Some troubling assumptions of SR

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:30:42 -0500, Bob Kolker
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:
I assume you meant FLT, David, which in this context I take to mean
Fitzgeral-Lorentz-Transforms as opposed to Fermat's Last Theorem in
mathematical contexts although there is some applicability of the
latter to certain physical contexts.

FLT in physical contexts for single frames of reference simply refers

No. He meant Faster Than Light.

You mean kinda like your tachy thought process?

~v~~

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:39:23 -0500, David Marcus
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:52:42 -0500, David Marcus
wrote:

Care to give an example of a "FTL for a single frame of reference"?

Typo: should have been "FLT".

I assume you meant FLT, David, which in this context I take to mean
Fitzgeral-Lorentz-Transforms as opposed to Fermat's Last Theorem in
mathematical contexts although there is some applicability of the
latter to certain physical contexts.

FLT in physical contexts for single frames of reference simply refers
to the velocity of light relative to experimental platforms like MM.It
ranges between c(1-vv/cc) in the longitudinal direction of platform v
and the square root of that, c*(1-vv/cc)^1/2, transversely. Einstein
divides the former by the latter to obtain a net relative dilation in
relative c equal to the latter.

So, the platform is moving with velocity v relative to the frame?

Of course not. The platform is at rest in its own frame and other
things at rest with respect to the platform are in the same frame and
other things not at rest with respect to the platform are in different
frames of reference.

Einstein postulated the relative velocity of light to be isotropically
constant and hypothesized a geometric contraction in the direction of
motion equal in magnitude to the latter to accommodate the postulate.

If the velocity of light is constant, why do you need a geometric
contraction?

To explain how that is supposed to be possible if as we assume light
travels through space independent of the experimental platform at some
constant velocity c. FLT shows the velocity of light relative to the
experimental platform under those assumptions and if FLT is correct MM
should have been able to detect differences in the relative velocity
of light by means of fringe shifts during platform rotation. It was
unable to do so consequently Einstein postulated an isotropically
constant relative velocity of light. However that didn't make the
anisotropically variable relative velocity of light predicted by FLT
simply go away. In the context of FLT Einstein's postulate still had
to be explained and he used a second order geometric spatial
contraction for the whole frame of reference to do it.

Consider the case where there is only one object in the universe and
Michelson-Morley is being conducted on that object. Those doing the
experiment detect no fringe shift anticipated on the basis of FLT.
Thus there are only a couple of possible explanations if we assume
that light travels through space independent of the experimental
platform at a constant velocity c. Either the platform is actually at
rest in space or some kind of material or geometric contraction as a
second order function of platform velocity through space contrives to
counteract FLT or there is some more subtle mechanical explanation.

~v~~

On Feb 15, 12:50 pm, Lester Zick wrote:


Of course not. The platform is at rest in its own frame and other
things at rest with respect to the platform are in the same frame and
other things not at rest with respect to the platform are in different
frames of reference.


I explained your error here, Lester. You ignored that.
When the act of ignoring is committed to perpetuate a previous state
of ignorance, that is a new level of ignorance. Something like
ignorance-plex, or double-density-ignorance, or second-order-
ignorance.
Successive applications result eventually in an infinitely recursive
state of ignorance -- sometimes called being an ignoranus.

PD

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:46:56 -0500, Wolf
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:
[...]
Einstein postulated the relative velocity of light to be isotropically
constant and hypothesized a geometric contraction in the direction of
motion equal in magnitude to the latter to accommodate the postulate.

~v~~

No, he didn't. Einstein showed that the FLT implied that two observers
in relative motion to each other would each observe a contraction in the
other observer in the direction of motion. However each observer would
observe no such contraction in itself. Your inference that Einstein
claimed that the contraction is spatially real in some sense is
incorrect. It's also one of the most common misunderstandings of SR
(especially in those gee-whiz explanations of the weirdness of science
intended fro popular consumption, unfortunately.)

So you're suggesting Einstein's SR postulate is a purely psychological
theory?

