What, precisely, is waving? [Archive]

abstract@bluesharkdesign.com

Dec9-04, 02:04 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>The above "subject" is a good quote from somewhere.\n\n\nQuestion 1;\nMy nephew (15) asked me the following...\nIs there any reason why the speed of light cannot be zero or c squared\n(as in 9 times 10 to the sixteenth m/sec) ,with our velocity (rotating\naround some universal center) as C?\nWhile there must be testable inconsistancies in the above I can not\ncome up with any.\n\nQuestion 2;\nDoes Kaluza\'s original paper show a connection between the\ntransformation of length and time in SR and the scalar and vector\npotentials of Maxwell. Or is the connection more abstract?\nAny non-obfuscatory answers or hints would be most welcome.\n\nPHM\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>The above "subject" is a good quote from somewhere.

Question 1;
My nephew (15) asked me the following...
Is there any reason why the speed of light cannot be zero or c squared
(as in 9 times 10 to the sixteenth m/sec) ,with our velocity (rotating
around some universal center) as C?
While there must be testable inconsistancies in the above I can not
come up with any.

Question 2;
Does Kaluza's original paper show a connection between the
transformation of length and time in SR and the scalar and vector
potentials of Maxwell. Or is the connection more abstract?
Any non-obfuscatory answers or hints would be most welcome.

PHM

Harry

Dec10-04, 10:18 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n<abstract@bluesharkdesign.com> wrote in message\nnews:1102547653.972840.29660@z14g2000cwz. googlegroups.com...\n> The above "subject" is a good quote from somewhere.\n>\n>\n> Question 1;\n> My nephew (15) asked me the following...\n> Is there any reason why the speed of light cannot be zero or c squared\n> (as in 9 times 10 to the sixteenth m/sec) ,with our velocity (rotating\n> around some universal center) as C?\n> While there must be testable inconsistancies in the above I can not\n> come up with any.\n\nIt\'s inconsistent or too focussed in the sense that only speed in one\ndirection is thought of.\nIn practice one measures the return speed of light to be C in all\ndirections - think of Michelson&Morley.\nBut more in general: If we were rotating at enourmous speed (at almost C,\nnot C) around some universal centre (note that we would need enormous\ngravitational attraction to make such possible), we would still\napproximately have inertial coordinate systems in which, as we wish, the\nlab, the earth or the solar system is resting. Accordingly we determine\nlight speed to be isotropically C, and it\'s been pretty well established\nthat that result is independent of the system\'s state of inertial motion.\nThus, if we find C while moving at almost the speed of light, we would\nexpect to also find C while not moving (rotating) at all. Therefore, it\ndoesn\'t matter, and we can be pretty sure that the speed of light is "really\nC".\n\n> Question 2;\n> Does Kaluza\'s original paper show a connection between the\n> transformation of length and time in SR and the scalar and vector\n> potentials of Maxwell. Or is the connection more abstract?\n> Any non-obfuscatory answers or hints would be most welcome.\n\nI don\'t know Kaluza.\n\n> PHM\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky><abstract@bluesharkdesign.com> wrote in message
news:1102547653.972840.29660@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
> The above "subject" is a good quote from somewhere.
>
>
> Question 1;
> My nephew (15) asked me the following...
> Is there any reason why the speed of light cannot be zero or c squared
> (as in 9 times 10 to the sixteenth m/sec) ,with our velocity (rotating
> around some universal center) as C?
> While there must be testable inconsistancies in the above I can not
> come up with any.

It's inconsistent or too focussed in the sense that only speed in one
direction is thought of.
In practice one measures the return speed of light to be C in all
directions - think of Michelson&Morley.
But more in general: If we were rotating at enourmous speed (at almost C,
not C) around some universal centre (note that we would need enormous
gravitational attraction to make such possible), we would still
approximately have inertial coordinate systems in which, as we wish, the
lab, the earth or the solar system is resting. Accordingly we determine
light speed to be isotropically C, and it's been pretty well established
that that result is independent of the system's state of inertial motion.
Thus, if we find C while moving at almost the speed of light, we would
expect to also find C while not moving (rotating) at all. Therefore, it
doesn't matter, and we can be pretty sure that the speed of light is "really
C".

