Jump to content
Science Forums

Moronium

Members
  • Content Count

    2,840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Everything posted by Moronium

  1. How is that even relevant to what we're discussing? I don't get it.
  2. Well, reading it more closely, maybe I do. Are you just saying that IF a preferred frame were posited (thereby establishing a standard of absolute time), THEN c could (and would, depending on direction) exceed c in other frames? I agree with that much.
  3. I don't follow your "logic" here at all, Vic. What is "that particle?" What are you even talking about? The speed of light in a preferred frame, or what?
  4. No, that's not necessarily true, and I think you just agreed to that. I thought we agreed that, assuming that c cannot be exceeded in a given rest frame, that would not mean that c cannot be exceeded "in the universe," i.e. in other, moving, frames of reference.
  5. I said before that an ether is not required for time to be absolute. So what is required? As a strictly theoretical matter, nothing beyond positing a single "preferred" frame which is deemed to be at rest/ Once you do that, time is absolute, as is motion, as is simultaneity.
  6. OK, fair enough. That's just saying that you have never even considered a world where the postulates of SR weren't "true," I suppose. That might be one reason you think they have been "proven," i.e. because you don't think there's any other plausible way of looking at things and have never seriously considered the possibility.
  7. 1. The "ether theory" has never been "disproven." Even Einstein never claimed that. 2. You don't need an "ether" for time to be absolute, anyway, so it really isn't relevant to the revised assumptions I'm asking you to make.
  8. That isn't how it is viewed BY YOU (or by SR, if you prefer), you mean, eh?
  9. Well, let's suppose, then, that IN A GIVEN REST FRAME, c cannot be exceeded. What would be the speed of light be in OTHER (moving) frames of reference?
  10. Vic, to you believe there can be any difference in what "time" is measured to be, and what it actually is? I mean is that possible, ya figure?
  11. Here's another implication: Although "time" would not change in the frame of a moving object, if he thought he was not moving, he would still calculate the speed of light to be c. (the same would go for length) He would be relying on a slowed clock to provide him with the time, and contracted rods to measure distance.
  12. OK, good, that would be one implication. Whether you could actually do it, or not, it would no longer be theoretically prohibited.
  13. What would the physical effect be? By the way, no it wouldn't do that.
  14. It may help you to point out that this is the precise assumption made by QM, i.e. that time is absolute, not relative.
  15. Let me phrase that Back to assuming that you are in possession of the TRUTH, eh, Vic? The assumption that the postulates of SR have been "proven" displays utter naivete, I'm afraid. Let me put my question in a little more concrete terms. Let's first drop YOUR assumptions, and assume this: 1. Time does NOT change with motion (clocks do, sure, but not time). You don't have to agree with this, just assume it. How would that assumption affect all your math formulas?
  16. OK, Vic, I'll bite. Math aside, what does deduction (erroneously called "observation) have to with objective physical "reality?"
  17. I like the line from the tune which says: "Don't try to understand em...just ride, rope, and brand em....."
  18. The objection seems to be that it is a dubious concept which creates confusion, Popeye. But, as you say, there's no law against creating confusion. If there was, we wouldn't have politicians. Or special relativity, for that matter.
  19. Yeah, Vic. Your relativistic mass equation only refers to OBSERVED time, length, and mass. Personally I'm not that interested in how some guy, some where, might "observe" something which is somewhere else. I'm interested in what's physically happening objectively, not subjective "observation" In truth the so-called "observer" observes none of those things. He merely deduces them from dubious premises.
  20. Good post, Popeye. It seems that it is not "mass" which changes, but rather it's mathematical relationship to energy. It's more appropriate to talk about "rest energy" than it is "rest mass." Actually E=Mc2 is more precisely stated as Eo=Mc2 where Eo refers to the "rest energy." When at rest, there is no "momentum."
  21. But you appear to be ignoring the authorities cited in posts 64 & 65, here Popeye. For example: You yourself go on on to say: You then note that: As I said earlier, this is at least part of (but not all of) what causes me to be confused about the concept of "mass." Is there any clear, unambiguous conception of it?
  22. As I've already said, here's the real source of the confusion, in my view: . http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/ A particle is always "at rest" in some frame, so Eo=Mc2 "always" holds true "sometimes." So is it at rest, or not? When is it at rest? If you can't answer that, they you really can't say anything definitive about it. That's the problem with the "relativistic" analysis. "Always sometimes" just doesn't make sense. As I said back in post #11:
  23. According to this guy: http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html He seems to be saying that "the box" may have gained some mass, but that light still has no mass, the way I read it.
  24. Here's a "second opinion" on the photon/mass question, from John Baez's website: http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
  25. Well, Popeye, there are probably different "schools of thought" on this, but it is often claimed that a photon has no mass, resting or not. http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/
×
×
  • Create New...