terms of how (or how not)
> they require a two-way-trip to be c, but not one way
Consider two identical lasers aimed at an erea on the wall. This will
create an interference pattern on the wall. ( eg, Young exp.). The
interference is due to the timing, the time difference of travel of
each ray. The lasers 'tick' w/o changing their rate, independent of
theur oriantation ( oriantation of the rays). The timing will remain
the same between the two rays. Such experiments do not measure the
speed of light. It test the isotropy of the timing between the two
rays. Some call this OWLS.
Inertial
>
>>
>> Some of the experiments dono listed seem to not be dependant on clock
>> sync
>> (eg looking at changes in interference patterns)
>>
>> I'd like to see them explained more clearly in terms of how (or how not)
>> they require a two-way-trip to be c, but not one way
>
> Consider two identical lasers aimed at an erea on the wall. This will
> create an interference pattern on the wall. ( eg, Young exp.). The
> interference is due to the timing, the time difference of travel of
> each ray. The lasers 'tick' w/o changing their rate, independent of
> theur oriantation ( oriantation of the rays). The timing will remain
> the same between the two rays. Such experiments do not measure the
> speed of light.
They don't need to .. that's not the question being asked here. We're
talking about isotropy
> It test the isotropy of the timing between the two
> rays.
If the results would be expected to show a difference if there is
anisotropy, and there is no difference, then that supports the claim that
light speed is isotropic
> Some call this OWLS.
Then they are wrong. Though I've not seen anyone call it that. It may be a
test of OWLS anistropy though.
Inertial
>> > The "fixed speed" signals have nothing to to with the fundamentals of
>> > SR.
>>
>> They have to do with how to synhchronise clocks
>
> Nope. Nowhere in the esynch procedure is specified the behavior of the
> "in between speed".
The speed is the same in both directions according to the second postulate.
That means all 'in between' speeds are the same because it is one single
constant definite speed
> > The speed may vary
>> > in between and is inconsequential to SR.
>>
>> What speed?
>
> The "in between speed".
Not according to the SR postulates. Nor has any experiment shown any
variation in speeds
>> > ? I never said that light travels at the same speed between two
>> > points.
>>
>> SR does
>
> *Not SR.
Yes .. SR does. Second postulate
> SR says that if you measure the speed of light by the usual
> procedure, you will get c.
No. It says light has a definite speed c
> SR says nothing of the 'in between' speed
> of light.
yes it does .. if light speed is always c, then it is c all the time
> In fact, is does not even mention such an expression.
It doesn't need to .. that's your made-up term. Unless you think Einstein
should have been psychic and explicitly included that terminology just for
you
> It is
> "we" who interpret it that way.
It is very clear that if light travels at a definite speed .. that eans it
travels at that speed. Not some other speed some of the time.
> That is why I say that there are many
> interpretations of "speed".
Nope.
> We need to be clear on what we are talking
> about.
Speed.
>> > There are many interpretations to "the speed of light is constant".
>> Nope
>
> Yes. Anybody may interpret a sentence the way they want hence many
> interpretations.
Just many mis-interpretations
> Here, does it mean the 'in between' speed? the owls
> or twls speed? or the "c' ?
It means the speed. The speed is the speed no matter where. If any speed
(in between, owls, twls) is different to c, then that contradicts the second
postulate.
>> > It was defined that way to make physics "simpler", to
>> > make the first postulate true.
>>
>> Wrong .. totally
>
>
> Take it up with the standards bureau.
i don't need to. I suggest you do
> They clearly state in their
> documents that the definition of the meter was so chosen because it
> made physics simpler as judged by physicist. They also discuss other
> reasons why they adopted such definitions.
Because the it was simpler to reproduce and more accurate and basically a
better standard
> From Poincare: "...La simultan�it� de deux �v�nements, ou l�ordre de
> leur succession, l��galit� de deux dur�es, doivent �tre d�finies de
> telle sorte que l��nonc� des lois naturelles soit aussi simple que
> possible..."
>
> IOW, choose your definitions as to make physics (its laws or
> principles) simple. The BIMP/... has chosen to do so and explicitly
> said it in their documents.
You cannot just define something to be constant unless it is
>> > A speed measurement always involves a twls.
