 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / November 2006the most fundamental in relativity
Dear Sirs apparently the most fundamental in relativity is the wave, particle and reference frame can light be considered as a reference frame having any speed, but holding time constant? Dear tn: > Dear Sirs > > apparently the most fundamental in relativity is the wave, > particle and reference frame Wave or particle is quantum mechanics. In relativity it is "signal", and the fastest signal we have is light in vacuuo. > can light be considered as a reference frame having > any speed, but holding time constant? No. No finite quantities result from attempting this. The Lorentz transforms (as standard tool, where "frames" make sense in special relativity) were derived assuming v < c. David A. Smith > Dear tn: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Lorentz transforms (as standard tool, where "frames" make sense > in special relativity) were derived assuming v < c. BTW... the term 'vacuum' or in vacuuo has so many conotations that some folks get off track with ethers and fluids and other 'stuff' that light doesn't need. By using the term *free-space* we can make reference to a space with a rigourous definition that considers all the factors in Maxwell's equations and light propagation. Less ambiguity for students of SR. << Free space is considered the baseline state of the electromagnetic field. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space "Incident Wave Impedance" http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html "characteristic impedance of free space" http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci845268,00.html Vacuum is certainly not incorrect. It just makes the Wiki complain about disambiguation :-). Sue... > David A. Smith Dear Sue: > > Dear tn: ... > > > apparently the most fundamental in relativity is the wave, > > > particle and reference frame > > > > Wave or particle is quantum mechanics. In relativity it is > > "signal", and the fastest signal we have is light in vacuuo. ... > BTW... the term 'vacuum' or in vacuuo has so many conotations > that some folks get off track with ethers and fluids and other > 'stuff' that light doesn't need. ... > Less ambiguity for students of SR. Students of SR are (by then) familiar with the effects of a physical medium (air, glass, water, Bose-Einstein condensates, etc.) where c_medium < c. "in vacuuo" simply means there is no intervening "stuff" to slow the signal down... like removing all the cars, merging streets / driveways, traffic lights, traffic signs, and policemen from the road in front of you. Autobahn vs. any LA freeway at 5:00 pm. I don't see that any shorthand term is going to dissuade the student from preferring to think of an aether, should that be his / her choice. Nature clearly doesn't care what mental model is used to learn... the sooner an error is expressed, the easier it is corrected. David A. Smith > Dear Sirs > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can light be considered as a reference frame having > any speed, Aparently it can: << Method for finding true North using a fibreoptic gyroscopeferm: Fibre optic gyroscopes. True North. is. found by. positioning ... north. sensor using a fiber optic gyroscope',. Appl. Opt., ...>> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/2220/7283/00294817.pdf? http://www.sperrymarine.northropgrumman.com/Products/Gyrocompasses/navigat2100/i ntroduction/ << but holding time constant? >> That only happens if you drink too much. :o) Sue... >> can light be considered as a reference frame having >> any speed, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.sperrymarine.northropgrumman.com/Products/Gyrocompasses/navigat2100/i ntroduction/ Clueless as always. :-) Paul > >> can light be considered as a reference frame having > >> any speed, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > north. sensor using a fiber optic gyroscope',. Appl. Opt., ...>> > > http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/2220/7283/00294817.pdf? http://www.sperrymarine.northropgrumman.com/Products/Gyrocompasses/navigat2100/i ntroduction/ > Clueless as always. :-) Are you suggesting device determines the rotational speed of the earth by means other than described on the page? You didn't offer alternate theory of operation so let me guess: ~~ You think the manufacturer actually hides little telekinetic faires in the enclosure and they mind meld with Santa to find the north pole. The optical fibre coils are just in case the faires need some fishing line.~~ Ask your boss the difference in physics and biology and stay at least 100 meters from any classroom that teaches either one. Child molestation is illegal in most countries. Sue... > Paul >>>> can light be considered as a reference frame having >>>> any speed, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Are you suggesting device determines the rotational speed of the earth > by means other than described on the page? I am suggesting that light cannot be "considered as a reference frame having any speed", and only a clueless crank like yourself would claim otherwise. > You didn't offer alternate theory of operation so let me guess: > > ~~ You think the manufacturer actually hides little telekinetic > faires in the enclosure and they mind meld with Santa to find > the north pole. The optical fibre coils are just in case the faires > need some fishing line.~~ Quite. I also believe that the very same telekinetic fairies can be found in the enclosure of a traditional gyrocompass. > Ask your boss the difference in physics and biology and stay > at least 100 meters from any classroom that teaches either one. > Child molestation is illegal in most countries. > > Sue... Paul | Dear Sirs | [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | can light be considered as a reference frame having | any speed, but holding time constant? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm > Dear Sirs > > apparently the most fundamental in relativity is the wave, > particle and reference frame No - the most fundamental thing is the POR. Of course to understand it you need to know what a frame and inertial frame is. > can light be considered as a reference frame having > any speed, but holding time constant? Stringing buzzwords together in silly ways usually results in nonsense - what you wrote above is a typical example. Bill Dear Mister Sir > > Dear Sirs > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No - the most fundamental thing is the POR. Of course to understand it you > need to know what a frame and inertial frame is. I suspect you being stupid Sir the fundamentals in POR namely paricles, waves and reference frames then on the other hand, the resulted relativity disprove POR you are supposed to already know this, just give me the name of your teacher, quick > > can light be considered as a reference frame having > > any speed, but holding time constant? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bill > Dear Mister Sir > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I suspect you being stupid Sir I may indeed be - but there is no suspicion is you case - you 100% are - or deliberating apeing their behaviour. Bill > the fundamentals in POR namely paricles, waves and reference frames > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Bill |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.