> Question 2;
> Does Kaluza's original paper show a connection between the
> transformation of length and time in SR and the scalar and vector
> potentials of Maxwell. Or is the connection more abstract?
> Any non-obfuscatory answers or hints would be most welcome.

I don't know Kaluza.

> PHM

Philip McSweeney

Dec11-04, 03:04 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I\'m unfamiliar with Kaluza\'s work, so I\'ll concentrate on question 1.\nThere are really two questions contained in this:\n\na) Is it possible for the speed of light to be some integer multiple of\nc, and our (local group) velocity to be c?\n\nb) If it *is* possible, does the answer still hold when we introduce\nsome notion of rotation?\n\nThe naive way to regard question (a) is to say that it involves a\nsimple scaling on relative velocities. While one could argue that the\ndefinition of c=3x10^8 m/s is subject to an arbitrary scaling based on\nthe definition of a meter and a second, something one cannot get away\nfrom is that the fundamental postulate of special relativity states\nthat the speed of light is a universal constant, the same in any\nreference frame. As a result, it doesn\'t make sense to talk about our\nvelocity being c - the speed of light is c, and nothing else.\nSince (a) doesn\'t hold, neither does (b).\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I'm unfamiliar with Kaluza's work, so I'll concentrate on question 1.
There are really two questions contained in this:

a) Is it possible for the speed of light to be some integer multiple of
c, and our (local group) velocity to be c?

b) If it *is* possible, does the answer still hold when we introduce
some notion of rotation?

The naive way to regard question (a) is to say that it involves a
simple scaling on relative velocities. While one could argue that the
definition of c=3x10^8 m/s is subject to an arbitrary scaling based on
the definition of a meter and a second, something one cannot get away
from is that the fundamental postulate of special relativity states
that the speed of light is a universal constant, the same in any
reference frame. As a result, it doesn't make sense to talk about our
velocity being c - the speed of light is c, and nothing else.
Since (a) doesn't hold, neither does (b).

Philip McSweeney

Dec13-04, 10:41 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above\nthat leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then\ntheir need for the power process will not be served. The same is true\nwhen decisions are made on a collective bases if the group making the\ncollective decision is so large that the role of each individual is\ninsignificant [5]\n\n43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for\nautonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by\nidentifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they\nbelong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be\nsatisfied with a purely physical sense of power(the good combat\nsoldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills\nthat he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).\n\n44. But for most people it is through the power process-having a goal,\nmaking an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining t the goal-that self-esteem,\nself-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above
that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then
their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true
when decisions are made on a collective bases if the group making the
collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is
insignificant [5]

43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for
autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by
identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they
belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be
satisfied with a purely physical sense of power(the good combat
soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills
that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).

44. But for most people it is through the power process-having a goal,
making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining t the goal-that self-esteem,
self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does

Doug Sweetser

Dec14-04, 10:18 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nHello:\n\nPhilip McSweeney wrote:\n\n> a) Is it possible for the speed of light to be some integer multiple\n> of c, and our (local group) velocity to be c?\n....\n> The naive way to regard question (a) is to say that it involves a\n> simple scaling on relative velocities. While one could argue that the\n> definition of c=3x10^8 m/s is subject to an arbitrary scaling based on\n> the definition of a meter and a second, something one cannot get away\n> from is that the fundamental postulate of special relativity states\n> that the speed of light is a universal constant, the same in any\n> reference frame. As a result, it doesn\'t make sense to talk about our\n> velocity being c - the speed of light is c, and nothing else.\n\nI don\'t think c has a thing to do with meters and seconds. Instead it\nis about time\'s relationship to space. In classical physics, there is\nMUCH more change in time than changes in space (a million fold\ndifference if one is walking around, or the relativistic velocity\nbeta~=1x10^-6). To travel at the speed of light, the amount of change\nin time is exactly equal to any degree of precision to the amount of\nchange in space (beta=1). No particle with mass can have its change in\ntime equal to its change in space. In essence, it must have more\nhistory than it\'s physical bulk.\n\nFor a pair of events, if beta > 1, then those events are independent of\neach other. There is no possible causal connection between the two.\nBoth are every bit real, just independent.\n\n\ndoug\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello:

Philip McSweeney wrote:

> a) Is it possible for the speed of light to be some integer multiple
> of c, and our (local group) velocity to be c?
....
> The naive way to regard question (a) is to say that it involves a
> simple scaling on relative velocities. While one could argue that the
> definition of c=3x10^8 m/s is subject to an arbitrary scaling based on
> the definition of a meter and a second, something one cannot get away
> from is that the fundamental postulate of special relativity states
> that the speed of light is a universal constant, the same in any
> reference frame. As a result, it doesn't make sense to talk about our
> velocity being c - the speed of light is c, and nothing else.