>>
>> Doesn't matter .. one doesn't need to measure owls to sync clocks knowing
>> that light speed is constant
>
> One does not need to measure owls NOR to measure TWLS. The esynch
> procedure is independent
> of whether the "speed" of light is constant or not.
That's just what I said.
The procedure does not require it .. but for the result is to actually
result in synchronized clocks, it needs the the speed to be constant. And
the second postulate says it is
>> > In
>> > between the "speed" may be variable.
>>
>> Not according to SR postulate. .. and that is what this post was about ..
>> that the sync definition is not a postulate and is simply the only
>> sensible
>> definition for clock synchronisation given the two postulates of SR
>
> The second postulate of SR involves the word speed. What is the
> definition of speed?
Read a physics book
> Which definition shall we use? The definition
> chosen is the one that makes the "postulate" true because this makes
> physics "simpler".
No
> These definitions say nothing about the "in
> between" speed and does not need such a concept.
They don't need to .. speed is speed. There is no special 'in between'
speed. That is just speed.
>> In that case, we can never measure the speed of anything, as we cannot
>> know
>> that its 'in between' speed does not vary
>
> Exactly! Which is why we do not use the concept of "in between speed".
So why bring it up?
> But "speed", as defined in physics, is a well defined an measurable
> quantity.
Yes it is
> -The value obtained by the measurement procedure is the speed.
> -there is no defined measurement procedure to measure 'in between'
> speed.
It is the SAME definition. You don't need a separate definition for in
between speed .. it is just speed.
>> > The speed from A to B is not the speed from A to B
>>
>> It is in SR
>>
>> > the words 'speed'
>> > here have two completely different meanings.
>>
>> Nope
>
>
> Yes! Its my sentence and I have implied two different meanings to it.
> You may apply any meaning you want to it.
Only one definition for physics.. if you want to talk about other things ..
choose a different newsgroup
rotchm
> > of light.
>
> yes it does .. if light speed is always c, then it is c all the time
> It is very clear that if light travels at a definite speed .. that eans it
> travels at that speed. Not some other speed some of the time.
> It means the speed. The speed is the speed no matter where.
Etc... So we are arguing about the meaning of 'in between speed' vs.
'speed'.
I am simply stating that these expressions have many different
interpretations because ofthen they are not clear within the context
and many misinterpret their meaining, just as in 'closing speed'.
If *you* want these expressions to have the same meaning, that is your
choice. I am stating that fundamentally, SR says nothing about the
concept of 'in between speed'.
Concerning the second postulate. In the past, attempts to measure the
'speed' of light all gave the same value to within accuracy. Since
such experiments cannot be infinitely accurate, they could never know
if the speed is actually constant. It was just hypothesised that it
was and developped SR from that. All that worked to their
satisfaction.
There is a distinction between the *hypothesis* and the *assumption*
of the constancy of the speed of light. The hypothesis referes to the
physical entity and can never be confirmed with 100% accuracy; the
assumption refers to as a premise for the developpement of the theory
(SR).
Since the *hypothesis* could not be verified with 100% accuracy, they
decided to REdefine their notions so as to make the claim of the
hypothesis true., i.e. they made the speed of light constant.
> > From Poincare: "...La simultanéité de deux événements, ou l’ordre de
> > leur succession, l’égalité de deux durées, doivent être définies de
> > telle sorte que l’énoncé des lois naturelles soit aussi simple que
> > possible..."
>
> > IOW, choose your definitions as to make physics (its laws or
> > principles) simple. The BIMP/... has chosen to do so and explicitly
> > said it in their documents.
>
> You cannot just define something to be constant unless it is
Yes you can. To declare that "unless it is" implies that the concept
was defined prior.
You can not agree on the value (measure) of something if that
something is not defined.
> > The second postulate of SR involves the word speed. What is the
> > definition of speed?
>
> Read a physics book
And you, you should read a few books. This will give you different POV
and perhaps
a renewed understanding on the meaning(s) of 'speed'.
> > Which definition shall we use? The definition
> > chosen is the one that makes the "postulate" true because this makes
> > physics "simpler".
>
> No
But that is what physics ( BIMB/NIST/...) have done (as argued by
Poincare and my physicist since).
> Only one definition for physics.. if you want to talk about other things ..
> choose a different newsgroup
We are talking about the various (mis)interpretations of the words
used in SR. This is the correct NG.
BURT
> > > SR says nothing of the 'in between' speed
> > > of light.
