Where is the Physics Behind Einstein's Second Postulate?
Henry Wilson
differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
change speed slightly in sympathy.
If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
observers one might select.
(Sorry about my long absence. My server is having great difficulty. I
hope you didn't miss me too much)
mpc755
As you walk backwards and forwards your clock changes the rate at which
it ticks. Your clock ticks according to the state of the aether in which
it exists.
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of
the aether in which it exists. In terms of general relativity, this is
the force associated with gravity. The greater the gravitational force
exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock the slower the clock
ticks. Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is
gravity. The greater the force of the displaced aether exerted toward
and throughout an atomic clock the slower the clock ticks. In terms of
special relativity, this is the speed at which an atomic clock moves
with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists. The faster
the atomic clock moves through the aether the more aether the atomic
clock displaces. The more aether the atomic clock displaces the more
force there is exerted by the displaced aether toward and throughout the
atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.
That is why light is always determined to propagate at 'c'.
Tom Roberts
> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> change speed slightly in sympathy.
No "miracle" is needed. In SR this occurs because your measuring instruments
move with you, and that motion affects how they measure the speed of the light
ray, in PRECISELY the right way to yield the value c. This is modeled as a
change in orientation in spacetime.
As long as you insist on remaining willfully ignorant of SR, you can expect to
remain mystified.
Tom Roberts
mpc755
I especially like how you deleted the following part of the post in
order to once again discuss a 'model' which has nothing to do with what
occurs physically in nature.
Henry Wilson wrote:
> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
> reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
> observers one might select.
What is conceptually referred to as spacetime physically exists in
nature as aether. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined
by the force of the aether in which it exists. In terms of general
relativity, this is the force associated with gravity. The greater the
gravitational force exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock the
slower the clock ticks. Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced
by matter is gravity. The greater the force of the displaced aether
exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock the slower the clock
ticks. In terms of special relativity, this is the speed at which an
atomic clock moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it
exists. The faster the atomic clock moves through the aether the more
aether the atomic clock displaces. The more aether the atomic clock
displaces the more force there is exerted by the displaced aether toward
and throughout the atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.
That is what occurs physically in nature to cause light to always be
Inertial
news:5d80c820-3776-4df1...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>change speed slightly in sympathy.
Poor Ralph is doomed to remain a moron, and we are doomed to continue
watching him demonstrate it.
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Dp6dnSVBvMY...@giganews.com...
| Henry Wilson wrote:
| > Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
| > differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
| > A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
| > and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
| > change speed slightly in sympathy.
|
| No "miracle" is needed.
.. just Roberts' bullshit.
Inertial
news:5d80c820-3776-4df1...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
>A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>>and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>change speed slightly in sympathy.
Henry. .. tell me this .. if a car is travelling along a highway, according
to a hitchhiker by the road the car is travelling at 100km/h. To the driver
of another car coming toward him, he is travelling at 100km/hr. To another
car driving beside him he has a speed of 0km/hr. So how does the car know
which speed to travel at. How does it change it speed so that each observer
gets a different value? And how is it that it can have more than one speed
at the same time? How does that miracle happen?
>If P2 is correct, as relativists claim,
And experiment shows
> then there must be a physical
>reason for this uniformity of light speed.
describe what you mean by 'physics' and 'reason'
> Words alone cannot create
>the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
There is no personal 'aether'.
> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
> observers one might select.
Minkowski. Its geometry. There's nothing 'causing' light to move at c.
Just like there is nothing that 'causes' space to have three mutually
orthogonal dimensions. Anything moving at c in one frame must most at c in
all frames when the universes dimensions of spacetime are Minkowski .. and
the evidence is (with the additional complications of GR and gravity) that
that is how our universe is.
mpc755
Exactly the answer the original poster is NOT looking for. The original
poster is asking what occurs PHYSICALLY in nature to cause light to
always be determined to propagate at 'c'. Not mathematical geometry.
What is conceptually referred to as spacetime physically exists in
nature as aether. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined
by the force of the aether in which it exists. In terms of general
relativity, this is the force associated with gravity. The greater the
gravitational force exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock the
slower the clock ticks. Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced
by matter is gravity. The greater the force of the displaced aether
exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock the slower the clock
ticks. In terms of special relativity, this is the speed at which an
atomic clock moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it
exists. The faster the atomic clock moves through the aether the more
aether the atomic clock displaces. The more aether the atomic clock
displaces the more force there is exerted by the displaced aether toward
and throughout the atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.
Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it
exists, including the rate at which clocks tick which are used to
determined the rate at which light propagates.
eric gisse
$5496...@news.astraweb.com:
That's why there's no point in conversing with him. Let him keep changing
emails and repeating his bullshit against silence.
Koobee Wublee
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> > Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> > differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> > A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> > and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> > change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
> No "miracle" is needed.
Regardless of your vehement denial, the assumption that light speed is
invariant is actually a miracle of the nature if it really does
exist. Have you not heard of 20/20 is purely a hind sight? <shrug>
> In SR this occurs because your measuring instruments
> move with you, and that motion affects how they measure the speed of the light
> ray, in PRECISELY the right way to yield the value c. This is modeled as a
> change in orientation in spacetime.
This wishful thinking to support your religion of SR is totally
bullshit. For instance, one scenario in your blindly support to the
invariance in the speed of light would lead to all observed speeds to
be invariant which is proven to be wrong. <shrug>
> As long as you insist on remaining willfully ignorant of SR, you can expect to
> remain mystified.
Just because you have seen a one-way time dilation as predicted by SR,
you now strongly believe in the nonsense of SR. Well, there are an
infinite numbers of mathematical models that also predict such
observed time dilation in which the Lorentz transform is merely one of
them. The funny thing is that the symmetric mutual time dilation of
the Lorentz transform which is only unique to the Lorentz transform
has never been observed, and yet as a self-claimed scientist, you have
deliberately discarded this experimental outcome to support of your
mystified conviction. <shrug>
How can you call yourself a scientist when the garbage that you
believe in has never been supported by any experimentation? Show Him
the symmetric time dilation, please. <shrug>
Henry Wilson
crap
Henry Wilson
Minkowski space is even more phairyland physics.
Henry Wilson
Can't you get it into your head that Einstein provided every observer
with his own personal aether.
Henry Wilson
> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in news:4e373546$0$30004$c3e8da3
> $54964...@news.astraweb.com:
>
> > "Henry Wilson" wrote in message
> >news:5d80c820-3776-4df1...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> >>and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> >>change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
> > Poor Ralph is doomed to remain a moron, and we are doomed to continue
> > watching him demonstrate it.
>
> That's why there's no point in conversing with him. Let him keep changing
poor boy...no wonder he failed after trying for nine years/
Alen
I'd say light itself obviously has a ruler of its own
along which it always travels at velocity c. When it
approaches you it hooks its ruler onto you and
therefore travels towards you at c. It doesn't matter
if you walk backwards or forwards, because you will
just be pulling or pushing the ruler, and therefore not
changing the light speed relative to you. That would work
physically, wouldn't it? :) :)
At least it makes a lot more physical sense than
the non-physical Minkowski spacetime :)
Alen
eric gisse
48bb01...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> At least it makes a lot more physical sense than
> the non-physical Minkowski spacetime :)
>
> Alen
>
Funny how USENET seems to gather people who willingly admit they do not
understand, but argue anyway.
mpc755
>
> Can't you get it into your head that Einstein provided every observer
> with his own personal aether.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the ether as determined by its connections with the matter
and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state of
displacement of the ether.
mpc755
>
> [snip]
eric gisse wrote:
>
> "There isn't a single observation that cannot be explained by a non-
> aether theory."
>
I must have missed your post where you explain how the Milky Way disk
and halo formed in a non-aether theory.
The halo is the state of displacement of the aether of relativity.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically
displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts force toward the
matter.
The matter which would form the Milky Way was moving as it displaced the
aether. The aether displaced perpendicular to the major direction of
motion became the majority force of the displaced aether and forced the
matter into the disk. This resulted in the angular momentum of the
matter. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the
plane of the angular momentum which exerts force toward the center of
the Milky Way. This force, along with the state of displacement of the
aether as determined by the angular momentum of the Milky Way, forced
the matter closer together which resulted in the displaced aether
looking like a squished beach ball.