A consequence of space contraction plus the constancy of C is time
dilation. It's a great enough effect that it can be observed at
human-scale speeds by clocks that tick very fast. Such as atomic clock,
whose oscillations are counted in the billions compared to one
oscillation of a pendulum. The experiment has been done (several times
IIRC.)

As per DvdM, Wolf. What's a clock? He couldn't explain the concept
either except by pointing them out. Of course we could always say a
clock is what measures time and time is what a clock measures but the
ratio of mechanics to explanation in that tends to be 3.14159 . . .

Of course, I don't expect you to accept all this. You suffer from
common-sensitis,

Aka mechanics?

the belief that if an idea violates common sense it
must be wrong. Trouble is, one man's common sense is another man's
nonsense, or worse. People have killed each other over common sense
interpretations of the bible, for example.

Of course I don't believe in beliefs as the basis for mechanics, Wolf.
I do believe a correct mechanics will make common sense but not vice
versa. My objective is mechanical explanation not psychological
fantasies as substitutes for mechanical explanation. Psychology
explains mass hysteria not physics.

You don't kill those who
disagree with you, or try to teach you better ways of thinking about
these problems, but sure do get, er, testy.

Extraneous mockery and hyperbolic irony are perfectly acceptable
forensic modalities, Wolf. I only get testy when opponents deny what I
describe, refuse to explain themselves in mechanical terms, and then
act as if what they say is gospel and their **** don't stink but mine
does.

Take another tot of single malt. It's a great catalyst of cosmic
insights. Tastes good, too. :-)

Okay, Wolf, while we're tippling:

Consider the case where there is only one object in the universe and
Michelson-Morley is being conducted on that object. Those doing the
experiment detect no fringe shift anticipated on the basis of FLT.
Thus there are only a couple of possible explanations if we assume
that light travels through space independent of the experimental
platform at a constant velocity c. Either the platform is actually at
rest in space or some kind of material or geometric contraction as a
second order function of platform velocity through space contrives to
counteract FLT or there is some more subtle mechanical explanation.

~v~~

On 15 Feb 2007 04:14:26 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 14 Feb, 23:41, Lester Zick wrote:

[. . .]

Consequently we have only the v of
that body through space to consider and the velocity of light through
space independent of that body.

No, you don't even have that, there is no other
object relative to which you can measure any
velocity and there is no practical way to measure
speed "through space" so consequently you cannot
define any other frame.

Well, George, I won't say "nonsense" but that's exactly what MM was
designed to do and it's eminently practical assuming FLT is correct.
Michelson-Morley was designed precisely to measure the second order
velocity of the experimental platform through space in relation to cc
and it should have been detectable even in those days only assuming
the velocity of the earth around the sun. That was the beauty of the
experiment. It was designed to measure the earth's velocity through
space in isolation independent of other objects, observers, etc.

~v~~

Lester Zick wrote:
Consider the case where there is only one object in the universe and
Michelson-Morley is being conducted on that object. Those doing the
experiment detect no fringe shift anticipated on the basis of FLT.
Thus there are only a couple of possible explanations if we assume
that light travels through space independent of the experimental
platform at a constant velocity c. Either the platform is actually at
rest in space or some kind of material or geometric contraction as a
second order function of platform velocity through space contrives to
counteract FLT or there is some more subtle mechanical explanation.

Why should we assume light travels through space at velocity c? I don't
recall that being part of special relativity.

--
David Marcus

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:28:12 -0500, David Marcus
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:
Consider the case where there is only one object in the universe and
Michelson-Morley is being conducted on that object. Those doing the
experiment detect no fringe shift anticipated on the basis of FLT.
Thus there are only a couple of possible explanations if we assume
that light travels through space independent of the experimental
platform at a constant velocity c. Either the platform is actually at
rest in space or some kind of material or geometric contraction as a
second order function of platform velocity through space contrives to
counteract FLT or there is some more subtle mechanical explanation.

Why should we assume light travels through space at velocity c? I don't
recall that being part of special relativity.