>
This is light in slow motion in slow time-aether. This is a slow C in
gravity.
Mitch Raemsch
Dono.
> It test the isotropy of the timing between the two
> rays. Some call this OWLS.
But this is NOT what the experiments testing light speed anisotropy
do. Do you make thus stuff up because you are too stoopid to read and
understand the papers I listed for you?
BURT
You can get behind light in space. You can travel ahead of it leaving
behind to travel through more space to catch up in the aether.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
>> > SR says nothing of the 'in between' speed
>> > of light.
>>
>> yes it does .. if light speed is always c, then it is c all the time
>
>> It is very clear that if light travels at a definite speed .. that eans
>> it
>> travels at that speed. Not some other speed some of the time.
>
>
>> It means the speed. The speed is the speed no matter where.
>
>
> Etc... So we are arguing about the meaning of 'in between speed' vs.
> 'speed'.
No argument required .. speed is speed
> I am simply stating that these expressions have many different
> interpretations because ofthen they are not clear within the context
> and many misinterpret their meaining, just as in 'closing speed'.
>
> If *you* want these expressions to have the same meaning, that is your
> choice. I am stating that fundamentally, SR says nothing about the
> concept of 'in between speed'.
Because there is no separate ''in between speed' concept. There is speed.
SR does not NEED to says something that you have made up and is no different
to any other speed.
> Concerning the second postulate. In the past, attempts to measure the
> 'speed' of light all gave the same value to within accuracy. Since
> such experiments cannot be infinitely accurate, they could never know
> if the speed is actually constant. It was just hypothesised that it
> was and developped SR from that. All that worked to their
> satisfaction.
>
> There is a distinction between the *hypothesis* and the *assumption*
> of the constancy of the speed of light. The hypothesis referes to the
> physical entity and can never be confirmed with 100% accuracy; the
> assumption refers to as a premise for the developpement of the theory
> (SR).
>
> Since the *hypothesis* could not be verified with 100% accuracy, they
> decided to REdefine their notions so as to make the claim of the
> hypothesis true., i.e. they made the speed of light constant.
They used a speed which is experimentally reproducible and highly accurate
as the definition of length because it is a better standard .. more accurate
precise and reproducible
>> > From Poincare: "...La simultan�it� de deux �v�nements, ou l�ordre de
>> > leur succession, l��galit� de deux dur�es, doivent �tre d�finies de
>> > telle sorte que l��nonc� des lois naturelles soit aussi simple que
>> > possible..."
>>
>> > IOW, choose your definitions as to make physics (its laws or
>> > principles) simple. The BIMP/... has chosen to do so and explicitly
>> > said it in their documents.
>>
>> You cannot just define something to be constant unless it is
>
> Yes you can.
Not without stuffing up physics.
> To declare that "unless it is" implies that the concept
> was defined prior.
No
> You can not agree on the value (measure) of something if that
> something is not defined.
So you are saying noone had ever defined what speed means until they used
the constancy of the speed of light as the basis for units of length
measurement.
>> > The second postulate of SR involves the word speed. What is the
>> > definition of speed?
>>
>> Read a physics book
>
> And you, you should read a few books. This will give you different POV
> and perhaps
> a renewed understanding on the meaning(s) of 'speed'.
I understand it quite fine thanks.
>> > Which definition shall we use? The definition
>> > chosen is the one that makes the "postulate" true because this makes
>> > physics "simpler".
>>
>> No
>
>
> But that is what physics ( BIMB/NIST/...) have done (as argued by
> Poincare and my physicist since).
Nonsense. Your conspiracy theories are not convincing.
>> Only one definition for physics.. if you want to talk about other things
>> ..
>> choose a different newsgroup
>
> We are talking about the various (mis)interpretations of the words
> used in SR. This is the correct NG.
The only misunderstanding about the word speed is those who conflate closing
(or separation) speed with speed. You are contributing to the confusion by
making up this nonsensical 'in-between speed' notion.
BURT
> >> > leur succession, l’égalité de deux durées, doivent être définies de
>
> - Show quoted text -
Speed is flow.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
>> >> > leur succession, l��galit� de deux dur�es, doivent �tre d�finies de
Burt is spamming moron
rotchm
Depends on the meaning of those two words.
As *you* point out below, "speed" is not necessarily "speed".
