What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?

Science > Physics > What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 7 of 13

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"George Hammond"
Date:	26 Aug 2005 06:43:46 PM
Object:	What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?

Einstein's Special Relativity is famous for AD HOC
postulating that:
"All observers regardless of their relative
(uniform) velocities will measure the same
speed of light, C."
This is of course highly COUNTER INTUITIVE (the
Galilean transformation is more intuitive).
ODDLY ENOUGH, Einstein never gave a physical
reason or explanation of WHY C should be the same for
all observers regardless of their speed... he simply
AD HOC POSTULATED the fact (which has since
been experimentally confirmed a million times).
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG:
But as far as I know, to this day, there is STILL NO
"logical theoretical reason"
of WHY C should appear to be the SAME to all
moving observers!
As far as I know, Quantum Theory, QED, Quantum
Field Theory, Particle Physics...... NOTHING,
offers any logical explanation for this fact... all of
them simply AD HOC ASSUME the fact just like
Einstein did in 1905.
Is that correct?
Yes, or no?
Or is there some "physical explanation" of why C
is a constant to all (uniformly) moving observers
that I don't know about?
Mystified?
.

User: "brian a m stuckless"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	29 Sep 2005 02:55:32 PM

DooOP DOooOP De dooOP De dooOP De doo.!!
Syncronized, but NOT correctly, DOooOP.?!
Move syncronized clocks apart very SLOWLY;
And, they aren't put out of sync very FAST.!!
Move syncronized clocks apart jUST a LiTTLE bit;
And they will be put out of sync jUST a LiTTLE bit.
This applies UP, DOWN & HORZiONTALLY in Newton Tivity.
[DOES NOT apply for LATERAL centroSYMMETRiCAL movement].
G~FORCE FRAME of REFERENCE:
G*M1*m1 / r1^2
= m1*(n - 1)*a_1
= m1*(n - 1)*v1^2 / r1
= 4*(pi)^2*m1*(n - 1)*r1 / t1^2
= 4*(pi)^2*m1*(n - 1)*(ORBiT radius) /(PERiOD sec)^2
= 4*(pi)^2*m2*(n - 1)*lbob / tbob^2
= m2(n - 1)*vbob^2 / lbob
= m2*(n - 1)*a_2
= m3*(n - 1)*g_Eotvos
= m3*(n - 1)*a_3
= LATERAL FORCE = m4*(LATERAL DiSTANCE) / (DURATiON sec)^2
= m4*a_4.
OBSERVATiONs:
1. All, mass m1 = m2 = m3 = m4 ..are equal iDENTiCALLY.
2. Accelerations a_1, a_2, a_3 & a_4 equal DiFFERENTLY.
3. Let LATERAL FORCE and G~FORCE be equal iDENTiCALLY.
4. The LATERAL FORCE is NOT affected by (n - 1) LiFT.
5. A CURRENT TEST is ONLY for m3*g_Eotvos = m3*a_3.
6. Let, mass m1, m2, m3 & m4 be PENDULUM CLOCKs.
A ROSE by any other name is still a ROSE.
VERY sincerely u c,
```Brian

<> >><> >><> >><> >><>

shevek wrote:

It depends how you synchronize the clocks of course!

insert ..see top.
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	26 Sep 2005 02:04:09 PM

shevek wrote:

cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com wrote:

Bilge claimed:

Since the second postulate is unnecessary ....

All I know is what I read in the papers, and for
100 years folks have been writing that light's
one-way speed is invariant.

That's one way to define a physical coordinate system, and a damn good
one at that.

They even claim that this is somehow related to
special relativity.

However, they should think it very odd that so far
no one has measured light's one-way speed.

I am speaking specifically of light's speed between
two clocks which are fixed to the ends of a table.

(No rotating clocks, and no transported clocks
because this could introduce clock slowing.)

Ten decades of blathering on about the one-way
speed of light, with no experiment in sight!
What a crock! Let's bring in the clocks!

