Re: From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
why a "rest frame of the vacuum" is needed, or whether there could be any way to experimentally test this idea. Jesse ===. # " The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description of something more complex? " / Paul Dirac ./ # The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be: What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word vacuum is a gross misnomer! / Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg / # Wikipedia : “ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well defined, resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of space, how can we characterize either? “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime # "Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic," said Peter Milonni from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. # Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy. If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this into particles, in line with E-Mc^2. / Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148. By Michael White and John Gribbin. / # Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned into particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it. / University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb./ # Vacuum -- the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness – is actually a realm rife with potentiality, courtesy of the laws of quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED, additional, albeit virtual, particles can be created in the vacuum, allowing light-light interactions. http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html # Dark energy may be vacuum http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php # An experiment. According to QED Electron in interaction with vacuum has infinity parameters ( energy, mass …etc ) Physicists do not understand what to do with infinite sizes, and therefore they have invented "a method of renormalization", The method of renormalization is a method " to sweep the dust under the carpet." / Feynman./ # When the next revolution rocks physics, chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything ! ==. # - Philosophy of ‘ Vacuum.’ ( Part 1 - My opinion.) 1. In beginning was Vacuum an Infinite / Eternal continuum. 2. Vacuum is not Empty space. ‘ Virtual particles’, ‘ dark matter’ and ‘zoo of elementary particles’ exist in the Vacuum. 3. Now (!) the physicists think (!) that the Universe as whole has temperature: T= 2,7K . The parameter T=2,7K is not constant. It is temporal and goes down. In the future it will come to T= 0K. 4. The simplest question: Which geometrical form can have the ‘ virtual particles’, ‘ the particles of dark matter’ , the ‘ zoo of elementary particles’ in reference frame T= 2,7K - –--> T= 0K ? The answer is: ‘ They must be flat particles.’ Why? Because according to Charle’s law and the consequence of the third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles approaches zero too. It means the particles must have flat forms. They must have geometrical form of a circle: pi= c /d =3,14 . . . . . . Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik. Socratus. … -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
On Apr 23, 9:20 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > 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 athttp://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 > athttps://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/sci.physics.relativi... > > Jesse > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2:17 pm, Jesse Mazer 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 t
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 https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/sci.physics.relativity/xD0x1urGWfo/YtmTWIYQ8aYJ Jesse > > > On Apr 23, 2:17 pm, Jesse Mazer 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 quant
Re: From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
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 === 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. / ==. On Apr 23, 2:17 pm, Jesse Mazer 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 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 > > 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. > > > > 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 > > > dista
Re: From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
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 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 > 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. > > > > 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 s
Re: From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
Einstein’s SRT: what is it about? 1. One of Einstein’s postulate says that particle – quantum of light- moves in a straight line with constant speed c=1 in the vacuum. So, in SRT we have one reference frame and it is vacuum. But because Einstein took time as an constant length (1 sec= 299,792,458 m) Minkowski decided to take this constant time as a fourth coordinate and created his negative 4D continuum. We don’t know what minus 4D continuum is and therefore we lost the direction. But the root of the SR theory is the postulate: the constant and independent speed of quantum of light in the vacuum. (!) 2. The other root, the other Einstein’s SRT postulate says that movement is relative conception. The name of Einstein’s SRT is : “ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT). Einstein wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!) It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!) And then this other Einstein’s SRT postulate must be understand as: ‘every speed, even the speed of quantum of light is relative.’ It means that quantum of light in a vacuum can have two kinds of motions: constant and relative. 3 SRT is theory about relativity of every particle’s speed, including the motion of particle - quantum of light. (!) SRT explains only the behavior of Quantum of Light (!) So, in my opinion, the essence of Einstein’s SRT is hidden in the question: What will be happen if the particle – quantum of light – changes its constant and straight movement in the vacuum? =. All the best. Israel Sadovnik Socratus. ==.. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
# If we measure the speed of quantum of light in vacuum from different inertial frames the result will be the *same* - constant. Why? Because all different inertial frames ( stars and planets of billion s and billions galaxies ) exist in infinite motionless, stationary, fixed (rest) reference frame of Vacuum. Socratus === -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
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. It is correct that ‘a vacuum doesn't have a measurable rest frame’. Why? 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. 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. ===. Socratus 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 === On Apr 23, 12:03 am, Jesse Mazer 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 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. > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
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 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. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
INTRODUCTION Modified 01-10-11 Hans J. Zweig, With a PhD from Stanford, a masters degree from Brown and a B.A. from University of Rochester: # Newtonian physics is not the ultimate truth about the universe, but neither is Einstein's Relativity. Newton did not know, or anticipate, an upper bound to motion. Einstein cannot simply have it that all motion is relative and at the same time that there is a unique hard upper limit, c. Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory (SRT) attempts to solve the problem, but it is invalid, as can be shown using several distinct approaches: (1) through a logical analysis of the important concepts and thought experiments, (2) through recently available empirical results in astronomy, and (3) through a physical/ mathematical analysis of the foundation of SRT. . . . . . . . . . . . . The ultimate truth is still hidden from us but is somewhere between these extremes. http://www.aquestionoftime.com/intro.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