> SR does not NEED to says something
Exactly, SR says nothing about the 'in between speed'; you finally
agree!
>that you have made up
Hmmm, read the thread carefully; dono introduced that in this thread.
As always, he probably deleted
his crap to cover his mistakes again. That is typical of him. Google
dono the troll
> No
Yes
> > You can not agree on the value (measure) of something if that
> > something is not defined.
>
> So you are saying noone had ever defined what speed means until they used
> the constancy of the speed of light as the basis for units of length
> measurement.
Exactly !! Now you are getting it. You really should read Poincare, he
has pointed all this out way back in the late 1800rds. Since, many
others have pointed that fact out.
Again, from Poincare: "...En d’autres termes, toutes ces règles,
toutes ces définitions ne sont que le fruit d’un opportunisme
inconscient..."
IOW, scientist were not fully conscious of the definitions they were
using... It took ~ 100 years for them to sift through the possible
definitions (and there were many re-definitions), experiments and
implications. Then they finally explicitly defined their terms and
explained why they have chosen such and such definitions. One of those
reasons, as they explicitly state, is to satisfy SR, to *make* the
speed of light constant. There were other reasons invoked, reasons you
have pointed out ( more accurate, portability etc).
> > But that is what physics (BIMB/NIST/...) have done (as argued by
> > Poincare and my physicist since).
>
> Nonsense. Your conspiracy theories are not convincing.
Its all there in the literature...Are you afraid to read the related
documents
of the BIMP/NIST/CGPM/CCDM ? Good reading.
> The only misunderstanding about the word speed is those who conflate closing
> (or separation) speed with speed.
There are many other misunderstandings concerning "speed".
There is the "math" speed which is dx/dt independent of the
measurement procedure, there is the operationally defined speed of
physics, there is the closing speed, the "warp" speed (distance over
proper time), the apparent speed (optical and terrell effects), the
superluminal (non causal) "speeds", usw.
All these "speeds" are conflated by the ignorant... just look around
in this NG where we often try to explain this to the kranks.
>You are contributing to the confusion by
> making up this nonsensical 'in-between speed' notion
Yes that term will be confusing which is why it is rarely brought up.
But it is brought up every so often in this NG, with different
terminologies and contexts.
Inertial
>> No argument required .. speed is speed
>
> Depends on the meaning of those two words.
> As *you* point out below, "speed" is not necessarily "speed".
Yes it is
>> SR does not NEED to says something
> Exactly, SR says nothing about the 'in between speed'; you finally
> agree!
Becauae it is no different to any other speed.. So SR already covers it.
>>that you have made up
>
>
> Hmmm, read the thread carefully; dono introduced that in this thread.
Someone made it up .. and now you expect Einstein to have been clairvoyant
enough to foresee this and include a specific reference to in-between speed
.. even though it is no different to any other speed.
> As always, he probably deleted
> his crap to cover his mistakes again. That is typical of him. Google
> dono the troll
Yeup .. I've had experience of him before
>
>> No
> Yes
I can't even tell now what you are arguing about here .. but I am probably
right.
>> > You can not agree on the value (measure) of something if that
>> > something is not defined.
>>
>> So you are saying noone had ever defined what speed means until they used
>> the constancy of the speed of light as the basis for units of length
>> measurement.
>
> Exactly !!
Ok .. you've really lost the plot now
> Now you are getting it. You really should read Poincare, he
> has pointed all this out way back in the late 1800rds. Since, many
> others have pointed that fact out.
So they had no idea what speed was back then?
> Again, from Poincare: "...En d�autres termes, toutes ces r�gles,
> toutes ces d�finitions ne sont que le fruit d�un opportunisme
> inconscient..."
>
> IOW, scientist were not fully conscious of the definitions they were
> using... It took ~ 100 years for them to sift through the possible
> definitions (and there were many re-definitions), experiments and
> implications. Then they finally explicitly defined their terms and
> explained why they have chosen such and such definitions. One of those
> reasons, as they explicitly state, is to satisfy SR, to *make* the
> speed of light constant.
Nonsense .. it was already constant. They simply recognised the fact.
> There were other reasons invoked, reasons you
> have pointed out ( more accurate, portability etc).