Hey, I know how to solve this! Let's just ask Dirk
or Bilge how we could experimentally measure the
two-clock, one-way speed of light.

Just show it on paper, using ideal clocks.

All I am asking for is a simple, direct measurement
from Point A to Point B. Why the delay?

How would you like us to synchronize the clocks at points A and B?

How would you like us to measure the distance from A to B?

And after you show us how, please, please, tell us
what the result should - will - must be!

It depends how you synchronize the clocks of course!

I'm damn tired of waiting!
How about you, Androcles!
And how about you, Ken S. Tucker

I've been following the thread and think bilge is
wrong to dismiss the 2nd as unnecessary. In fact it was
elevated from a mere *postulate* to the International
definition of Length, (ISU 1983). The constant invariant
of "c" now defines the relation of the relative quantities
Length and Time, L=cT.
I my experience I use the two way measure of light,
such as *radar* does to define length. But I was
lurking to see if there might be another definition.

You're going to have to keep waiting, if you want a measurement of a
definition.

"measurement of definition" ??
Ken
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	24 Sep 2005 10:11:58 AM

"2ndPostulateDude" <cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127571349.099370.167230@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Geo. Hammond opined:

ODDLY ENOUGH, Einstein never gave a physical reason
... WHY C should be the same for all observers ...
he simply AD HOC POSTULATED the fact (which has
since been experimentally confirmed a million times).

This is just for the record, since George and everyone
else here have their minds made up.

1. There are three entirely different light speeds:

Hey, 2ndPostulateDude aka Cadwgan Gedrych aka Brian D. Jones
aka Edward Travis aka Ron Aikas aka Roy Royce aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller aka who knows what other ***** you have chosen
to put under the tripe you have been posting for ten years, why don't
you just give an honest answer to the simple questions on
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2b40a744cf6e016c
where there is only one single frame with one single clock and - be
careful - no rods? What is it that makes you so afraid to give an
answer?
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "2ndPostulateDude"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	24 Sep 2005 03:13:19 PM

Answers were given;
no valid rebuttals from you appeared.
Why do you beat the dead horse?
I sense an ulterior motive or two,
especially given this mad chase across
threads. And you called me obsessed!
--
2nd Postulate Dude
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	24 Sep 2005 03:19:04 PM

"2ndPostulateDude" <cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127592799.604573.285470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Answers were given;

No answers were given.

no valid rebuttals from you appeared.

At every occasion you dragged your rod into the picture.

Why do you beat the dead horse?

Because you still seem to be slightly alive after having ran
away without having given the answers to the questions.

I sense an ulterior motive or two,
especially given this mad chase across
threads. And you called me obsessed!

Did *I* mention rods?
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	24 Sep 2005 05:33:34 PM

Dirk is what happens when the asylum inmates are
given computer access.
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"2ndPostulateDude" <cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127592799.604573.285470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Answers were given;

No answers were given.

no valid rebuttals from you appeared.

At every occasion you dragged your rod into the picture.

Why do you beat the dead horse?

Because you still seem to be slightly alive after having ran
away without having given the answers to the questions.

I sense an ulterior motive or two,
especially given this mad chase across
threads. And you called me obsessed!

Did *I* mention rods?

Dirk Vdm

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	24 Sep 2005 05:46:43 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1127601214.374180.268030@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Dirk is what happens when the asylum inmates are
| given computer access.
You noticed, huh?
The thing is he seeks attention, like George Hammond.
You can't talk to Dinky anymore than you can to Hammond, so why try?
Androcles.
.

User: "Uncle Al"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	27 Aug 2005 12:34:01 PM

George Hammond wrote:

Lorentz Invariance requires a finite lightspeed. Galilean transforms
empirically do no describe this reality. All Einstein did was
rederive Newton given finite information propagation speed, rendering
it consistent with Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism
that was covariant right out of the shipping box.