It isn't. Unlike modern mathematikers you shouldn't assume anything.
Might be a part of Maxwell's equations though. Hard to tell.Of course
if you do happen to encounter anything that travels through space at
velocity c it'll probably be light.

~v~~

Lester Zick wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:28:12 -0500, David Marcus
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:

Consider the case where there is only one object in the universe and
Michelson-Morley is being conducted on that object. Those doing the
experiment detect no fringe shift anticipated on the basis of FLT.
Thus there are only a couple of possible explanations if we assume
that light travels through space independent of the experimental
platform at a constant velocity c. Either the platform is actually at
rest in space or some kind of material or geometric contraction as a
second order function of platform velocity through space contrives to
counteract FLT or there is some more subtle mechanical explanation.

Why should we assume light travels through space at velocity c? I don't
recall that being part of special relativity.

It isn't. Unlike modern mathematikers you shouldn't assume anything.
Might be a part of Maxwell's equations though. Hard to tell.Of course
if you do happen to encounter anything that travels through space at
velocity c it'll probably be light.

So, if we use Einstein's postulate that the speed of light in the
experiment's frame is c, we don't need either of your options. Right?

I believe Maxwell's equations don't specify what the speed of the wave
is relative to. So, we can take it to be relative to the experiment's
frame.

--
David Marcus

On Feb 15, 7:25 pm, David Marcus wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:28:12 -0500, David Marcus
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Consider the case where there is only one object in the universe and
Michelson-Morley is being conducted on that object. Those doing the
experiment detect no fringe shift anticipated on the basis of FLT.
Thus there are only a couple of possible explanations if we assume
that light travels through space independent of the experimental
platform at a constant velocity c. Either the platform is actually at
rest in space or some kind of material or geometric contraction as a
second order function of platform velocity through space contrives to
counteract FLT or there is some more subtle mechanical explanation.

Why should we assume light travels through space at velocity c? I don't
recall that being part of special relativity.

It isn't. Unlike modern mathematikers you shouldn't assume anything.
Might be a part of Maxwell's equations though. Hard to tell.Of course
if you do happen to encounter anything that travels through space at
velocity c it'll probably be light.

So, if we use Einstein's postulate that the speed of light in the
experiment's frame is c, we don't need either of your options. Right?

I believe Maxwell's equations don't specify what the speed of the wave
is relative to. So, we can take it to be relative to the experiment's
frame.

Yes. Which means that every experiment will measure c for the speed
of light relative to the apparatus. That is indeed what Maxwell's
equations say.

- Randy

On Feb 15, 7:25 pm, David Marcus wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:28:12 -0500, David Marcus
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
Consider the case where there is only one object in the universe and
Michelson-Morley is being conducted on that object. Those doing the
experiment detect no fringe shift anticipated on the basis of FLT.
Thus there are only a couple of possible explanations if we assume
that light travels through space independent of the experimental
platform at a constant velocity c. Either the platform is actually at
rest in space or some kind of material or geometric contraction as a
second order function of platform velocity through space contrives to
counteract FLT or there is some more subtle mechanical explanation.

Why should we assume light travels through space at velocity c? I don't
recall that being part of special relativity.

It isn't. Unlike modern mathematikers you shouldn't assume anything.
Might be a part of Maxwell's equations though. Hard to tell.Of course
if you do happen to encounter anything that travels through space at
velocity c it'll probably be light.

So, if we use Einstein's postulate that the speed of light in the
experiment's frame is c, we don't need either of your options. Right?

I believe Maxwell's equations don't specify what the speed of the wave
is relative to. So, we can take it to be relative to the experiment's
frame.

--
David Marcus- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Einstein stated that " Light is always propagated in empty space with
a " definite " velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body ".

From there on, the word " Definite " is replaced with the word "
Determined ", when dealing with the speed of light that is " measured
" in any frame.

So yes, light does travel across space at c velocity, but it is only "
measured " as c velocity from any frame of reference, but that does
not mean that the relative c + v and c - v events do not occur, but
that the properties of the measurement platform in motion changes in a
manner such that the ( + v ) and ( - v ) effects are canceled out.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm

THE_ONE