I don't think c has a thing to do with meters and seconds. Instead it
is about time's relationship to space. In classical physics, there is
MUCH more change in time than changes in space (a million fold
difference if one is walking around, or the relativistic velocity
\beta~=1x10^-6). To travel at the speed of light, the amount of change
in time is exactly equal to any degree of precision to the amount of
change in space (\beta=1). No particle with mass can have its change in
time equal to its change in space. In essence, it must have more
history than it's physical bulk.

For a pair of events, if \beta > 1, then those events are independent of
each other. There is no possible causal connection between the two.
Both are every bit real, just independent.

doug

Philip McSweeney

Dec17-04, 07:55 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Doug Sweetser wrote:\n> Hello:\n>\n> Philip McSweeney wrote:\n>\n> > a) Is it possible for the speed of light to be some integer\nmultiple\n> > of c, and our (local group) velocity to be c?\n> ...\n> > The naive way to regard question (a) is to say that it involves a\n> > simple scaling on relative velocities. While one could argue that\nthe\n> > definition of c=3x10^8 m/s is subject to an arbitrary scaling based\non\n> > the definition of a meter and a second, something one cannot get\naway\n> > from is that the fundamental postulate of special relativity states\n> > that the speed of light is a universal constant, the same in any\n> > reference frame. As a result, it doesn\'t make sense to talk about\nour\n> > velocity being c - the speed of light is c, and nothing else.\n>\n> I don\'t think c has a thing to do with meters and seconds.\n\nI think you may have misunderstood me. I make the claim that the\nnumerical result c=3x10^8 m/s is a direct consequence of the\ndefinitions of meters and seconds. For example, had one defined a\n"pseudo-meter" according to\n\n1 pseudo-meter = 0.5 meters\n\nthen the experimentally observed value of the speed of light would be c\n= 6x10^8 pseudo-meters / s. The point I was trying to make is that that\nthe numerical value of c is subject to an arbitrary overall scaling\nbased on the definitions of its units. However, while this scaling is\nperfectly acceptable (being, as it is, nothing more than a result of\nhuman interpretation of what a meter or a second is), it does not\naffect the second postulate of relativity and hence the relevance to\nthe OP\'s question.\n\nRegards,\n\nPhil\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Doug Sweetser wrote:
> Hello:
>
> Philip McSweeney wrote:
>
> > a) Is it possible for the speed of light to be some integer
multiple
> > of c, and our (local group) velocity to be c?
> ...
> > The naive way to regard question (a) is to say that it involves a
> > simple scaling on relative velocities. While one could argue that
the
> > definition of c=3x10^8 m/s is subject to an arbitrary scaling based
on
> > the definition of a meter and a second, something one cannot get
away
> > from is that the fundamental postulate of special relativity states
> > that the speed of light is a universal constant, the same in any
> > reference frame. As a result, it doesn't make sense to talk about
our
> > velocity being c - the speed of light is c, and nothing else.
>
> I don't think c has a thing to do with meters and seconds.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I make the claim that the
numerical result c=3x10^8 m/s is a direct consequence of the
definitions of meters and seconds. For example, had one defined a
"pseudo-meter" according to

1 pseudo-meter = .5 meters

then the experimentally observed value of the speed of light would be c
= 6x10^8 pseudo-meters / s. The point I was trying to make is that that
the numerical value of c is subject to an arbitrary overall scaling
based on the definitions of its units. However, while this scaling is
perfectly acceptable (being, as it is, nothing more than a result of
human interpretation of what a meter or a second is), it does not
affect the second postulate of relativity and hence the relevance to
the OP's question.

Regards,

Phil