[snip]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	28 Aug 2005 01:55:22 AM

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:34:01 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

[Uncle al]

[Hammond]
Finite light speed is not the same as Lorentz covariance.
Sound waves have "finite speed" but they do not obey
Lorentz Invariance.... i.e. "sound speed" does not appear
the same to all inertial observers... even though it appears
finite to all observers... in fact sound appears to be traveling
at different speeds to different speed observers (if the air
is standing still).
The MYSTERY then is why the speed of light would appear
to be moving at the same speed to all inertial observers
regardless of their own speed?
A. We know it does, because we observe it.
B. Maswell's equations say it does, and they
are confirmed by observation.
BUT.... that still does not tell us WHY all inertial observers
observe C to be a constant... all it tells us is that it *IS*!
OK... I claim I have identified the PHYSICAL REASON that C is an
invariant:
1. Fact is, that any two particles having dfferent velocities
MUST have been differentially accelerated at some time
in the past (otherwise how could they have different speeds).
2. Acceleration is resisted by INERTIA which as Mach and Einstein
have argued is caused by the gravitation of the entire universe
acting on the particle (Mach's Principle).
3. Inertial force (e.g. acceleration) then is a "compressive force"
which PHYSICALLY CAUSES the Lorentz contraction and
the time dilation. Note that this is a PHYSICAL EXPLANATION
for the SR contraction and time dilation.
4. The Lorentz contraction and time dilation are both proportional to
said acceleration, so thier ratio (length/time) results in an
invarient constant, and this constant is C... the speed of
light.
5. Therefore, it is INERTIA (which is another name for the universal
effect of gravitation) that PHYSICALLY CAUSES C to be a
universal invarient under (inertial) transformations.
This I claim is a "PHYSICAL EXPLANATION" of why C is an invariant,
as opposed to a simple "postulate" that C is invariant... or even
opposed to a experimental confirmation that C is an invarient.
So I say it is INERTIA which is the PHYSICAL CAUSE of C being an
invarient under inertial coordinate transformations.
Morevover, it would also "physically explain" Einstein's
OTHER famous postulate of (General) Relativity... the "equivalence
principle". The PHYSICIAL REASON that:
Gravitational mass = Inertial mass
is simply that INERTIA is caused by GRAVITY!
.

User: "Word Salad"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	29 Aug 2005 03:45:46 AM

George Hammond wrote:

So I say it is INERTIA which is the PHYSICAL CAUSE of C being an
invarient under inertial coordinate transformations.
Morevover, it would also "physically explain" Einstein's
OTHER famous postulate of (General) Relativity... the "equivalence
principle". The PHYSICIAL REASON that:

Gravitational mass = Inertial mass

is simply that INERTIA is caused by GRAVITY!

That would necessarily be the case when mind is the basis of reality.
Universal coherence would require all distant matter in the universe to
be connected in a fundamental way.
.

User: "Word Salad"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	29 Aug 2005 03:27:18 AM

George Hammond wrote:

E = permittivity of free space
U = permeability of free space
C = speed of light in vacuum
1/E*U = C^2
Energy = Mass*C^2
Energy = Mass/E*U
1/E*U = Energy/Mass
1/squareroot[E*U] = squareroot[Energy/Mass] = C
Energy/Mass is conserved and C is invariant, a physical principle.
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	29 Aug 2005 04:00:46 AM

"Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125304038.655398.85050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| George Hammond wrote:
| > Einstein's Special Relativity is famous for AD HOC
| > postulating that:
| >
| > "All observers regardless of their relative
| > (uniform) velocities will measure the same
| > speed of light, C."
| >
| > This is of course highly COUNTER INTUITIVE (the
| > Galilean transformation is more intuitive).
| >
| > ODDLY ENOUGH, Einstein never gave a physical
| > reason or explanation of WHY C should be the same for
| > all observers regardless of their speed... he simply
| > AD HOC POSTULATED the fact (which has since
| > been experimentally confirmed a million times).
| >
|
| E = permittivity of free space
= ZERO, Nothing has no properties.
