Re: From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.

```On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net <
socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:```
```
> If we measure the speed of quantum of light in vacuum from
>  different inertial frames the result will be  the *same* - constant.
> > Socratus
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I said.
> Jesse
> =.
>
> Why the result is constant ?
> Because all different inertial frames ( stars and planets of billions
> and billions galaxies ) exist in infinite motionless, stationary,
>  fixed (rest) reference frame of Vacuum.
> Socratus
>

Your "because" is a non sequitur argument though--you haven't given any
logical argument as to why a "rest frame of the vacuum" is needed, or
whether there could be any way to experimentally test this idea. As long as
any single inertial frame measures (1) that rulers moving relative to that
frame are contracted by the length contraction factor of relativity, and
also measures (2) that clocks moving relative to that frame are slowed down
by the time dilation factor, and as long as this frame also measures (3)
that light rays have the same speed c in all directions in that frame, then
you can prove mathematically that these conditions 1-3 are sufficient to
guarantee that all other inertial frames will also measure light rays to
move at c relative to themselves if they use their own rulers and clocks.
So although it's possible there is some "special" inertial frame like the
rest frame of the "aether" or what you call the "reference frame of
Vacuum", such a thing is in no way *needed* in order to guarantee that all
inertial frames will measure light to move at c, all that's needed are that
the 3 conditions I mentioned above hold in any one inertial frame (it
doesn't matter which, since if they hold in any one they will hold in every
other too). It would be mathematically impossible to come up with a theory
where the conditions 1-3 above hold, but all inertial observers *don't*
measure light to move at c in their own frame.

> ===
> P.S.
> "Remember gentlemen, we have not proven
> the aether does not exist, we have only proven we do not
> need it (for mathematical purposes)"..
> / Einstein's University of Leyden lecture of May 5, 1920. /
> ==.
>

I agree, but if a hypothesis is mathematically unnecessary and also leads
to absolutely no new experimental predictions, it cannot really be
considered an independent theory of physics, though one might adopt it as a
sort of philosophical "interpretation", similar to Bohm's interpretation of
quantum mechanics described at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ (which
also makes no new testable predictions different from standard quantum
mechanics). So, aether theories can be considered as philosophical
interpretations of relativity, though some good arguments against the
plausibility of such interpretations are offered at

Jesse

>
>
> On Apr 23, 2:17 pm, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:25 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net <
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >    Jesse
> > > ==.
> >
> > > 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.
> > > Jesse
> >
> > > If we measure the speed of quantum of light in vacuum from
> > > different inertial frames the result will be  the *same* - constant.
> > > Socratus
> >
> > Yes, that's exactly what I said.
> >
> > Jesse
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > ===
> >
> > > 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
> > > just
> > > > 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
> > > rest
> > > > in different inertial frames (so we are moving relative to each
> other),
> > > and
> > > > we each measure the speed of the *same* light ray using our own
> rulers
> > > and
> > > > 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
> > > in
> > > > spite of the fact that in my frame, according to my rulers and
> clocks,
> > > the
> > > > 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
> > > thing
> > > > about me when you measure with your own rulers and clocks); I will
> > > explain
> > > > 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,
> > > and
> > > > your "synchronized" clocks appearing out-of-sync in my frame (and
> again
> > > you
> > > > 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
> > > same
> > > > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to