Which is the more accurate, or more useful interpretation?

A. The metric of space is frame variant (local) in a way that makes the
speed of EM radiation frame invariant.

B. The speed of EM radiation is frame invariant thereby causing the
metric of space to be frame variant (local).

The latter is the usually quoted form, but I must confess a certain
liking for the former.

Would we be able to deduce detectable difference between the two?
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

On Feb 10, 4:58 am, Prometheus wrote:
Which is the more accurate, or more useful interpretation?

A. The metric of space is frame variant (local) in a way that makes the
speed of EM radiation frame invariant.

B. The speed of EM radiation is frame invariant thereby causing the
metric of space to be frame variant (local).

The latter is the usually quoted form, but I must confess a certain
liking for the former.

Would we be able to deduce detectable difference between the two?
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

Assuming you refer to an *inertial* frame:

A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html


it is impossible to perform a physical experiment
which differentiates in any fundamental sense between
different inertial frames.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...res/node7.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
"The Ewald-Oseen extinction theorem and extinction lengths"
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

So the choice is more that just local or
non-local but considers the near and farfields
and the constituants of the free space dielectric.



Sue...

In article
,
Sue... writes
On Feb 10, 4:58 am, Prometheus wrote:
Which is the more accurate, or more useful interpretation?

A. The metric of space is frame variant (local) in a way that makes the
speed of EM radiation frame invariant.

B. The speed of EM radiation is frame invariant thereby causing the
metric of space to be frame variant (local).

The latter is the usually quoted form, but I must confess a certain
liking for the former.

Would we be able to deduce detectable difference between the two?
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and
the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

Assuming you refer to an *inertial* frame:

Yes, sorry, the use of a shortened from was negligent.

A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html

Perfectly true, but not relevant to my question.

it is impossible to perform a physical experiment
which differentiates in any fundamental sense between
different inertial frames.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...res/node7.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
"The Ewald-Oseen extinction theorem and extinction lengths"
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...=normal&id=AJP
IAS000067000007000599000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=y es

Perfectly true, but not really addressing my question of interpretation
and I do not follow the relevance of The Ewald–Oseen extinction
theorem and extinction lengths. I doubt that either of my views makes a
difference (unless I have poorly worded them).

So the choice is more that just local or
non-local but considers the near and farfields
and the constituants of the free space dielectric.

Perfectly true, but not relevant to my question.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

On Feb 10, 1:50 pm, Prometheus wrote:
In article
,
Sue... writes





On Feb 10, 4:58 am, Prometheus wrote:
Which is the more accurate, or more useful interpretation?

A. The metric of space is frame variant (local) in a way that makes the
speed of EM radiation frame invariant.

B. The speed of EM radiation is frame invariant thereby causing the
metric of space to be frame variant (local).

The latter is the usually quoted form, but I must confess a certain
liking for the former.

Would we be able to deduce detectable difference between the two?
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and
the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

Assuming you refer to an *inertial* frame:

Yes, sorry, the use of a shortened from was negligent.

A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html

Perfectly true, but not relevant to my question.

it is impossible to perform a physical experiment
which differentiates in any fundamental sense between
different inertial frames.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...res/node7.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
"The Ewald-Oseen extinction theorem and extinction lengths"
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...=normal&id=AJP
IAS000067000007000599000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=y es

Perfectly true, but not really addressing my question of interpretation
and I do not follow the relevance of The Ewald-Oseen extinction
theorem and extinction lengths. I doubt that either of my views makes a
difference (unless I have poorly worded them).

If you shortened the term "space-time" as you did the
the term "inertial frame of reference" then some rewording
might be in order.


That said, a few ~bench-mark~ properties of space-time
similar to your question, are discussed in the chapters
following its description:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node113.html

Sue...




So the choice is more that just local or
non-local but considers the near and farfields
and the constituants of the free space dielectric.

Perfectly true, but not relevant to my question.



--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
Which is the more accurate, or more useful interpretation?

A. The metric of space is frame variant (local) in a way that makes the
speed of EM radiation frame invariant.

B. The speed of EM radiation is frame invariant thereby causing the metric
of space to be frame variant (local).

The latter is the usually quoted form, but I must confess a certain liking
for the former.

Would we be able to deduce detectable difference between the two?

Your wording is off. It should be something along the lines of the POR
implies the Lorentz transformations up to an undermined constant.
Experimentally that constant is the speed of light.

Thanks
Bill

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the
viewer.
~Ansel Adams

In article , Bill Hobba
writes

"Prometheus" wrote in message
.. .
Which is the more accurate, or more useful interpretation?

A. The metric of space is frame variant (local) in a way that makes the
speed of EM radiation frame invariant.

B. The speed of EM radiation is frame invariant thereby causing the metric
of space to be frame variant (local).

The latter is the usually quoted form, but I must confess a certain liking
for the former.

Would we be able to deduce detectable difference between the two?

Your wording is off. It should be something along the lines of the POR
implies the Lorentz transformations up to an undermined constant.
Experimentally that constant is the speed of light.

I don't think that quite answers it.
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

Prometheus wrote:
Which is the more accurate, or more useful interpretation?
A. The metric of space is frame variant (local) in a way that makes the
speed of EM radiation frame invariant.
B. The speed of EM radiation is frame invariant thereby causing the
metric of space to be frame variant (local).

Neither. You use words inappropriately ("metric of space") for
relativity -- it is the metric of spaceTIME which is relevant. In
relativity, space has no metric that is independent of observer; all one
can do is project the metric of spaceTIME onto a selected spatial
3-manifold.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Prometheus wrote:
| Which is the more accurate, or more useful interpretation?
| A. The metric of space is frame variant (local) in a way that makes the
| speed of EM radiation frame invariant.
| B. The speed of EM radiation is frame invariant thereby causing the
| metric of space to be frame variant (local).
|
| Neither. You use words inappropriately ("metric of space") for
| relativity -- it is the metric of spaceTIME which is relevant. In
| relativity, space has no metric that is independent of observer; all one
| can do is project the metric of spaceTIME onto a selected spatial
| 3-manifold.
|
|
| Tom Roberts

Only Roberts is allowed to use words inappropriately.