Aether used to, but we dumped that.
|
| U = permeability of free space
= ZERO, Nothing has no properties.
Aether used to, but we dumped that.
| C = speed of light in vacuum
Can't have a speed relative to nothing, makes no sense.
|
| 1/E*U = C^2
1/0*0 = undefined^2.
|
| Energy = Mass*C^2
C being relative to the epicentre of the bomb blast, yes.
| Energy = Mass/E*U
Mass/0*0 is undefined.
|
| 1/E*U = Energy/Mass
|
| 1/squareroot[E*U] = squareroot[Energy/Mass] = C
|
| Energy/Mass is conserved
Correct.
| and C is invariant,
FALSE.
| a physical principle.
False
Androcles.
.

User: "Word Salad"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	29 Aug 2005 04:35:53 AM

Androcles wrote:

| E = permittivity of free space

= ZERO, Nothing has no properties.
Aether used to, but we dumped that.

Space is a causality preserving transformation, and is therefore NOT
nothing.
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	29 Aug 2005 04:48:34 AM

"Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125308152.985722.72190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
|
| > | E = permittivity of free space
| >
| > = ZERO, Nothing has no properties.
| > Aether used to, but we dumped that.
| >
|
| Space is a causality preserving transformation, and is therefore NOT
| nothing.
Space does nothing, is nothing and has no properties. It is certainly
NOT a transformation, a transformation is an operation.
Androcles.
.

User: "shevek"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	29 Aug 2005 01:40:14 PM

Androcles wrote:

"Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125308152.985722.72190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
|
| > | E = permittivity of free space
| >
| > = ZERO, Nothing has no properties.
| > Aether used to, but we dumped that.
| >
|
| Space is a causality preserving transformation, and is therefore NOT
| nothing.

Space does nothing, is nothing and has no properties. It is certainly
NOT a transformation, a transformation is an operation.
Androcles.

WHat about mass density and electromagnetic field? Are these not
properties of any point in space?
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	29 Aug 2005 02:48:06 PM

"shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125340814.682766.264990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1125308152.985722.72190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > |
| > | > | E = permittivity of free space
| > | >
| > | > = ZERO, Nothing has no properties.
| > | > Aether used to, but we dumped that.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Space is a causality preserving transformation, and is therefore
NOT
| > | nothing.
| >
| >
| > Space does nothing, is nothing and has no properties. It is
certainly
| > NOT a transformation, a transformation is an operation.
| > Androcles.
|
|
| WHat about mass density and electromagnetic field? Are these not
| properties of any point in space?
No. Why should they be?
Space has no properties. A magnetic field it is a property
of the magnet, it won't get left behind if you remove the magnet.
Androcles.
|
.

User: "shevek"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	29 Aug 2005 03:51:22 PM

Androcles wrote:

"shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125340814.682766.264990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1125308152.985722.72190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > |
| > | > | E = permittivity of free space
| > | >
| > | > = ZERO, Nothing has no properties.
| > | > Aether used to, but we dumped that.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Space is a causality preserving transformation, and is therefore
NOT
| > | nothing.
| >
| >
| > Space does nothing, is nothing and has no properties. It is
certainly
| > NOT a transformation, a transformation is an operation.
| > Androcles.
|
|
| WHat about mass density and electromagnetic field? Are these not
| properties of any point in space?

No. Why should they be?
Space has no properties. A magnetic field it is a property
of the magnet, it won't get left behind if you remove the magnet.

I think you are confusing coordinate space with physical space. Sure,
you are free to put any coordinate system you would like on a system,
and the coordinate space is free of properties - until you apply it
to physical space. Points in physical space, i.e. locations in our
universe, certainly do have properties, even if they are in a vacuum.
Cheers - shvk
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	29 Aug 2005 03:55:38 PM

"shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125348682.075867.43520@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1125340814.682766.264990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > "Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1125308152.985722.72190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | > | E = permittivity of free space
| > | > | >
| > | > | > = ZERO, Nothing has no properties.
| > | > | > Aether used to, but we dumped that.
