On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:25 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net <
> No, none of the postulates take the vacuum as a reference frame,
> which doesn't make sense since a vacuum doesn't have a measurable
> rest frame (there are no landmarks in a vacuum that could be used
> to measure the "velocity of the vacuum" relative to anything else).
> One postulate does talk about the speed of light in a vacuum,
> but they're still talking about the speed of light as measured
> in an inertial frame--"in a vacuum" is just there to specify
> that it's not talking about a light beam moving through
> some measurable medium like water or air.
> One postulate says:
> In vacuum the speed of quantum of light is constant.
Yes, but "in vacuum" does not mean "relative to the vacuum" here, it just
means that the light ray in question is moving through a vacuum rather than
some medium like air or water. The speed of the light ray is still being
measured relative to whatever inertial reference frame you choose to use.
> Because in vacuum the speed of quantum of light is maximum
> and time is stopped, become infinite, unlimited. It means that the
> reference frame of vacuum is also infinite, unlimited.
By "in vacuum" do you mean "relative to a vacuum" rather than just "light
traveling through a vacuum"? How would you to propose to measure the speed
of light relative to the vacuum, or measure the speed of other objects
(like the planet Earth) relative to the vacuum? If you can't measure these
things then your statements aren't scientific ones, perhaps they are
metaphysical beliefs of yours but you haven't given me any arguments for
why I should agree with them.
> And infinity we cannot measure.
> But this doesn’t mean that infinite vacuum doesn’t exist.
> We have theories ( thermodynamics and quantum physics) which
> explain us the parameters of infinite vacuum.
Thermodynamics and quantum physics don't say that the vacuum has its own
rest frame like a physical medium (a collection of air or water molecules
for example), so the notion of "speed relative to the vacuum" would be
simply meaningless in these theories.
> Nope, all speeds are measured relative to a particular frame.
> If we measure the speed of quantum of light in vacuum from
> different inertial frames the result will be the *same* - constant.
Yes, that's exactly what I said.
> On Apr 23, 12:03 am, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net <
> > socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> > > From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
> > > 1.
> > > One postulate of SRT takes vacuum as reference frame.
> > > Another postulate of SRT takes inertial reference frame (s).
> > No, none of the postulates take the vacuum as a reference frame, which
> > doesn't make sense since a vacuum doesn't have a measurable rest frame
> > (there are no landmarks in a vacuum that could be used to measure the
> > "velocity of the vacuum" relative to anything else). One postulate does
> > talk about the speed of light in a vacuum, but they're still talking
> > the speed of light as measured in an inertial frame--"in a vacuum" is
> > there to specify that it's not talking about a light beam moving through
> > some measurable medium like water or air.
> > In one reference frame speed of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ is constant.
> > > In another reference frame speed of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ is
> > > relative.
> > Nope, all speeds are measured relative to a particular frame. But in
> > relativity it works out that if you and I are riding in spaceships at
> > in different inertial frames (so we are moving relative to each other),
> > we each measure the speed of the *same* light ray using our own rulers
> > clocks, we will each find that the ray travels at a speed of 299792458
> > meters per second relative to ourselves (i.e. as measured in terms of
> > distance/time by rulers and clocks at rest relative to ourselves). This
> > spite of the fact that in my frame, according to my rulers and clocks,
> > distance between your spaceship and the light ray is changing at a rate
> > different than 299792458 meters per second (and you will say the same
> > about me when you measure with your own rulers and clocks); I will
> > the fact that you nevertheless measure the ray to be traveling at exactly
> > 299792458 meters per second in terms of the fact that your rulers and
> > clocks appear to be distorted relative to mine, with your meter-stick
> > appearing shrunk relative to mine, your clock ticking slower than mine,
> > your "synchronized" clocks appearing out-of-sync in my frame (and again
> > will say exactly the same thing about my rulers and clocks relative to
> > yours)
> > So, in this sense the speed of light is "constant", because it has the
> > measured speed of 299792458 meters per second relative to all inertial
> > frames. But the speed can still only be measured relative to a particular
> > frame, and if you make use of a *non* inertial frame (an accelerating
> > coordinate system like "Rindler coordinates", for example), the speed of
> > light relative to that frame's coordinates may be quite different.
> > Jesse
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at