On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:37 PM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > > Ok, let's keep it really simple. >> Can you explain how a moving 'train' could measure the velocity of the >> same photon/s as a stationary observer and measure the same velocity of >> those photons despite the trains motion, especially photons moving the >> opposite direction of the train? >> > > You need to explain how your train is measuring the velocity of the > photon. Until you do that, your thought experiment is under-determined, > and little can be reasoned in connection with it. > I did cover that, I said the speed is measured with 2 light/photon sensors 1 meter apart with a clock to measure the time delay between a photon (or light pulse) triggering the first sensor and the second sensor. When you have an opportunity to explain the precise manner in which the > velocity of the photon is being measured, keep in mind this bit of detail > [1]: "The Earth moves around the sun at a speed of about 30 km/s, so if > velocities added vectorially as newtonian mechanics requires, the last 5 > digits in the value of the speed of light now used in the SI definition of > the metre would be meaningless. > Have you read ANY of my first email? I am not trying to be insulting but it was the first thing I mentioned, do you understand the word entrained? I said that the M-M experiment could be argued to disprove a rigid aether, but I am proposing an aether that is dragged by the earth. The only relevant question is how entrained is it by what degree and type of mass and other fields, and can it be that it might be entrained to a sufficient degree for one type of phenomena but not for another? Does a car, or train entrain aether enough to find the speed of light is C for an experiment contained entirely in the vehicle? Does a ball? Does a spit wad? Maybe these all do but have a variable size 'Aura' of entrained aether what would 'win' against the level of entrainment offered by the air. This is the problem with an entrained aether, theory, not that it is illogical, but that there can by much speculation regarding the degree that aether is entrained by mass and what effect electric and magnetic fields might have on this entrainment. > Today, high energy physicists at CERN in Geneva and Fermilab in Chicago > routinely accelerate particles to within a whisper of the speed of light. > Any dependence of the speed of light on reference frames would have shown > up long ago, unless it is very slight indeed." > The argument is that the aether is entrained by matter, these labs are underground, and the fields they have would be expected to entrain an entrain-able aether. A proton by it's self is almost certainly insufficient to entrain aether, and if it did I doubt that any electromagnetic force would be able to interact with something beyond light speed. > Basically to understand my argument, I guess you have to have some >> understanding of SR in the first place. >> > > I'm hoping you can help me with this one. > > >> >> There's probably a misunderstanding about one or more of the claims it's >>> making. I get the impression that relativity fits the known facts to >>> within a very small error, >>> >> >> No, it does not. >> > > Yes, it does. > No, it does not... Yes, it does... No, it does not... Yes, it does... I guess examples are required, and there are, variations and drifts have been detected but I have no interest in playing the whackamole game with experiments showing either side of this argument. Experiments don't prove anything, at least not as cleanly and clearly as logic can. Experiments of this type could always be flawed or argued against on some grounds either way. The thing is that Lorentz Aether Theory (LET) was the bones that SR is built on and most every experiment that backs up SR also backs up LET if the Aether in question is entrained by matter. > However it makes many of the same predictions as an entrained aether. >> But it being impossible and illogical is a bit of an issue. >> > > We should take a careful look at what it is that is impossible and > illogical. > Yes, let's It is impossible for one moving thing to be measured as having the same velocity relative to all reference frames. And the means that SR employees to shoe horn everything to fit only works to fix light travelling in one direction, it increases the disagreement the other way. And it is impossible for 2 parties with relative motion to both experience the other as experiencing time slower than they are when there is constant delay (near instantaneous) communication between them. These are impossibilities and are the very most basic parts of SR, if I am in error it should be easy to show me the mistake and how it does work in these situations. John