Aether displacement explains how the Milky Way was created and how the
disk and halo formed.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections
with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
Inertial
> There's nothing 'causing' light to move at c.
Why do you think there needs to be?
Inertial
>Can't you get it into your head that Einstein provided every observer
>with his own personal aether.
Can't you get it into your head that no one believes your crap
Inertial
news:1228ed7c-cfff-4caf...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I'd say light itself obviously has a ruler of its own
> along which it always travels at velocity c.
What a load of nonsense .. or are you just joking?
kenseto
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> > Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> > differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> > A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> > and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> > change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
> No "miracle" is needed. In SR this occurs because your measuring instruments
> move with you, and that motion affects how they measure the speed of the light
> ray, in PRECISELY the right way to yield the value c. This is modeled as a
> change in orientation in spacetime.
If your intruement is affect by your motion then the unit to measure time, for example a clock second, is also affect by your motion. This means that a clock second will have different meaning in different states of motion. Since the speed of light is defined by you clock second then your measurement of the speed of light is not a universal constant. That means that you claim claim the speed of light is a universal constant is false. Also this means that you can't compare the passage of a clock second in different frames with the passage of a clock second in your frame with the passage of a clock second in another frame such is the case in the twin paradox....so that means that your claim of time dilation is false. In another word a clock second is not a universal interval of time.
What really happen is that there is no time dilation...the only time exists is absolute time....a clock second in differetn frames will contain a different amount of absolute time. The purpose of SR/GR and IRT is to predict the clock reading on an observed clock for a specific amount of absolute time on the observer's clock. For example SR or IRT predicts that the passage of a clock second on the observer's clcok correspond to the passage of 1/gamma second on the observed clock.
The concept of absolute time is used in the GPS system. The GPS designer redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clcok second. The redefine GPS second is designed to contain the same anmount of absolute time as a ground clock second and thus makes the GPS permanmently in synch with the ground clock.
IRT incorate the above concept on the existence of ABSOLUTE TIME. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
Inertial
news:63c4aa65-10c3-4666...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Monday, August 1, 2011 7:11:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>> > Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
>> > differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
>> > A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>> > and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>> > change speed slightly in sympathy.
>>
>> No "miracle" is needed. In SR this occurs because your measuring
>> instruments
>> move with you, and that motion affects how they measure the speed of the
>> light
>> ray, in PRECISELY the right way to yield the value c. This is modeled as
>> a
>> change in orientation in spacetime.
>
> If your intruement is affect by your motion then the unit to measure time,
> for example a clock second, is also affect by your motion.
Amazing .. you worked that out all by yourself .. that motion of a clock
affects how you measure its rate.
> This means that a clock second will have different meaning in different
> states of motion.
No.. it means exactly the same thing. Its measured value may be different.
> Since the speed of light is defined by you clock second then your
> measurement of the speed of light is not a universal constant.
Of course the measurement is universal if all inertial observers measure it
to be the same. That's what universal means.
> That means that you claim claim the speed of light is a universal constant
> is false.
No .. it IS constant. How you can think that something being the same means
it is not constant is beyond reason.
> Also this means that you can't compare the passage of a clock second in
> different frames with the passage of a clock second in your frame with the
> passage of a clock second in another frame
Of course you can. You see how much time elapsed for each clock between a
pair of events and compare.
> such is the case in the twin paradox....so that means that your claim of
> time dilation is false.
No. The very fact that you are saying the the clock second is different
means time dilation occurs. So your logic is that if there is time dilation
that means there is no time dilation. Gees.
> In another word a clock second is not a universal interval of time.
Who said it was?
> What really happen is that there is no time dilation...
Of course there is. We can measure it happening
> the only time exists is absolute time....
No such thing.
> a clock second in differetn frames will contain a different amount of
> absolute time.
But there is no such thing, so that assertion is meaningless
> The purpose of SR/GR and IRT is to predict the clock reading on an
> observed clock for a specific amount of absolute time on the observer's
> clock.
IRT has no purpose. You don't know enough to state what the purpose of
SR/GR is
> For example SR or IRT predicts that the passage of a clock second on the
> observer's clcok correspond to the passage of 1/gamma second on the
> observed clock.
No .. SR does not predict that .. because you cannot compare those directly.
You need TWO observers clocks to be able to compare times with a moving
observerd clock
> The concept of absolute time is used in the GPS system.
Wrong again
> The GPS designer redefine the GPS second
There is no redefinition. There is (as you have admitted before) an
adjustment of the rate of the internal clock to compensate for the
difference in time so that it will tick at the same rate as an unadjusted
ground clock.
> to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clcok
> second. The redefine GPS second is designed to contain the same anmount of
> absolute time
No such thing. So there is no such design.
> as a ground clock second and thus makes the GPS permanmently in synch with
> the ground clock.
>
>IRT
is a load of shit
kenseto
> > Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> > differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> > A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> > and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> > change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
> No "miracle" is needed. In SR this occurs because your measuring instruments
> move with you, and that motion affects how they measure the speed of the light
> ray, in PRECISELY the right way to yield the value c. This is modeled as a
> change in orientation in spacetime.
If your instruement is affected by motion then a clcok second is not a universal interval of time. That means that you can't claim that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames of reference. Also that means that you can't compare a traveling clock second with a stay at home clock second to come to the bogus concept of time dilation.
In real life absolute time exists....a clock second in different frame represents a different amount of absolute time...that means that the observer's clock second will represent a specific amount of absolute time. The purpose of SR or IRT is to predict the clock reading on an observed clock for a specific interval of absolute time on the observer's clock. For example: the passage of a clock second on the observer's clock is predicted to be correspond to the passage of 1/gamma second on the observed clock.
The GPS uses the absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. The GPS designers redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This makes the redefined GPS second contains the same amount of absolute time as the ground clock second. This means that the passage of a redefined GPS second will correspond to the passage of a ground clock second at all times and thus the GPS is in synch with the ground clock permanently.
A new theory of relativity called IRT uses the above conept of time. IRT elimineted all the paradoxes of SR. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
>
kenseto
> "Henry Wilson" wrote in message
> news:5d80c820-3776-4df1...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> >differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> >A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> >>and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> >change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
> Henry. .. tell me this .. if a car is travelling along a highway, according
> to a hitchhiker by the road the car is travelling at 100km/h. To the driver
> of another car coming toward him, he is travelling at 100km/hr.
You are an idiot...the driver coming toward him does not say that he is traveling at 100 km/hr.
> To another
> car driving beside him he has a speed of 0km/hr. So how does the car know
> which speed to travel at. How does it change it speed so that each observer
> gets a different value? And how is it that it can have more than one speed
> at the same time? How does that miracle happen?
Your analogy sucks....Henry's point is that no matter how the observer moves SR claims that he measures the same speed for the same light source.
Ken Seto
Inertial
news:93f80086-eb08-4b12...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Monday, August 1, 2011 8:08:49 PM UTC-4, Inertial wrote:
>> "Henry Wilson" wrote in message
>> news:5d80c820-3776-4df1...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
>> >differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
>> >A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>> >>and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>> >change speed slightly in sympathy.
>>
>> Henry. .. tell me this .. if a car is travelling along a highway,
>> according
>> to a hitchhiker by the road the car is travelling at 100km/h. To the
>> driver
>> of another car coming toward him, he is travelling at 100km/hr.
>
>You are an idiot...the driver coming toward him does not say that he is
>traveling at 100 km/hr.
Sorry .. typo .. should have been 200km/hr
>> To another
>> car driving beside him he has a speed of 0km/hr. So how does the car
>> know
>> which speed to travel at. How does it change it speed so that each
>> observer
>> gets a different value? And how is it that it can have more than one
>> speed
>> at the same time? How does that miracle happen?
>
>Your analogy sucks....
It wasn't an analogy .. it was just another 'miracle', similar to the one he
mentioned .. I wondered if Henry was able to explain it.
> Henry's point is that no matter how the observer moves SR claims that
> he measures the same speed for the same light source.
His point was that if he changes his speed that the light from Andromeda
*changes* speed.
And, of course, that is nonsense because it doesn't change speed. No
observer measures it as changing speed. That Henry could take the one
example of a speed that doesn't change and say that that example shows a
change in speed is beyond reason.