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | Space is a causality preserving transformation, and is
therefore
| > NOT
| > | > | nothing.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Space does nothing, is nothing and has no properties. It is
| > certainly
| > | > NOT a transformation, a transformation is an operation.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > |
| > | WHat about mass density and electromagnetic field? Are these not
| > | properties of any point in space?
| >
| > No. Why should they be?
| > Space has no properties. A magnetic field it is a property
| > of the magnet, it won't get left behind if you remove the magnet.
| >
|
| I think you are confusing coordinate space with physical space.
Who, me? Not a chance.
Sure,
| you are free to put any coordinate system you would like on a system,
| and the coordinate space is free of properties - until you apply it
| to physical space. Points in physical space, i.e. locations in our
| universe, certainly do have properties, even if they are in a vacuum.
|
| Cheers - shvk
Physical objects have properties. Mathematical points in space do not.
I think you are confusing coordinate space with physical space.
Androcles.
.

User: "shevek"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	30 Aug 2005 06:49:02 AM

Androcles wrote:

Mathematical points in space = coordinate space.
Physical objects = physical space.
After all, what is an object (like an iron atom for example, in a stop
sign) but empty space? In fact the wavefunction is nonzero everywhere.
As Noam Chomsky says, since Newton there's been no clear notion of
"body". The "physical object" has been replaced with fields.
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	30 Aug 2005 01:02:53 PM

"shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125402542.603011.25400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1125348682.075867.43520@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > "shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1125340814.682766.264990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > | > "Word Salad" <words_salad@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:1125308152.985722.72190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Androcles wrote: [..]
| >
| > | Sure,
| > | you are free to put any coordinate system you would like on a
system,
| > | and the coordinate space is free of properties - until you apply
it
| > | to physical space. Points in physical space, i.e. locations in
our
| > | universe, certainly do have properties, even if they are in a
vacuum.
| > |
| > | Cheers - shvk
| >
| > Physical objects have properties. Mathematical points in space do
not.
| > I think you are confusing coordinate space with physical space.
| >
|
| Mathematical points in space = coordinate space.
|
| Physical objects = physical space.
|
| After all, what is an object (like an iron atom for example, in a stop
| sign) but empty space?
If you are asking me what mass is, I don't know.
That's for research to find out, and it hasn't been done yet.
| In fact the wavefunction is nonzero everywhere.
I'm always suspicious of anyone that starts a sentence with
"In fact", it's a sure indicator they are bluffing and have no idea
what they are babbling about.
|
| As Noam Chomsky says, since Newton there's been no clear notion of
| "body". The "physical object" has been replaced with fields.
Yes... so what is mass?
We measure it by "weighing", using a field, but that doesn't tell us
what it is.
Millikan weighed electrons by opposing gravity with an electric
field and balancing a charged oil drop, but that says nothing about
the flubber that makes a charged electon.
Androcles.
.

User: "Julian Becker"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	15 Sep 2005 02:06:29 AM

I guess the reason is the existance of too many too narrow minded
physicists ;)
Julian
Am 30.08.2005, 13:49 Uhr, schrieb shevek <shevek4@yahoo.com>:

Androcles wrote:

Mathematical points in space = coordinate space.

Physical objects = physical space.

After all, what is an object (like an iron atom for example, in a stop
sign) but empty space? In fact the wavefunction is nonzero everywhere.

As Noam Chomsky says, since Newton there's been no clear notion of
"body". The "physical object" has been replaced with fields.

User: "tadchem"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	15 Sep 2005 04:57:45 AM

"Julian Becker" <julian.becker@uni-muenster.de> wrote in message
news:op.sw4t03k4ro86zw@jb-c0b21db63.uni-muenster.de...

I guess the reason is the existance of too many too narrow minded
physicists ;)

Julian

<snip>
Your 'smiley' lays claim to a sense of humor, but your blanket condemnation
of an entire class of people (scientists) betrays a mind that thinks
categorically.