The only true reasons. That it then makes SR 'right' about the speed of
light by definition as well as by prior experimental observation is a bonus
:) All the standard has done is set a particular figure for that speed,
which experiment had already determined to be constant (certainly in the
sort of laboratory settings of the operational standards definition), and
defined length from that speed (instead of vice versa)
>> > But that is what physics (BIMB/NIST/...) have done (as argued by
>> > Poincare and my physicist since).
>>
>> Nonsense. Your conspiracy theories are not convincing.
>
> Its all there in the literature...Are you afraid to read the related
> documents
> of the BIMP/NIST/CGPM/CCDM ? Good reading.
Nope .. no fear at all.
>> The only misunderstanding about the word speed is those who conflate
>> closing
>> (or separation) speed with speed.
>
> There are many other misunderstandings concerning "speed".
There is no limit to the stupidity of some people. In physics there is no
misunderstanding about what it means.
> There is the "math" speed which is dx/dt independent of the
> measurement procedure, there is the operationally defined speed of
> physics, there is the closing speed, the "warp" speed (distance over
> proper time), the apparent speed (optical and terrell effects), the
> superluminal (non causal) "speeds", usw.
>
> All these "speeds" are conflated by the ignorant... just look around
> in this NG where we often try to explain this to the kranks.
We here are talking about light speed here. According to the second
postulate (and as supported by experimental evidence) it has a definite
fixed constant speed (and so we are able to use that as a basis for the
standard of length). There is no special concept of an 'in-between-speed'
that needs consideration. That is just a speed like any other.
In other theories, you can have the speed being isotropic, but a two-way
speed still 'averages' out to be c. In that case the second postulate is
obviously violated as the speed in one direction is different to the speed
in another, and so there is NOT one constant speed.
Yes .. some cranks (or the ignorant) do not see that the definition of speed
is different to closing speed.
A bit like the way they confuse mass with relativistic mass.
>>You are contributing to the confusion by
>> making up this nonsensical 'in-between speed' notion
>
> Yes that term will be confusing which is why it is rarely brought up.
> But it is brought up every so often in this NG, with different
> terminologies and contexts.
The cranks never give up :)
Dono.
> One of those
> reasons, as they explicitly state, is to satisfy SR,
No, aetherist imbecile, it has nothing to do with "satisfying SR", it
has everything to do with agreeing with the overwhelming experimental
evidence.
> to *make* the speed of light constant.
The speed of light IS constant, idiot. BY DEFINITION, since the 1983
concention and as CONFIRMED by countless experiments. Really, how
stooopid are you?
BURT
Light travels at C by the Aether.
rotchm
> > As always, he probably deleted
> > his crap to cover his mistakes again. That is typical of him. Google
> > dono the troll
>
> Yeup .. I've had experience of him before
Well, at least we agree on that ! ;)
> >> No
> > Yes
>
> I can't even tell now what you are arguing about here ..
;) I put that there just for fun! Your response was predictably
amusing!
>
> > Now you are getting it. You really should read Poincare, he
> > has pointed all this out way back in the late 1800rds. Since, many
> > others have pointed that fact out.
>
> So they had no idea what speed was back then?
Precisely. It took them a while to figure it out. Not speed per se,
but the combination/relation between position, time and speed. Again,
> > Again, from Poincare: "...En d’autres termes, toutes ces règles,
> > toutes ces définitions ne sont que le fruit d’un opportunisme
> > inconscient..."
> Nonsense .. it was already constant. They simply recognized the fact.
Nope it was not constant. It was measured to a high degree of accuracy
to be within a certain range.
No experiment is infinitely accurate, so the "postulate" can never be
experimentally verified.
Since such a postulate (SR) made physics "simpler", they (standards
bureau and physicist) decided to make the speed of light constant.
Dont forget, SR is a model...it currently predicts well experiments;
it does not say how/what our universe is.
>
> There is no limit to the stupidity of some people. In physics there is no
> misunderstanding about what it means.
That is why Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein, Rindler, Born, Reinchenbach
etc etc... have had vivid discussions on the meanings and
interpretations of speed ? If such scientist have been discussing
the subject for ~ 100 years, then I would say that there were
misunderstandings. It has been cleared up now, but the lay still
misunderstand.
> We here are talking about light speed here. According to the second
> postulate (and as supported by experimental evidence) it has a definite
> fixed constant speed (and so we are able to use that as a basis for the
> standard of length).
I stated my position above on that interpretation.