Rafael Valls
> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body (almost
at the beginning of Section 2 of his first relativity paper). And for
him, a “stationary system” of co-ordinates (related with rigid bodies
at the end of the Introduction) is one in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good (at the beginning of Section 1).
What make you think that you are a 1905 Einstein stationary system?
Can you describe the Sun’s trajectory with respect to you using
Newtonian equations? For doing that you must be perhaps our Galaxy.
> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> change speed slightly in sympathy.
From an absurdity almost always you can derive many other ones.
Vacuum light speed never changes in any 1905 Einstein stationary
system. And to refer the light from Andromeda, you need perhaps to use
the Metagalaxy as the stationary system where that light (in vacuum)
continues having speed c, no matter what velocity can has its source
Andromeda in it.
> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
> reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
Since the Introduction, 1905 Einstein considers the aether
superfluous. Why are you now crediting him a “personal aether”? Ask
1864 Maxwell for the vacuum light speed c. Surely he has a lot of
physical reasons for it.
> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
> observers one might select.
>
All 1864 Maxwell’s electrodynamics supports the vacuum light speed c.
And by 1905 Einstein P1 (at the Introduction), the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference
for which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. Do not
accept you 1905 Einstein P1? Perhaps you believe in the Newtonian
absolute frame, the supposed unique one where vacuum light speed is c?
By the way, it is very easy to model part of Nature with a 1905
Einstein stationary system. You only need to find a Newtonian centre
of mass frame with the external world provoking an approximate equal
acceleration in all the bodies belonging to the corresponding body
set. The best example is the Solar system. All that is according to
Corollary 6 of Law III in 1686 Newton’s “Principia…”(a generalization
of Corollary 5, Galileo’s Principle of Relativity).
> (Sorry about my long absence. My server is having great difficulty. I
> hope you didn't miss me too much)
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Edward Green
> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> change speed slightly in sympathy.
Better: your clocks and rods would be affected by your changed state
of motion in precisely the way which would lead you to continue to
measure the speed of light as "c" in your new frames of reference. You
also would be led quite naturally to adopt coordinate systems which
mixed the spatial and temporal coordinates of your original coordinate
system.
> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
> reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
The above is a rough description of the physical mechanism by which
the "miracle" is accomplished.
> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
> observers one might select.
"Einstein worshipper"??? What kind of crank words are those? Only
interested parties here, no clerics.
Aetherist
>On Aug 1, 6:54�pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
>> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
>> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>> change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
>Better: your clocks and rods would be affected by your changed state
>of motion in precisely the way which would lead you to continue to
>measure the speed of light as "c" in your new frames of reference. You
>also would be led quite naturally to adopt coordinate systems which
>mixed the spatial and temporal coordinates of your original coordinate
>system.
Yes and apparently many around here are not smart enough to realize that
measurement does not necessarily mean, or requires, it to be the actual
net speed. The V-E-R-Y existence of Doppler shifts is proof positive of
the fact that light speed is fixed to a universal FOR (the CMBR frame).
The 'actual' net speed may be determined by the doppler relative to it.
>> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
>> reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
>> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
>
>The above is a rough description of the physical mechanism by which
>the "miracle" is accomplished.
P2 simply is an affirmation that any medium must be internally self
consistent.
>> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
>> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
>> observers one might select.
>
>"Einstein worshipper"??? What kind of crank words are those? Only
>interested parties here, no clerics.
I seems to me that some exhibit behavior more consistent with clerics.
>> (Sorry about my long absence. My server is having great difficulty. I
>> hope you didn't miss me too much)
Paul Stowe
micro...@hotmail.com
> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in news:4e373546$0$30004$c3e8da3
> $54964...@news.astraweb.com:
>
> >news:5d80c820-3776-4df1...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> >>and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> >>change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
> > Poor Ralph is doomed to remain a moron, and we are doomed to continue
> > watching him demonstrate it.
>
> That's why there's no point in conversing with him. Let him keep changing
> emails and repeating his bullshit against silence.
Light doesn't change speed. It is only the same constant in empty
space but not in matter's relative frame. SR is debunked. Every
object has its own motion in space-time.
micro...@hotmail.com
> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in news:4e373546$0$30004$c3e8da3
> $54964...@news.astraweb.com:
>
> >news:5d80c820-3776-4df1...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> >>and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> >>change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
> > Poor Ralph is doomed to remain a moron, and we are doomed to continue
> > watching him demonstrate it.
>
> That's why there's no point in conversing with him. Let him keep changing
> emails and repeating his bullshit against silence.
All things have their own movement in space-time aether. Matter can
move fast as light in the same direction passes it by relatively
slowly in space and time.
sb
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> > Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> > differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> > and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> > change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
> move with you, and that motion affects how they measure the speed of the light
> ray, in PRECISELY the right way to yield the value c. This is modeled as a
> change in orientation in spacetime.
>
> remain mystified.
>
> Tom Roberts
i kinda disagree
are you just implying that the speed of light is not constant
physically???
but a matter of local measurements?
Henry Wilson DSc.
<spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>On Aug 1, 6:54�pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
>> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
>> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>> change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
>Better: your clocks and rods would be affected by your changed state
>of motion in precisely the way which would lead you to continue to
>measure the speed of light as "c" in your new frames of reference. You
>also would be led quite naturally to adopt coordinate systems which
>mixed the spatial and temporal coordinates of your original coordinate
>system.
You are not fully answering my question. You have attempted to answer only
part of it.
According to Einstein, all light from different and relatively moving
sources travels towards me at precisely c.
Einstein worshippers wil acept anything he says out of pure faith.
A real physicist will ask, "if that is true, what physical mechanism unites
the speed of all light moving towards me?"
You are virtually quoting Lorentz's theory that movement through the single
absolute aether causes rods and clocks to change by the same ratio, with the
consequence that light speed will always be measured as being c, irresective
of observer movement.
But you consider yourself to be an Einstein worshipper.....and you should
not believe in an absolute aether.
>> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
>> reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
>> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
>
>The above is a rough description of the physical mechanism by which
>the "miracle" is accomplished.
Not at all. You have not addressed the main question at all. I can only
assume you believe that an absolute aether unites all light speed.
>> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
>> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
>> observers one might select.
>
>"Einstein worshipper"??? What kind of crank words are those? Only
>interested parties here, no clerics.
The SciFi of Einstein attracted a large cult following. It relies on their
faith for its popularity.
>> (Sorry about my long absence. My server is having great difficulty. I
>> hope you didn't miss me too much)
Henry Wilson DSc
Einstein's relativity: World's greatest hoax since Mary's virginity.
Henry Wilson DSc.
That theory (basically just LET) can provide a physical explanation as to
why differently moving observers can MEASURE the speed of light from a
particular source as having the same value. It does not provide a physical
process by which all light speeds are united.
>At least it makes a lot more physical sense than
>the non-physical Minkowski spacetime :)
anything would
>Alen
harald
> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
Just like the c of sound. However, P1 (NOT P2) says that if this is a
law of nature, then the same should be measured with other inertial
reference systems that are moving relative to the system of P2. Can
you understand that?
> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> change speed slightly in sympathy.
No - which answers my question here above.
> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
> reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
He did not envisage a "personal ether" but one without which light
propagation is impossible.
> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
> observers one might select.
First, do you understand that in SR "speed" is operationally defined,
without ontological meaning?
Harald
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>On 1 ago, 17:54, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
>> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
>1905 Einstein P2 only says that any ray of light moves in the
>�stationary� system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
>whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body (almost
>at the beginning of Section 2 of his first relativity paper). And for
>him, a �stationary system� of co-ordinates (related with rigid bodies
>at the end of the Introduction) is one in which the equations of
>Newtonian mechanics hold good (at the beginning of Section 1).
>
>What make you think that you are a 1905 Einstein stationary system?
Einstein's whole theory is based on the notion that every observer can
regard himself as being always at rest in an aetherlike medium that
surrounds him. That medium determines light speed in his frame.
Every observer has a similar 'personal aether'.
I have asked his supporters to provide a physical explanation or model that
might explain such a theory.
All I get is typical meaningless drivel from the likes of Roberts and
inertial.
>Can you describe the Sun�s trajectory with respect to you using
>Newtonian equations? For doing that you must be perhaps our Galaxy.