The essence of your condemnation betrays a feeling of superiority to these
people, specifically that you disagree with them generally and feel that the
root of the disagreement lies in *their* deficiency.
Such condescending elitism is almost diagnostically characteristic of
American liberals, those who become wealthy without earning it, and those
who spend their college years studying 'arts' and 'humanities.'
Most college graduates quickly learn that categorical thinking about groups
of people leads to errors that can be dangerous - especially if someone with
a latent violent streak disagrees with your categorization.
My inference from this evidential line of thought: you are an
arts/humanities student at the University of Muenster and you are 'slumming'
in a 'physics' group.
Was studieren Sie im M�nster?
[How close am I?]
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.

User: "Julian Becker"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	15 Sep 2005 04:46:28 PM

Am 15.09.2005, 11:57 Uhr, schrieb tadchem <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net>:

"Julian Becker" <julian.becker@uni-muenster.de> wrote in message
news:op.sw4t03k4ro86zw@jb-c0b21db63.uni-muenster.de...

I guess the reason is the existance of too many too narrow minded
physicists ;)

Julian

<snip>

Your 'smiley' lays claim to a sense of humor, but your blanket
condemnation
of an entire class of people (scientists) betrays a mind that thinks
categorically.

Maybe you're right, but i don't condemt the entire class --- i know alot
physicists disagreeing with Einstein's relativity. And if relativists were
wrong --- this would not be the first time for the majority being strayed.

The essence of your condemnation betrays a feeling of superiority to
these
people, specifically that you disagree with them generally

yes, you got me right.

and feel that the
root of the disagreement lies in *their* deficiency.

this deficiency being their parochialism.
dont you think the same way those refusing relativity?

Such condescending elitism is almost diagnostically characteristic of
American liberals,

no, I'm German ;)

those who become wealthy without earning it,

remember Einstein and what he claimed to be his findings? Weren't there
poeple before him proclaiming the same equations?

and those
who spend their college years studying 'arts' and 'humanities.'

Most college graduates quickly learn that categorical thinking about
groups
of people leads to errors that can be dangerous - especially if someone
with
a latent violent streak disagrees with your categorization.

hope youre not concerned by such latent traits ;)

My inference from this evidential line of thought: you are an
arts/humanities student at the University of Muenster and you are
'slumming'
in a 'physics' group.

Was studieren Sie im Münster?

Ich studiere Physik (bzw. fange jetzt damit an)

[How close am I?]

As you can see not that close, but i really thought about studying
musik/piano ;)
Julian Becker
Münster, Germany
.

User: "Hatunen"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	16 Sep 2005 02:47:25 PM

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:46:28 +0200, "Julian Becker"
<julian.becker@uni-muenster.de> wrote:

Maybe you're right, but i don't condemt the entire class --- i know alot
physicists disagreeing with Einstein's relativity.

Eh? Name them. I would accept about 25 names as "a lot"
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.

User: ""
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	16 Sep 2005 01:53:01 PM

My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps
***********************
How interesting! This might get to be a fad. Everybody loads up their
text with typoos and missspellings as copyright protection! finly it
gitss to wheewree nooooone cant read nuttin but itz awl protected gud
against playjarism. i like it!
.

User: "Hatunen"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	16 Sep 2005 03:38:55 PM

On 16 Sep 2005 11:53:01 -0700,

wrote:

My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps

***********************

How interesting! This might get to be a fad. Everybody loads up their
text with typoos and missspellings as copyright protection! finly it
gitss to wheewree nooooone cant read nuttin but itz awl protected gud
against playjarism. i like it!

Mapmakers famously do this.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	16 Sep 2005 02:12:26 PM

"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:k88mi1tn3f1llb1o97765jkms6ug6hmddp@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:46:28 +0200, "Julian Becker"
| <julian.becker@uni-muenster.de> wrote:
|
| >Maybe you're right, but i don't condemt the entire class --- i know
alot
| >physicists disagreeing with Einstein's relativity.
|
| Eh? Name them. I would accept about 25 names as "a lot"
1) Sir Isaac Newton -"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself
and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything
external, and by another name is called "duration".