>There is no special concept of an 'in-between-speed'
> that needs consideration. That is just a speed like any other.
The 'in between' speed is to point out the fact that speeds are
measured by a pair of
point events, "delta_x / delta_t" . What happens in between these
events is unknown/undefined and irrelevant.
>
> In other theories, you can have the speed being isotropic, but a two-way
> speed still 'averages' out to be c. In that case the second postulate is
> obviously violated as the speed in one direction is different to the speed
> in another, and so there is NOT one constant speed.
Ah HA! There, you are using the word "speed" many times in a sentence,
where their meanings differ.
That was an example I omitted before and would have been a good
example.
In "other theories" as LET, "speed" does not have the same meaning as
speed in SR (in modern physics); they have different definitions.
There is the LET "speed" as in "absolute" speed and there is the LET
"speed" as in "measured" speed; this latter "measured speed" is SR's
"speed".
For instance in LET, the speed (of Light) is constant and iso in the
Pref.Frame, the speed is not constant nor iso in other frames and the
measured speed is constant and iso in all frames.
You see, "speed" may have different interpretations. One must be clear
on the meaning used.
> A bit like the way they confuse mass with relativistic mass.
WhoaH! Dont get me started on that one! Mass, redefined
(distinguished) as proper mass and relativistic mass, where proper
mass has been redefined simply as the word mass.
> The cranks never give up :)
If it were not for them this NG would be dead. Clowns are always a
breath of fresh air.
rotchm
> On Nov 26, 5:21 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One of those
> > reasons, as they explicitly state, is to satisfy SR,
>
> No, aetherist imbecile, it has nothing to do with "satisfying SR",
I am no etherist, so you made again a wrong statement.
If it has nothing to do with "satisfying SR" then why did they
explicitly state that in their reasons to make the speed of light
constant?!
>it
> has everything to do with agreeing with the overwhelming experimental
> evidence.
Yes, that is perhaps the most important reason. But they did not
order the importance of their reasons. All the reasons together led
them to their choice.
> > to *make* the speed of light constant.
>
> The speed of light IS constant, idiot. BY DEFINITION,
As I was stating all the long, as the meaning of my above quote! Again
you drastically fail to understand the words used.
> concention and as CONFIRMED by countless experiments.
Nope, never confirmed experimentally (prior to 1983). Only confirmed
to within accuracy. Since 1983 it is "confirmed by definition".
You are really a moron. Now, get out of this discussion, we do not
want you here. And feel free to delete your messages again !
rotchm
> Light travels at C by the Aether.
Thankyou Bert, you are a breath of fresh air !
Dono.
>
> I am no etherist, so you made again a wrong statement.
Of course you are, you have been posting the same idiocies for years:
> If it has nothing to do with "satisfying SR" then why did they
> explicitly state that in their reasons to make the speed of light
> constant?!
>
"They" did NOt "make" it constant, imbecile. Countless prior
experiments showed that it IS constant.
> Yes, that is perhaps the most important reason. But they did not
> order the importance of their reasons.
"They" are real physicists, you are just an idiot who, after all these
years understands zilch.
> Nope, never confirmed experimentally (prior to 1983). Only confirmed
> to within accuracy. Since 1983 it is "confirmed by definition".
>
What did I tell you? you are a moron.
Inertial
news:a26cf32a-2932-409e...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
We don't always agree, but you are certainly right here.
Dono.
>
> Nope, never confirmed experimentally (prior to 1983).
No, moron, the experiments date as far back as 1963:
Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), pg 241.
Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965).
Isaak et al., Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), pg 255.
BURT
The speed of light is not a constant in the field of the atom. EM can
flow through matter and vice versa.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
>
>> > As always, he probably deleted
>> > his crap to cover his mistakes again. That is typical of him. Google
>> > dono the troll
>>
>> Yeup .. I've had experience of him before
>
> Well, at least we agree on that ! ;)
>
>
>
>> >> No
>> > Yes
>>
>> I can't even tell now what you are arguing about here ..
>
>
> ;) I put that there just for fun! Your response was predictably
> amusing!
>
>
>>
>> > Now you are getting it. You really should read Poincare, he
>> > has pointed all this out way back in the late 1800rds. Since, many
>> > others have pointed that fact out.
>>
>> So they had no idea what speed was back then?