>
>> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>> change speed slightly in sympathy.
>From an absurdity almost always you can derive many other ones.
>
>Vacuum light speed never changes in any 1905 Einstein stationary
>system. And to refer the light from Andromeda, you need perhaps to use
>the Metagalaxy as the stationary system where that light (in vacuum)
>continues having speed c, no matter what velocity can has its source
>Andromeda in it.
Einstein's use of the term 'stationary system' was basically just a
convenience. It was also a 'red herring'.
>> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
>> reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
>> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
>Since the Introduction, 1905 Einstein considers the aether
>superfluous. Why are you now crediting him a �personal aether�? Ask
>1864 Maxwell for the vacuum light speed c. Surely he has a lot of
>physical reasons for it.
>> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
>> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
>> observers one might select.
>>
>All 1864 Maxwell�s electrodynamics supports the vacuum light speed c.
>And by 1905 Einstein P1 (at the Introduction), the same laws of
>electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference
>for which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. Do not
>accept you 1905 Einstein P1? Perhaps you believe in the Newtonian
>absolute frame, the supposed unique one where vacuum light speed is c?
Maxwell's equations provide a way to measure the value of the universal
constant c....which is associated with the way electric and magnetic fields
induce each other in vacuum. That doesnt involve or require 'movement'.
If a Maxwellian type medium existed, light would travel at c wrt that
medium.
But no such medium does.....
>By the way, it is very easy to model part of Nature with a 1905
>Einstein stationary system. You only need to find a Newtonian centre
>of mass frame with the external world provoking an approximate equal
>acceleration in all the bodies belonging to the corresponding body
>set. The best example is the Solar system. All that is according to
>Corollary 6 of Law III in 1686 Newton�s �Principia��(a generalization
>of Corollary 5, Galileo�s Principle of Relativity).
Henry Wilson DSc.
YOU might be prepared to rely on faith in these matters but we Physicists
want reasons.
So answer the question. Can you provide a PHYSICAL reason or model that will
cause light from differently moving sources to find a common speed in any
particular observer frame?
>
>Harald
Inertial
news:778ffde7-b77a-4d71...@m3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Light doesn't change speed.
You've posted something correct (out of sheer luck and randomness).
I'm almost certain it wasn't intentional and that you didn't even realise.
But thank you for a demonstration of the infinite monkey theorem.
Henry thinks something has to happen to the light so that when you change
your motion (eg go from standing to walking) that it 'changes' its speed so
that it is still speed c.
He thinks that 'change' (which is actually no change) needs a cause.
The thing is .. the light *always* has speed c in BOTH frames. It always
has speed c in EVERY frame.
So nothing needs to change.
Henry just can't seem to follow that simple logic.
> It is only the same constant in empty
>space but not in matter's relative frame. SR is debunked. Every
>object has its own motion in space-time.
And then you revert to meaningless drivel. Oh well.
eric gisse
news:4e389103$0$29989$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com:
[...]
>> It is only the same constant in empty
>>space but not in matter's relative frame. SR is debunked. Every
>>object has its own motion in space-time.
>
> And then you revert to meaningless drivel. Oh well.
>
THIS IS ALL HE DOES. POST DRIVEL.
Why are you surpised? Why keep responding? Let the idiots yell at an empty
room.
eric gisse
a34be5...@q11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> First, do you understand that in SR "speed" is operationally defined,
> without ontological meaning?
>
> Harald
>
>
Every time you ask him if he understands, the answer is 'no'. He's been not
understanding relativity at an advanced level for the past decade, so
there's no point in arguing with him. Just let him shitpost endlessly to an
empty room.
Tom Roberts
> On Monday, August 1, 2011 7:11:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from differently
>>> moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c A consequence of
>>> that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards and forwards, ALL
>>> the light from Andromeda would also miraculously change speed slightly in
>>> sympathy.
>> No "miracle" is needed. In SR this occurs because your measuring
>> instruments move with you, and that motion affects how they measure the
>> speed of the light ray, in PRECISELY the right way to yield the value c.
>> This is modeled as a change in orientation in spacetime.
>
> If your intruement is affect by your motion then the unit to measure time,
No. The only effect is on the ORIENTATION of the instruments in spacetime, not
their calibrations. The ruler and clock always measure 1 meter and 1 second for
standards having those values that are at rest with them in an inertial frame.
To measure the length of an east-west rod, you must lay
your ruler next to it in an east-west orientation. If you lay
your ruler down in a northeast-southwest orientation, you will
measure a different value. This is PRECISELY what happens in
SR when there is relative motion between ruler and rod, except
that a) the rotation is in the X-T plane, and b) it is a
hyperbolic rotation, not a circular one. Ditto for clocks.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> On Aug 2, 1:11 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> In SR this occurs because your measuring instruments
>> move with you, and that motion affects how they measure the speed of the light
>> ray, in PRECISELY the right way to yield the value c. This is modeled as a
>> change in orientation in spacetime.
>
> physically???
> but a matter of local measurements?
I don't know what "physically" means in your question. I doubt very much if you
do, either.
The only "speed" I know is one that is measured, and HOW it is measured will
obviously affect the value obtained. Generally we define "speed" in terms of
some coordinate system, and the value for a given object's (or light ray's)
motion depends on which coordinates one uses.
It is better to avoid coordinate-dependent quantities such as "speed", and
discuss invariant quantities that represent aspects of physical phenomena:
A light ray always follows a null geodesic path through spacetime.
That is a statement that is independent of coordinates; it directly implies that
any locally inertial frame will measure its speed to be c. The null geodesic is
a physical representation of the light ray's trajectory; the value "c" merely
represents the value obtained from measuring its speed using standard clocks and
rulers at rest in some locally inertial frame.
IOW: the null geodesic represents the light ray's physical trajectory, but "c"
does not represent any property of the light ray, it is a relationship between
the light ray and measuring instruments in an inertial frame. That is, the
geodesic is an intrinsic property of the light ray, its speed is not.
IOW: The geodesic (trajectory) represents something that physically happened,
and is related to the light ray ONLY, without regard to anything else; "c"
depends not only on the light ray but also on the measuring instruments used, so
it cannot be an intrinsic property of the light ray.
Tom Roberts
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
You haven't answered my original question. You merely quoted Lorentz's
explanation as to why OBSERVER MOVEMENT does not affect the measured value
of light speed.
I will ask you again. I HOPE YOU CAN DO BETTER NEXT TIME.
Provide a PHYSICAL reason or model that can cause light from differently
moving sources to find a common speed in ANY frame.
>Tom Roberts
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>sb wrote:
Cut the religious crap Roberts. Answer the question. Can you provide a
PHYSICAL reason or model that will cause light from differently moving
sources to find a common speed in any particular observer frame?
mpc755
>
> Provide a PHYSICAL reason or model that can cause light from differently
> moving sources to find a common speed in ANY frame.
>
Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it
exists. Including the rate at which atomic clocks tick which determined
the rate at which light propagates.
Light is always determined to travel at 'c' because everything is with
respect to the state of the aether in which it exists.
Which is the state of displacement of the aether.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections
with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
Inertial
news:6h5i375s75rk5rv27...@4ax.com...
> I will ask you again. I HOPE YOU CAN DO BETTER NEXT TIME.
>
>Provide a PHYSICAL reason or model that can cause light from differently
>moving sources to find a common speed in ANY frame.
Your question is moot. They don't "find" a common speed .. that implies
that the speed of one light or another changes. It doesn't. As there is no
change to the speed then there is nothing happening that needs a cause.
Darwin123
> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> change speed slightly in sympathy.
would perceive that the speed of light was unchanged. The act of
accelerating changes the objects being accelerated.
Tom Roberts
> Provide a PHYSICAL reason or model that can cause light from differently
> moving sources to find a common speed in ANY frame.
Because light always follows a null geodesic path, and a null geodesic path has
a speed of c relative to any locally inertial frame using standard clocks and
rulers.
It is straightforward to show that Minkowski geometry has null geodesics and
they have speed c relative to all locally inertial frames. This is just math
(which you of course refuse to learn). What is remarkable is that light "just
happens" to follow such paths. That is an EXPERIMENTAL issue, and the
experiments are quite clear on this.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:49:35 -0500, Tom Roberts<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> Cut the religious crap Roberts.
