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 <laserma...@gmail.com> 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 <laserma...@gmail.com> 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