>
> Precisely. It took them a while to figure it out. Not speed per se,
> but the combination/relation between position, time and speed. Again,
>
>
>> > inconscient..."
>
>
>
>> Nonsense .. it was already constant. They simply recognized the fact.
>
> Nope it was not constant.
Yes it was .
> It was measured to a high degree of accuracy
> to be within a certain range.
Which is compatible with it being constant.
> No experiment is infinitely accurate, so the "postulate" can never be
> experimentally verified.
As with anything in physics, it cannot be proven, only be not-refuted.
Light speed being constany is not refuted despite many experiments that
would have if it wasn't
> Since such a postulate (SR) made physics "simpler", they (standards
> bureau and physicist) decided to make the speed of light constant.
Nope
> Dont forget, SR is a model...
Like everything in physics
> it currently predicts well experiments;
Always has
> it does not say how/what our universe is.
All we can do is model and then philosophize about what the model means
>> There is no limit to the stupidity of some people. In physics there is
>> no
>> misunderstanding about what it means.
>
>
> That is why Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein, Rindler, Born, Reinchenbach
> etc etc... have had vivid discussions on the meanings and
> interpretations of speed ? If such scientist have been discussing
> the subject for ~ 100 years, then I would say that there were
> misunderstandings. It has been cleared up now, but the lay still
> misunderstand.
Indeed
>> We here are talking about light speed here. According to the second
>> postulate (and as supported by experimental evidence) it has a definite
>> fixed constant speed (and so we are able to use that as a basis for the
>> standard of length).
>
> I stated my position above on that interpretation.
Indeed you have
>>There is no special concept of an 'in-between-speed'
>> that needs consideration. That is just a speed like any other.
>
> The 'in between' speed is to point out the fact that speeds are
> measured by a pair of
> point events, "delta_x / delta_t" . What happens in between these
> events is unknown/undefined and irrelevant.
Indeed it is .. though SR's second postulate says what happens. And you can
always take different pairs and measure the in-betweens. Certainly all
experiments so far have shown that light speed is constant, and doesn't vary
'in between'
>> In other theories, you can have the speed being isotropic, but a two-way
>> speed still 'averages' out to be c. In that case the second postulate is
>> obviously violated as the speed in one direction is different to the
>> speed
>> in another, and so there is NOT one constant speed.
>
> Ah HA! There, you are using the word "speed" many times in a sentence,
> where their meanings differ.
Nope .. one meaning in all cases. Otherwise it like you saying that the
speed of a car is not the same speed concept as the speed of a truck
> That was an example I omitted before and would have been a good
> example.
And would have shown me correct .. one concept of speed
> In "other theories" as LET, "speed" does not have the same meaning as
> speed in SR (in modern physics);
Depends on what speed you are measuring
> they have different definitions.
> There is the LET "speed" as in "absolute" speed and there is the LET
> "speed" as in "measured" speed; this latter "measured speed" is SR's
> "speed".
Speed is still speed. Absolute speed or measured speed or relative speed or
closing speed are particular example of a speed.
> For instance in LET, the speed (of Light) is constant and iso in the
> Pref.Frame, the speed is not constant nor iso in other frames and the
> measured speed is constant and iso in all frames.
Yeup
> You see, "speed" may have different interpretations. One must be clear
> on the meaning used.
That is why one prefixes it with terms such as 'closing' or 'absolute' or
'relative' etc so you know what it is you are measuring the speed of
>> A bit like the way they confuse mass with relativistic mass.
>
>
> WhoaH! Dont get me started on that one! Mass, redefined
> (distinguished) as proper mass and relativistic mass, where proper
> mass has been redefined simply as the word mass.
Yeup. Just a refinement of terminology.
>> The cranks never give up :)
>
> If it were not for them this NG would be dead. Clowns are always a
> breath of fresh air.
Yeup .. always amusing. Though it has been rather dull here lately.
rotchm
> > No experiment is infinitely accurate, so the "postulate" can never be
> > experimentally verified.
>
> As with anything in physics, it cannot be proven, only be not-refuted.
So you finally agree!
> > The 'in between' speed is to point out the fact that speeds are
> > measured by a pair of
> > point events, "delta_x / delta_t" . What happens in between these
> > events is unknown/undefined and irrelevant.