It's not "religious", it is physics.
Paraphrasing Clarke: Sufficiently advanced science can be indistinguishable from
religion to illiterate people.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8951e917-a889-4407...@i15g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 1, 6:54 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> change speed slightly in sympathy.
No.
The correct answer was "YES", blind anti-Celtic bigot Judas.
PD
> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
Yes.
> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> change speed slightly in sympathy.
No. This doesn't follow at all as a necessary consequence.
> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
> reason for this uniformity of light speed.
And there is. It's the causal structure of spacetime. I believe this
has been mentioned to you before.
> Words alone cannot create
> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
> observers one might select.
>
PD
> Inertial wrote:
> > "Henry Wilson" wrote in message
> >news:5d80c820-3776-4df1...@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> >>> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> >> change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
> > according to a hitchhiker by the road the car is travelling at 100km/h.
> > To the driver of another car coming toward him, he is travelling at
> > 100km/hr. To another car driving beside him he has a speed of 0km/hr. So
> > how does the car know which speed to travel at. How does it change it
> > speed so that each observer gets a different value? And how is it that
> > it can have more than one speed at the same time? How does that miracle
> > happen?
>
> >> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim,
>
>
> >> then there must be a physical
> >> reason for this uniformity of light speed.
>
>
> >> Words alone cannot create
> >> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
>
>
> >> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
> >> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
> >> observers one might select.
>
>
> Exactly the answer the original poster is NOT looking for. The original
> poster is asking what occurs PHYSICALLY in nature to cause light to
> always be determined to propagate at 'c'. Not mathematical geometry.
Geometry has core physical consequences in physics, and geometrical
implications are central to many physical explanations.
What you are looking for, apparently, in a physical explanation is
restricted to material stuff banging on material stuff, and you do not
consider anything outside that description to be a physical
explanation. But physicists strenuously disagree with that position,
and do not really care what you consider or don't consider to be a
physical explanation.
mpc755
>>
>> Exactly the answer the original poster is NOT looking for. The original
>> poster is asking what occurs PHYSICALLY in nature to cause light to
>> always be determined to propagate at 'c'. Not mathematical geometry.
>
> Geometry has core physical consequences in physics, and geometrical
> implications are central to many physical explanations.
> What you are looking for, apparently, in a physical explanation is
> restricted to material stuff banging on material stuff, and you do not
> consider anything outside that description to be a physical
> explanation. But physicists strenuously disagree with that position,
> and do not really care what you consider or don't consider to be a
> physical explanation.
>
>
'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587
'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a
limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I
feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really
is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've
learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've
lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any
natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to
make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new
systems ought to behave."'
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the ether at every place determined by its connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is
the state of displacement of the ether.
A particle physically displaces the ether. A moving particle has an
associated ether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the
particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether
displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. As the ether wave
exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a
single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave
interference it encounters. Detecting the particle causes there to be
a loss of coherence of the associated ether wave, there is no wave
interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.
What waves in a double slit experiment is the ether of relativity.
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Paul B. Andersen
> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> change speed slightly in sympathy.
> reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
> observers one might select.
Where is the Physics Behind Newton's First Law of Motion?
If L1 is correct, as physicist claim, then there must be a physical
reason for this constancy of the velocity of an object. Words alone
cannot create this constancy that Newton envisaged.
I would like just one Newton worshipper to describe a physical model
that would cause all motion of objects to be constant unless acted
upon by an external force.
--
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no> wrote in message
news:4E39956...@somewhere.no...
| On 02.08.2011 00:54, Henry Wilson wrote:
| > Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
| > differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
| > A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
| > and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
| > change speed slightly in sympathy.
| > If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
| > reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
| > the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
| > I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
| > that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
| > observers one might select.
|
| Where is the Physics Behind Newton's First Law of Motion?
That law is an axiom, just as Newton said it was in Principia.
Axioms cannot be proven, they must be accepted without proof.
Einstein's hypothesis isn't an axiom, it is easily disproven. Einstein's
first law of motion is also an axiom, which is why the imbecile wrote
"Who would imagine that this simple law [constancy of the velocity of
light] has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the
greatest intellectual difficulties?" and then proceeded to tie himself (and
you) into a Gordian knot from which you have no escape.
Henry Wilson DSc.
What do you mean by the 'state of the aether'?
How does your imaginary aether change state?
Inertial
> That law is an axiom, just as Newton said it was in Principia.
> Axioms cannot be proven, they must be accepted without proof.
No .. this is physics .. so they CAN be tested and refuted if not correct.
> Einstein's hypothesis isn't an axiom,
His postulates are as much axiom as Newton's
> it is easily disproven.
No one ever has. Even though it would have been easy to refute if it had
been false. It passed all the tests.
> Einstein's first law of motion is also an axiom,
What 'first law of motion' .. you're making up your own things to argue
about now
> which is why the imbecile wrote
> "Who would imagine that this simple law [constancy of the velocity of
>light] has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the
>greatest intellectual difficulties?" and then proceeded to tie himself (and
>you) into a Gordian knot from which you have no escape.
Except the knot is easily untied by those with at least a bit of
intelligence and understanding. Which rules you out.
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>On 8/3/11 8/3/11 - 4:39 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> Provide a PHYSICAL reason or model that can cause light from differently
>> moving sources to find a common speed in ANY frame.
>
>Because light always follows a null geodesic path, and a null geodesic path has
>a speed of c relative to any locally inertial frame using standard clocks and
>rulers.
That is just a reorientation of the second postulate. It proves nothing.
>It is straightforward to show that Minkowski geometry has null geodesics and
>they have speed c relative to all locally inertial frames. This is just math
>(which you of course refuse to learn).
If one accepts the second postulate, Minkowski geometry and your nulll
geodesics follow. Your procedure is circular.
Explain this:
Remote light source S1 is moving at v towards S2, which is periodically
emiting light pulses.
S1->v S2 ---p> ---p>---p> ----
When S2 approaches S1, it also emits a pulse P.
S1/2--P>_p1> ---p>---p> ----
According to SR, P and p1 immediately find a common 'speed'. More precisely,
the distance between them subsequently remains the same forever.
Can you provide a physical reason for that?
Also, you will claim that although the pulses appear, in the screen frame,
to move at different speeds wrt their respective sources, observers with
those sources would both measure the speed of their pulses to be c.
What is the physics behind that claim?
That argument breaks down if pulses emitted in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION are
considered.
>What is remarkable is that light "just
>happens" to follow such paths.
>That is an EXPERIMENTAL issue, and the
>experiments are quite clear on this.
There has never been an experiment that supports SR.
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
By what magic of physics would my detectors change?
Are you accepting the existence of a universal aether medium and Lorentz's
PHYSICAL contractions?
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>On Aug 1, 5:54�pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
>> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
>
>Yes.
>
>> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>> change speed slightly in sympathy.
>
>No. This doesn't follow at all as a necessary consequence.
>
>> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
>> reason for this uniformity of light speed.
>
>And there is. It's the causal structure of spacetime. I believe this
>has been mentioned to you before.
Spacetime is purely a mathematical convenience.
I have asked you to provide a PHYSICAL reason.
>> Words alone cannot create
>> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
>> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
>> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
>> observers one might select.
>>
>> (Sorry about my long absence. My server is having great difficulty. I
>> hope you didn't miss me too much)
Henry Wilson DSc
Henry Wilson DSc.
I think a direct collision might provide one example.
Henry Wilson DSc.
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.August 3rd.2011> wrote:
At least Tuseladd wasn't on that island.
He was here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv6fKLfvwC4&NR=1
While your at it, why couldn't pommie engineers think of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmHpSyTsfm0&feature=youtu.be
mpc755
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically
displaced by matter.
What is conceptually referred to as spacetime physically exists in
nature as aether. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined
by the force of the aether in which it exists. In terms of general
relativity, this is the force associated with gravity. The greater the
gravitational force exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock the
slower the clock ticks. Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced
by matter is gravity. The greater the force of the displaced aether
exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock the slower the clock
ticks. In terms of special relativity, this is the speed at which an
atomic clock moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it
exists. The faster the atomic clock moves through the aether the more
aether the atomic clock displaces. The more aether the atomic clock
displaces the more force there is exerted by the displaced aether toward
and throughout the atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
news:1gnj37lf12nog366c...@4ax.com...