2) Nicolaus Copernicus.
3) Galileo Galilei.
4) Johannes Kepler.
5) James Clerk Maxwell (aetherialist)
6) Max Planck.
7) Neils Bohr. (argued with Einstein)
8) Christian Doppler.
9) Louis de Broglie.
10) Sagnac -- PROVED Einstein wrong in 1913.
11) Werner Heisenberg.
12) Wolfgang Pauli.
13) Prof. Albert Michelson.
14) Prof. Herbert Dingle.
15) Prof. Petr Beckmann.
16) John Fox.
17) Henri Wilson (yes, he's a physicist).
18) Dozens of contributors to sci.physics.relativity, past and present
Androcles
.

User: "Hatunen"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	16 Sep 2005 05:03:35 PM

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:12:26 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org> wrote:

None of those above was even alive when Einstein published
Special Relativity, much less General Relativity and could not
have objected to Einstein's work.

6) Max Planck.

Yo man the same mx Planck who " ... was also the first prominent
physicist to champion Einstein's special theory of relativity
(1905). "The velocity of light is to the Theory of Relativity,"
Planck remarked,"? Is that the Max Planck you mean?

7) Neils Bohr. (argued with Einstein)

Really? Where and when and aboout what? I know he and Einstein
disagreed about quantum mechanics. Ditto, probably, for Planck.

8) Christian Doppler.

Doppler died in 1853. how did you discover his opinons about
Eisnteineian relativity? Througha medium?

9) Louis de Broglie.

In fact, de Broglie RESOLVED an apparent contradiction in
relativity.

10) Sagnac -- PROVED Einstein wrong in 1913.

Which are we talking about here? Special or General Relativity or
both? Obviously Sagnac couldn't disagree about GR.
Anyway, where does it say Sagnac diagreed with Einstein? I do
find:
"As seen from the perspective of a frame of reference that is
co-rotating with the platform the light beams do travel the same
distance. The result of the Sagnac experiment has been cited by
many as a disproof of the theory of relativity, starting with
Ives in 1938. The reasoning is that if the speed of light is a
constant for the observer, then for the observer on the rotating
ring light should take the same time to travel each way and no
effect should occur. THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT HOLD because the
rotating ring is an accelerated frame of reference, while the
constancy of the speed of light (c) applies only in inertial
frames of reference." [emphasis added] See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect#Relativistic_Physics

11) Werner Heisenberg.

It's not clear that Heisenberg disagreed with Einstein about
relativity, although they certainly disagreed about quantum
mechanics. Ther appears to be a small conflict between Einstein
and Heisenberg about relativity and the uncertainty principle,
but it seems to have been cleared up later.
I would refer you to http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-53/iss-7/p38.html,
the section titled "Captured by Einstein", where it is clear
Heisenberg had no real disagrement with relativity.

12) Wolfgang Pauli.

Wher does Pauli disagree with relativity? H e actuall wrote
papers and reviews about relativity, including, "Two months after
the award of his doctorate Pauli's survey of the theory of
relativity appeared, by this time having grown into a work of 237
pages. His genius was immediately recognised by Einstein . . ."
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Pauli.html
On the other hand, pauli was a quantum physicist and this woule
have certainly led to disagrements with Einstein about quantum
theory.
For a more concise pereention about the mucual admiration
societybetween pauli and Einstein, see
http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-2/p43.html
13) Prof. Albert Michelson.
Where does Michelson say he disagrees with Einstein?

14) Prof. Herbert Dingle.

He did, indeed, disagree with SR.

15) Prof. Petr Beckmann.