>
> Indeed it is .. though SR's second postulate says what happens. And you can
> always take different pairs and measure the in-betweens. Certainly all
> experiments so far have shown that light speed is constant, and doesn't vary
> 'in between'
Nope, no experiments have shown that. The experiments have shown to
within accuracy (prior 1983) that it has the same value. No
experiments have shown that the 'inbetween' speed has the same value
bcause those experiments did not also measure the inbetween speed.
Also, sto complicate, some experiments very "close-by in between"
experiments have shown (or its authors argue) that the speed is not
c: Casimir/Scharnhorst effect... but that is a different story...
>
> Speed is still speed. Absolute speed or measured speed or relative speed or
> closing speed are particular example of a speed.
Ah... so we are arguing about a word and an expression using that
word.
Words may be prefixed such that the prefix completely changes the
meaning of the word.
Many use the word "speed" non prefixed, and use the same word in the
same discussion where its intended meaning has changed. Etherist ( and
SRians) often use the non prefixed word "speed" both meaning the
different concepts of absolute speed and the measured speed... and
arrive at 'paradoxes' because they are mixing up the meaning of the
words.
And you just have used the expression "... a speed". This is not the
"speed" that we were discussing.
Your "a speed" refers to all the various meanings of "speed" taking
into account the possible prefixes.
"a speed" is not "the speed".
> That is why one prefixes it with terms such as 'closing' or 'absolute' or
> 'relative' etc so you know what it is you are measuring the speed of
"one prefixes..." That is often omitted causing confusions.
Inertial
>
>> > No experiment is infinitely accurate, so the "postulate" can never be
>> > experimentally verified.
>>
>> As with anything in physics, it cannot be proven, only be not-refuted.
>
> So you finally agree!
I never disagreed. I didn't say it way proven by experiment .. I said it
was supported. All experiments to find a variation in the speed of light
have null results .. never been found.
>> > The 'in between' speed is to point out the fact that speeds are
>> > measured by a pair of
>> > point events, "delta_x / delta_t" . What happens in between these
>> > events is unknown/undefined and irrelevant.
>>
>> Indeed it is .. though SR's second postulate says what happens. And you
>> can
>> always take different pairs and measure the in-betweens. Certainly all
>> experiments so far have shown that light speed is constant, and doesn't
>> vary
>> 'in between'
>
> Nope, no experiments have shown that.
> The experiments have shown to
> within accuracy (prior 1983) that it has the same value.
That is what 'show' means .. as opposed to 'proved'
> No
> experiments have shown that the 'inbetween' speed has the same value
> bcause those experiments did not also measure the inbetween speed.
There is no evidence of it ever travelling at any other speed. If there
were in-betweens where it didn't, then we would have found evidence of them
by now, as every measusrement of speed is an in-between of something else.
> Also, sto complicate, some experiments very "close-by in between"
> experiments have shown (or its authors argue) that the speed is not
> c: Casimir/Scharnhorst effect... but that is a different story...
I'm familiar with those
/>> Speed is still speed. Absolute speed or measured speed or relative
speed or
>> closing speed are particular example of a speed.
>
>
> Ah... so we are arguing about a word and an expression using that
> word.
> Words may be prefixed such that the prefix completely changes the
> meaning of the word.
Not completely .. it specifies its domain
> Many use the word "speed" non prefixed, and use the same word in the
> same discussion where its intended meaning has changed. Etherist ( and
> SRians) often use the non prefixed word "speed" both meaning the
> different concepts of absolute speed and the measured speed... and
> arrive at 'paradoxes' because they are mixing up the meaning of the
> words.
*Indeed they do. But when we say 'spee'd those who understand physics know
what that means. The cranks don't want to.
> And you just have used the expression "... a speed".
Yes
> This is not the
> "speed" that we were discussing.
Its all speed
> Your "a speed" refers to all the various meanings of "speed" taking
> into account the possible prefixes.
> "a speed" is not "the speed".
It is without a prefix .. really .. you're just being a pedantic pain in the
arse.
>> That is why one prefixes it with terms such as 'closing' or 'absolute' or
>> 'relative' etc so you know what it is you are measuring the speed of
>
> "one prefixes..." That is often omitted causing confusions.
When omitted it has a particular application.. it is ignorance that causes
confusion.
Do you actually have any point ot make here other than playing pedantic word
games for the sake of reading your own words?
BURT
Speed is a lower concept than flow rate in the aether.
Mitch Raemsch