That's Zaphod Beeblebrox! He's got two heads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaphod_Beeblebrox
|
| While your at it, why couldn't pommie engineers think of this?
|
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmHpSyTsfm0&feature=youtu.be
|
Michael Faraday did it. Nothing new there, just old technology applied
to a car.
Inertial
> Explain this:
> Remote light source S1 is moving at v towards S2, which is periodically
> emiting light pulses.
> S1->v S2 ---p> ---p>---p> ----
> When S2 approaches S1, it also emits a pulse P.
> S1/2--P>_p1> ---p>---p> ----
> According to SR, P and p1 immediately find a common 'speed'.
They don't 'find one' .. its not a choice, its not that they do anything
different. They just travel
> More precisely,
> the distance between them subsequently remains the same forever.
>
> Can you provide a physical reason for that?
Can you provide a physical reason why it could be anything else?
> Also, you will claim that although the pulses appear, in the screen frame,
> to move at different speeds wrt their respective sources, observers with
> those sources would both measure the speed of their pulses to be c.
That's right
> What is the physics behind that claim?
It's called relativity .. have you heard of it?
> That argument breaks down if pulses emitted in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION are
> considered.
No .. it doesn't. You're just posting your ignorance again
>>What is remarkable is that light "just
>>happens" to follow such paths.
>
>>That is an EXPERIMENTAL issue, and the
>>experiments are quite clear on this.
>
>There has never been an experiment that supports SR.
Liar
Inertial
>On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:44:19 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>On Aug 1, 6:54 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
>>> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
>>> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>>> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>>> change speed slightly in sympathy.
>> No. You and your detectors would change so that your measurements
>>would perceive that the speed of light was unchanged.
If we are talking SR, then there is no change in the detectors themselves.
Though someone that remains 'at rest' would *measure* a change in the
detectors.
>> The act of
>>accelerating changes the objects being accelerated.
That's not a factor here (if you are talking about intrinsic changes) ..
this happens when there is no intrinsic change in the objects themselves.
> By what magic of physics would my detectors change?
They don't. Though someone that doesn't accelerate by the same amount will
get a change in their *measurements* of your detectors. Your detector's
rulers may be measured to grow or shrink and its clocks may be measured to
speed up or slow down.
Henry Wilson DSc.
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.August 3rd.2011> wrote:
Yes I remember him well
>|
>| While your at it, why couldn't pommie engineers think of this?
>|
>| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmHpSyTsfm0&feature=youtu.be
>|
>Michael Faraday did it. Nothing new there, just old technology applied
>to a car.
Very funny.... :)
Henry Wilson DSc.
>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>news:fjmj37lpfk1qltstc...@4ax.com...
>>On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:44:19 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Aug 1, 6:54 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
>>>> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
>>>> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>>>> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>>>> change speed slightly in sympathy.
>>> No. You and your detectors would change so that your measurements
>>>would perceive that the speed of light was unchanged.
If we are talking SR, then we are talking bullshit....
>there is no change in the detectors themselves.
>Though someone that remains 'at rest' would *measure* a change in the
>detectors.
>
>>> The act of
>>>accelerating changes the objects being accelerated.
>
>That's not a factor here (if you are talking about intrinsic changes) ..
>this happens when there is no intrinsic change in the objects themselves.
>
>> By what magic of physics would my detectors change?
>
>They don't. Though someone that doesn't accelerate by the same amount will
>get a change in their *measurements* of your detectors. Your detector's
>rulers may be measured to grow or shrink and its clocks may be measured to
>speed up or slow down.
How does that cause light from differently moving sources to find a common
speed?
Henry Wilson DSc.
dream on...
Henry Wilson DSc.
>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>news:29lj37l9d2ognikr4...@4ax.com...
>> Explain this:
>> Remote light source S1 is moving at v towards S2, which is periodically
>> emiting light pulses.
>> S1->v S2 ---p> ---p>---p> ----
>> When S2 approaches S1, it also emits a pulse P.
>> S1/2--P>_p1> ---p>---p> ----
>> According to SR, P and p1 immediately find a common 'speed'.
>
>They don't 'find one' .. its not a choice, its not that they do anything
>different. They just travel
>
>> More precisely,
>> the distance between them subsequently remains the same forever.
>>
>> Can you provide a physical reason for that?
>
>Can you provide a physical reason why it could be anything else?
It is not the same for any other object. Why should photons be the one
single exception?
>> Also, you will claim that although the pulses appear, in the screen frame,
>> to move at different speeds wrt their respective sources, observers with
>> those sources would both measure the speed of their pulses to be c.
>
>That's right
>
>> What is the physics behind that claim?
>
>It's called relativity .. have you heard of it?
It is just an unproven postulate based on Lorentz's theory.
>> That argument breaks down if pulses emitted in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION are
>> considered.
>
>No .. it doesn't. You're just posting your ignorance again
Try it.
Inertial
> If we are talking SR, then we are talking bullshit....
As usual .. when Henry's lies are pointed out .. he runs away crying "SR is
bullshit". What a pathetic little moron he is.
Inertial
>>> Can you provide a physical reason for that?
>>
>>Can you provide a physical reason why it could be anything else?
I guess you can't. Why demand a physical reason from SR when you do not
have an alternative.
>It is not the same for any other object. Why should photons be the one
>single exception?
They aren't
>>> Also, you will claim that although the pulses appear, in the screen
>>> frame,
>>> to move at different speeds wrt their respective sources, observers with
>>> those sources would both measure the speed of their pulses to be c.
>>
>>That's right
>>
>>> What is the physics behind that claim?
>>
>>It's called relativity .. have you heard of it?
>
> It is just an unproven postulate
No .. it is a theory. You don't know the difference between theory and
pustulate
Also it has never been refuted .. every experiment to test it has found it
is correct
> based on Lorentz's theory.
Nope.
>>> That argument breaks down if pulses emitted in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION
>>> are
>>> considered.
>>
>>No .. it doesn't. You're just posting your ignorance again
>
>Try it.
Show it breaking down .. not that you have any idea of logic or argument or
physics. But go on .. give it your best shot. Or were you just lying again
.. that's what you do most of the time. I don't know how you can live with
yourself .. you're an insignificant immoral compulsive lying little shit.
And we all know it. You're just a bad joke.
Henry Wilson DSc.
moron
eric gisse
news:4e39fb00$0$29996$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com:
[snip all]
HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.
HE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND.
Fuck! Do I have to killfile you to get rid of the responses to cranks?
mpc755
What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether.
Matter does not travel with non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves
through the aether.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically
displaced by matter.
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster
"The Bullet cluster (1E 0657-56) consists of two colliding clusters of
galaxies.[1] Studies of the Bullet cluster, announced in August 2006,
provide the best evidence to date for the existence of dark matter.[2]
At a statistical significance of 8σ, it was found that the spatial
offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic
mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational
force law.[3] Observations of other galaxy cluster collisions, such as
MACS J0025.4-1222, also show significant displacement between their
center of visible matter and their gravitational potential."
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.
Aether has mass.
PD
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:16:53 -0700 (PDT), PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 1, 5:54 pm, Henry Wilson<hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
>>> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>>> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>>> change speed slightly in sympathy.
>>
>> No. This doesn't follow at all as a necessary consequence.
>>
>>> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
>>> reason for this uniformity of light speed.
>>
>> And there is. It's the causal structure of spacetime. I believe this
>> has been mentioned to you before.
>
> Spacetime is purely a mathematical convenience.
Not so. We're talking about the PHYSICAL structure of space and time here.
>
> I have asked you to provide a PHYSICAL reason.
By which you mean what? Material stuff banging on material stuff?
Physicists hold a lot more to be physical than that.
PD
> On Aug 1, 4:11 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> This wishful thinking to support your religion of SR is totally
> bullshit. For instance, one scenario in your blindly support to the
> invariance in the speed of light would lead to all observed speeds to
> be invariant which is proven to be wrong.<shrug>
What? Which scenario is that? The one you pulled, fresh and steamy, from
your rear end?
Or do you think you can derive that conclusion from the constancy of the
speed of light?