Hm. Professor of Electrical Engineering. Oddly enough, although
Beckmann is refered to in a number of places as a physicist, so
far I can not find any evidence that he earned a doctorate, or
any degree, in that subject.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Petr_Beckmann says
"After World War II he returned to Czechoslovakia where he
received a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering in 1949, a Ph.D. in
1955, and a D.Sc. from the Czech Academy of Sciences in 1962" but
the latter two specialty subjects are not mentioned.
Every source I can find on the Inernet pretty much repeats that
sentence. Does anyone know what Beckmann's dissertation was
about?
In any case it appears his objection was to GR, not SR.

16) John Fox.

Could you be a little more specific? There are a lot of John
Foxes; do you mean the man at Florida State? Wehre and when did
he disagree with relativity?

17) Henri Wilson (yes, he's a physicist).

So you say. I assume this is the Belgian, but the name is so
common it's hard to Google. Where is his CV?

18) Dozens of contributors to sci.physics.relativity, past and present

How many were physicists, with PhDs in that subject? After all,
you seem to be one of those contributors.
You know, this is all getting tedious. You seem to operate on the
premise no one will check your citations. As you may have noted
after our discussion avbout the Heienberg Uncertainy Principle I
checked one of your citations, which did indeed support your
argument, and which was in fact either wrong or misleading.
Fortunately I was able to contact the professor whose web page it
was and point out the error, which he corrected.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	16 Sep 2005 04:34:39 PM

"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1mbmi1llvj44lgfrmfqriivklrpn7ndckm@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:12:26 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
| MyPlace.org> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Hatunen" <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
| >news:k88mi1tn3f1llb1o97765jkms6ug6hmddp@4ax.com...
| >| On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:46:28 +0200, "Julian Becker"
| >| <julian.becker@uni-muenster.de> wrote:
| >|
| >| >Maybe you're right, but i don't condemt the entire class --- i
know
| >alot
| >| >physicists disagreeing with Einstein's relativity.
| >|
| >| Eh? Name them. I would accept about 25 names as "a lot"
| >
| >1) Sir Isaac Newton -"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of
itself
| >and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything
| >external, and by another name is called "duration".
| >2) Nicolaus Copernicus.
| >3) Galileo Galilei.
| >4) Johannes Kepler.
| >5) James Clerk Maxwell (aetherialist)
|
| None of those above was even alive when Einstein published
| Special Relativity, much less General Relativity and could not
| have objected to Einstein's work.
Don't be foolish. Newton would have crucified Einstein, whose
definition of time is
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles
.

User: "Hatunen"
Title: Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?	16 Sep 2005 06:36:21 PM

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:34:39 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@
MyPlace.org> wrote:

Now you read past minds. Amazing. Perhaps Newton would have
"crucified" Einstein in 1666, but if he were alive today I would
presume his genius would lead him to recognize Einstein's.
This is a mug's game, hypothetically taking people out of some
remote past and speculating on how they would react today had
they no preparation. Hell, Newton couldn't even accept his own
"action at a distance" although he established it as a scientific
principle.
I would expect millions and millions of those around in the 17th
century would have had a hard time accepting Einstein. Some even
had a hard time accepting Newton.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.

Page 7 of 13

Post reply

Re: What is the "reason" C is constant to all observers?
what is the reason that made newton to invent calculus?
Level broadening, what is the physical reason
Re: What is the physical reason for the greenhouse effect? Two attempts.
What's the fundamental reason for electric current?
Re: What is the physical reason for the greenhouse effect? Two attempts.
Does Anyone Know What The Smart Model Is?
What's the rule about using 'ones' in algebra?

WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 2 Jan 03 Washington, DC
What causes orbits ?
What is the Universe made from? GR 17 Dublin, July 2004
What's New -- Friday, July 23, 2004 -- by Bob Park
What Darwin Wrote About THE EYE (Aye, Aye, Aye!)
What other observable(s) could have in a canonical quantum gravity approach?
Anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?

NEWER

pg.1174 pg.652 pg.362 pg.201 pg.112 pg.63 pg.36 pg.21 pg.13 pg.9 pg.7 pg.5 pg.3

OLDER