>
>> As long as you insist on remaining willfully ignorant of SR, you can expect to
>> remain mystified.
>
> Just because you have seen a one-way time dilation as predicted by SR,
> you now strongly believe in the nonsense of SR. Well, there are an
> infinite numbers of mathematical models that also predict such
> observed time dilation in which the Lorentz transform is merely one of
> them. The funny thing is that the symmetric mutual time dilation of
> the Lorentz transform which is only unique to the Lorentz transform
> has never been observed, and yet as a self-claimed scientist, you have
> deliberately discarded this experimental outcome to support of your
> mystified conviction.<shrug>
>
> How can you call yourself a scientist when the garbage that you
> believe in has never been supported by any experimentation? Show Him
> the symmetric time dilation, please.<shrug>
black head
> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> change speed slightly in sympathy.
> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
> observers one might select.
>
> (Sorry about my long absence. My server is having great difficulty. I
> hope you didn't miss me too much)
The speed of light is a universal limiting speed for any propagation,
including mass travelling at some velocity. As the speed of a particle
approaches c, its kinetic energy continues to increase. This is
consistent with there being a limiting speed c in the laboratory
frame, whereas in the particle's frame its speed is much lower than c
and so continues to increase.
Henry Wilson DSc.
What gives it a direction?
>A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster
>
>"The Bullet cluster (1E 0657-56) consists of two colliding clusters of
>galaxies.[1] Studies of the Bullet cluster, announced in August 2006,
>provide the best evidence to date for the existence of dark matter.[2]
>At a statistical significance of 8?, it was found that the spatial
>offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic
>mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational
>force law.[3] Observations of other galaxy cluster collisions, such as
>MACS J0025.4-1222, also show significant displacement between their
>center of visible matter and their gravitational potential."
>
>The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.
>
>Aether has mass.
Henry Wilson DSc
Henry Wilson DSc.
<larry...@softhome.net> wrote:
>On Aug 1, 11:54�pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
>> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
>> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
>> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
>> change speed slightly in sympathy.
>> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
>> reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
>> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
>> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
>> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
>> observers one might select.
>>
>> (Sorry about my long absence. My server is having great difficulty. I
>> hope you didn't miss me too much)
>
>The speed of light is a universal limiting speed for any propagation,
>including mass travelling at some velocity. As the speed of a particle
>approaches c, its kinetic energy continues to increase.
KE is not a property of the particle.
>This is
>consistent with there being a limiting speed c in the laboratory
>frame, whereas in the particle's frame its speed is much lower than c
>and so continues to increase.
HAHAHHAHHA!
Hey, BLACK DICKHEAD, in the particle's frame the particle always has ZERO
speed.
Come back when you've learnt some physics.
Henry Wilson DSc.
>On 8/2/2011 2:43 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 4:11 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>>
>> This wishful thinking to support your religion of SR is totally
>> bullshit. For instance, one scenario in your blindly support to the
>> invariance in the speed of light would lead to all observed speeds to
>> be invariant which is proven to be wrong.<shrug>
>
>What? Which scenario is that? The one you pulled, fresh and steamy, from
>your rear end?
>
>Or do you think you can derive that conclusion from the constancy of the
>speed of light?
Here is the scenario I'm talking about.
We have two light sources and an observer, all MAR. The observer at S1
synchronizes three clocks centred on S1
O
S1 S2
C1 C2 C3
Next, light source S1 and clocks move at v towards the 'stationary source'
S2.
O
S1 ->v S2
C1 C2 C3
S1 emits a pulse of light in both directions along travel axis.
According to SR, the pulses move at c in the stationary frame and, in time,
appear such.
c<-p S1->v p->c S2
It is obvious to normal people that O's clocks would show that the speeds of
the pulses are c+v and c-v in his frame.
However, the Einsteinians claim that his clocks are no longer in synch
because they have accelerated into a new frame. Hence, O's clocks will still
measure the speed of the two pulses to be exactly c and P2 is verified.
(Note, any supposed length contraction doesn't affect this outcome).
Now, this kind of argument might impress little boys like eric, inertial and
tom roberts but the fact is, the notion that the clocks are out of synch
comes directly from Einstein's RoS, which is itself based on the assumption
that P2 is correct.
Therefore the SRian argument put forward above boils down to the circular
statement, "if one assumes P2 is correct, then one can demonstrate that
light speed will always be measured as c.
P2 proves itself!
WWOOWW!!!!!
Henry Wilson DSc.
wrote:
>On 8/3/11 8/3/11 - 4:43 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:49:35 -0500, Tom Roberts<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Cut the religious crap Roberts.
>
>It's not "religious", it is physics.
>
>Paraphrasing Clarke: Sufficiently advanced science can be indistinguishable from
>religion to illiterate people.
Tom I understand why you think I don't understand SR. You are so bedazzled
by its jargon and the sophistication and consistency of its equations that
you fail to see the circularity of its methods.
My original question can be illustrated as follows:
We have two light sources and an observer, all MAR. The observer at S1
synchronizes three clocks centred on S1
O
S1 S2
C1 C2 C3
Next, light source S1 and clocks move at v towards the 'stationary source'
S2.
O
S1 ->v S2
C1 C2 C3
S1 emits a pulse of light in both directions along travel axis.
According to SR, the pulses move at c in the stationary frame and, in time,
appear like so:
c<-p S1->v p->c S2
It is obvious to normal people that O's clocks would show that the speeds of
the pulses are c+v and c-v in his frame.
However, you Einsteinians claim that his clocks are no longer in synch
because they have accelerated into a new frame. Hence, O's clocks will still
measure the speed of the two pulses to be exactly c.... and P2 is verified.
(Note, any supposed length contraction doesn't affect this outcome).
Now, this kind of argument might impress little boys like eric and inertial
but the fact is, the notion that the clocks are out of synch
comes directly from Einstein's RoS, which is itself based on the assumption
that P2 is correct.
Therefore the argument put forward above boils down to the circular
statement, "if one assumes P2 is correct, then one can demonstrate that
light speed will always be measured as c".
P2 proves itself!
WWOOWW!!!!!
Now, please describe a PHYSICAL model that would cause S1's pulses as well
as those of any number of moving sources to always move at c in S2's
frame.....
Androcles
"black head" <larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:ef36e1b2-bf2f-4868...@h14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 1, 11:54 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> change speed slightly in sympathy.
> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
> reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
> observers one might select.
>
> (Sorry about my long absence. My server is having great difficulty. I
> hope you didn't miss me too much)
The speed of light is a universal limiting speed for any propagation,
including mass travelling at some velocity.
===================================
Because you say so?
Because your tin god said so?
Prove it, dingleberry.
mpc755
You place a ball into a tank of water. The ball displaces the water. You
take the ball out of the water. The water fills-in where the ball had
been. The water exerts force toward the ball.
When you get to something as massive as the Earth and the amount of
aether displaced by the Earth, the force exerted by the displaced aether
toward the Earth is gravity.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Why is it towards the Earth.
>>> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster
>>>
>>> "The Bullet cluster (1E 0657-56) consists of two colliding clusters of
>>> galaxies.[1] Studies of the Bullet cluster, announced in August 2006,
>>> provide the best evidence to date for the existence of dark matter.[2]
>>> At a statistical significance of 8?, it was found that the spatial
>>> offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic
>>> mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational
>>> force law.[3] Observations of other galaxy cluster collisions, such as
>>> MACS J0025.4-1222, also show significant displacement between their
>>> center of visible matter and their gravitational potential."
>>>
>>> The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.
>>>
>>> Aether has mass.
>>
>>
>>
>> Henry Wilson DSc
>>
>> Einstein's relativity: World's greatest hoax since Mary's virginity.
Henry Wilson DSc
PD
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:53:20 -0500, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/2/2011 2:43 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> On Aug 1, 4:11 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This wishful thinking to support your religion of SR is totally
>>> bullshit. For instance, one scenario in your blindly support to the
>>> invariance in the speed of light would lead to all observed speeds to
>>> be invariant which is proven to be wrong.<shrug>
>>
>> What? Which scenario is that? The one you pulled, fresh and steamy, from
>> your rear end?
>>
>> Or do you think you can derive that conclusion from the constancy of the
>> speed of light?
>
> Here is the scenario I'm talking about.
>
> We have two light sources and an observer, all MAR. The observer at S1
> synchronizes three clocks centred on S1
>
> O
> S1 S2
> C1 C2 C3
>
> Next, light source S1 and clocks move at v towards the 'stationary source'
> S2.
>
> O
> S1 ->v S2
> C1 C2 C3
At which point the clocks are no longer synchronized.
Over and over and over and over again, you make the same mistakes over
and over and over and over again.
Over and over and over and over again, you start with clocks mutually at
rest and all synchronized, and then you start the clocks moving and act
all surprised that this should have any effect on the clocks at all over
and over and over and over again.
I honestly believe, Ralph, that you are incapable of learning anything
and so are doomed to persist as a bonehead over and over and over and
over again.
Inertial
>Therefore the argument put forward above boils down to the circular
>statement, "if one assumes P2 is correct, then one can demonstrate that
>light speed will always be measured as c".
That's called internal consistency. Something EVERY theory should have. It
should not contradict its own postulates. That is very basic physics. It
is very basic logic, It is common sense. I see you are devoid of all
three.
mpc755
>>>
>>> What gives it a direction?
>>
>> You place a ball into a tank of water. The ball displaces the water. You
>> take the ball out of the water. The water fills-in where the ball had
>> been. The water exerts force toward the ball.
>>
>> When you get to something as massive as the Earth and the amount of
>> aether displaced by the Earth, the force exerted by the displaced aether
>> toward the Earth is gravity.
>
> Why is it towards the Earth.
>
Aether has mass. Aether exists where matter does not. As the Earth
orbits the Sun it does not leave an empty void in its wake.
Roll a ball down a ramp into helium-3 when it is in state of a
frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid. The ball does not
leave an empty void in its wake. The helium-3 fills-in where the ball
had been. This is evidence the helium-3, even though it is a
frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid, exerts force toward
the ball.
Exerting force, when disucssing a frictionless superfluid with
properties of a solid, does not imply friction.
This is a correct analogy for objects moving through the aether.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Gawd you write crap.
I'll try to help you.
Have you ever heard of graviton shielding?
It produces an inverse square law.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Not at all, moron. I was merely pointing out that its consistency should not
be taken as support, as people like Roberts seem to believe. And since there
has never been an experiment that directly supports the second postulate why
should anyone believe it?
Neither you nor any of your colleagues has even attempted to answer the
original question.
WHAT IS THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE SUPPOSED UNIFICATION OF LIGHT SPEED FROM
DIFFERENTLY MOVING SOURCES?
Henry Wilson DSc.
HAHAHAHHHAHHHAHA
\HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAH!
DIDN'T YOU READ THE REST OF MY POST, IDIOT?
PD
No, I stopped right here, because it was where you made the same mistake
over and over and over and over again.
>
>
PD
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:59:44 +1000, "Inertial"<relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>> "Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>> news:0r7m379egknttbg80...@4ax.com...
>>> Therefore the argument put forward above boils down to the circular
>>> statement, "if one assumes P2 is correct, then one can demonstrate that
>>> light speed will always be measured as c".
>>
>> That's called internal consistency. Something EVERY theory should have. It
>> should not contradict its own postulates. That is very basic physics. It
>> is very basic logic, It is common sense. I see you are devoid of all
>> three.
>
> Not at all, moron. I was merely pointing out that its consistency should not
> be taken as support, as people like Roberts seem to believe.
Then you have misunderstood Tom. This conclusion of consistency does not
serve as support for relativity. The experimental results do.
> And since there
> has never been an experiment that directly supports the second postulate why
> should anyone believe it?
Sure there is. Tom refers to that experimental support all the time, and
it has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Whether you believe
experimental data or not, that's your problem.
>
> Neither you nor any of your colleagues has even attempted to answer the
> original question.
>
> WHAT IS THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE SUPPOSED UNIFICATION OF LIGHT SPEED FROM
> DIFFERENTLY MOVING SOURCES?
There is no unification. Light speed is the same, right from the get-go
from differently moving sources. Your assumption that it is different
from differently moving sources, and therefore that there is unification
post that, is your mental fabrication. The physics of the common light
speed from differently moving sources is the structure of spacetime.
This has been said already. It went in your left ear and straight out
your right ear, passing nothing but the structure of spacetime between.
Henry Wilson DSc.
HAHAHAHHHAHHAHA! ...WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.
>This has been said already. It went in your left ear and straight out
>your right ear, passing nothing but the structure of spacetime between.
YOUR VERSION OF 'SPACETIME' IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF EXPRESING THE P2.
Diaper, stating P2 in a thousand different ways doesn't make is right.
Haven't you ever considered how ridiculous is your claim that light emitted
towards me from Andromeda magically finds the same speed as that from my
light bulb?
Hhahahhhahhahhhaha!
Diaper, there is no universal aether, why don't you give it up?
Henry Wilson DSc.
These are my words:
"However, the Einsteinians claim that his clocks are no longer in synch
because they have accelerated into a new frame. Hence, O's clocks will still
measure the speed of the two pulses to be exactly c and P2 is verified.
(Note, any supposed length contraction doesn't affect this outcome)."
Now, apologize and admit you are a pathetic moron.
Vilas Tamhane
> Einstein's P2 says amongst other things that all light from
> differently moving sources moves towards me at the same speed, c
> A consequence of that would be, for instance, that if I walk backwards
> and forwards, ALL the light from Andromeda would also miraculously
> change speed slightly in sympathy.
> If P2 is correct, as relativists claim, then there must be a physical
> reason for this uniformity of light speed. Words alone cannot create
> the 'personal aether' that Einstein envisaged.
> I would like just one Einstein worshipper to describe a physical model
> that would cause all light to move at precisely c in the frame of any
> observers one might select.
>
> (Sorry about my long absence. My server is having great difficulty. I
> hope you didn't miss me too much)
There is a basic flaw in your argument. That flaw is that you have
applied reason which is an anathema to modern physics, particularly to
SR.
You have put real problem with a pun, both would be strong provocation
to the barking defenders of relativity.
Yes, if a photon PARTICLE is moving with a speed of c, then its speed
measured in two different frames have to be c+v and c-v.
I read somewhere similar question, “What makes photon some magical
particle to move at the constant speed of c in every frame?”
You will not believe me Henry, but a high ranking physicist, PhD in
his subject answered, “ When Einstein wrote the theory of SR, concept
of photon was not yet born.”
This idiot did not think for a single minute, that now we know about
photons. The question is raised now and not then.
PD
Your statement was that no one has even attempted to answer the original
question. That was an untruth on your part. The fact that you
steadfastly say, "You can't force me to believe that," does not change
the fact that the answer has been provided.
>
>> This has been said already. It went in your left ear and straight out
>> your right ear, passing nothing but the structure of spacetime between.
>
> YOUR VERSION OF 'SPACETIME' IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF EXPRESING THE P2.
Not at all. P2 is a consequence of the structure of spacetime.
>
> Diaper, stating P2 in a thousand different ways doesn't make is right.
>
> Haven't you ever considered how ridiculous is your claim that light emitted
> towards me from Andromeda magically finds the same speed as that from my
> light bulb?
It's not ridiculous at all. It follows naturally from the structure of
spacetime.
There is no such thing as magic. Magic is what the audience calls an
event that happens outside of all the explanations that they're willing
to entertain. The event has been made to happen through very simple
means, just not the one that the audience considered.
You must make a very good audience member for magicians.
PD
Yes, but this does not change the fact that the clocks are no longer
synchronized.
Recall what is observed in nature and what is described accurately by SR:
1. Clocks synchronized in one frame will not be synchronous in any other
frame.
2. The speed of light will be measured to be c in any inertial reference
frame.
So the observation of 2 does not rule out 1, and vice versa.
Androcles
"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a86cec7a-53a0-4a43...@z7g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
=========================================
Not sure what you mean by "high ranking".
The highest ranking physicists: Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Doppler,
Michelson, all except Galileo would have heard of Newton's corpuscles.
Renaming them photons may be trendy, but they are still PARTICLES
in concept.
Whoever he was, your boy was a low-ranking student fresh out of uni.
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j1gbet$pom$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
Go on then, ya fucking babbling idiot! Start observing.
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Straight over the top of your empty head...