Hey,I've been reading Einstein's book "Relativity".
I'm stuck on light travelling at a constant, whether or not the
observer or emitter is moving.
What exactly is it travelling 3000000km/sec relative to? What frame of
reference are we using?
Thanks ahead of time.

PS. I'm a high school senior. I don't have that much math/physics under
my belt. I would highly appreciate it if you keep that in mind in your
explanation.

On 26 Nov 2005 10:03:18 -0800, "
wrote:

Hey,I've been reading Einstein's book "Relativity".
I'm stuck on light travelling at a constant, whether or not the
observer or emitter is moving.
What exactly is it travelling 3000000km/sec relative to? What frame of
reference are we using?
Thanks ahead of time.

PS. I'm a high school senior. I don't have that much math/physics under
my belt. I would highly appreciate it if you keep that in mind in your
explanation.
Have you ever watched a duck swimming in a pool.
Duck sitting constant, wave front expanding circularly around her,
duck moving slowly, generating circular waves.
Waves move at same speed whether duck is sitting still,
or moves slowly. Only if duck starts moving faster than
the water wave front, the model fails.
Stuff for you to think about: WHY?

c+v is Bull****. Learn Duck Pond Physics.
w.


w.

wrote:
Hey,I've been reading Einstein's book "Relativity".
I'm stuck on light travelling at a constant, whether or not the
observer or emitter is moving.
What exactly is it travelling 3000000km/sec relative to? What frame of
reference are we using?

Well, there's nothing wrong with getting stuck at that point, since that's
where everyone was stuck before 1905. But the whole point of an introduction
to relativity is to get you past that point. :-) Lots of books have been
written to answer the question you just asked, and I don't think anyone on
this group can tell you anything that hasn't been said already.

If you can be more specific about what's confusing you, I might be able to
help. For example, if you think you can argue a contradiction from the idea
that the speed of light is constant, then post the argument here and I'll
tell you where it goes wrong.

I would recommend you try another book, except that I happen to think that
Einstein's is one of the best of the bunch, at least for special relativity.
Others here may disagree, though.

-- Ben

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey,I've been reading Einstein's book "Relativity".
I'm stuck on light travelling at a constant, whether or not the
observer or emitter is moving.
What exactly is it travelling 3000000km/sec relative to? What frame of
reference are we using?
Thanks ahead of time.

PS. I'm a high school senior. I don't have that much math/physics under
my belt. I would highly appreciate it if you keep that in mind in your
explanation.


Ok, I'll try to explain it as simply as possible.
Speed is distance/time, right?
Now put the book down for a moment, and click on this link:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

What you will find is :
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]

So, no matter how long it takes to go from A to B, the time it takes
will always be just right for the answer to be 'c'.

The raving lunatic Einstein, the abject moron Einstein, the idiot clown
Einstein, the stooopid imbecile Einstein, this so-called 'genius' that knows
how the universe works just by thinking about it, thinks he is god
and can dictate physical laws by saying "we establish by definition".

Actually, he was a very clever scruffy little twerp.
Anyone that can fool the public so completely and thoroughly is
extemely clever. The joke should be over now, it's lasted 100 years,
but I guess it is still funny to some.
'We' are not amused. - Queen Victoria.

When asked if New York stops at this train, Galileo replied "Yes".

Einstein said "As has already been shown to the first order
of small quantities (by Galileo, but the secret to creativity
is knowing how to hide your sources so we won't mention him)
the same laws of mechanics will be valid for all frames of reference
for which the equations of electrodynamics and optics hold good.
We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter
be called the "Principle of Relativity" so that it looks as if I
discovered it) to the status of a postulate, because everything
should be as simple as possible but not simpler and imagination
is more important than knowledge and if we knew what it was
we were doing, it would not be called research, would it and
as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality and God
doesn't play craps, poker or roullette and he may be subtle,
but he isn't plain mean and I never think of the future, it comes
soon enough and what really interests me is whether God had any choice
in the creation of the world and if you are out to describe the truth,
leave elegance to the tailor and a table, a chair, a bowl of fruit
and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy and it would be
possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no
sense and common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen and God does not care about our mathematical difficulties; he
integrates empirically and the whole of science is nothing more
than a refinement of everyday thinking and do not worry about
your difficulties in Mathematics, I can assure you mine are still
greater and two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the the universe"

Does New York stop at this train or not?
It had better, or the Hudson River will stop at this train.

Now refer to http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Comments in square brackets are mine.

"Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and
General Theory. 1920.
The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity.
THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according
to which light is propagated in empty space
[except the Principle of Relativity, a really simple law].

Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this
propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity
c = 300,000 km./sec

[relative to the source, but cosmic muons can win that race by a mile,
literally. Einstein seems to have forgotten he said "we shall, however,
find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the
part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity"].

At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity
is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case

[prisms would split white light into different colours and we
never see that, and ]

the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously
for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark
neighbour

[except that Algol has no dark neighbour, John Goodricke, 18 years
old with a toy telescope in 1782 forgot to include the velocity of
light into his calculations and an eclipse means no light at all,
not a reduction in magnitude, besides which calculations reveal
that such a system is unstable, the "dark neighbour" is at the Roche
limit and will break up like the rings of Saturn. Goodricke died aged 22].

By means of similar considerations based on observations of
double stars

[Sirius, 8 light years away with a period of 50 years,
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap001006.html
no other double has ever been seen, the companion star was
not seen until 1934]

the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the
velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity
of motion of the body emitting the light.
[oh really? how? I see no significant velocity v from Sirius to add to c].

The assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent
on the direction "in space" is in itself improbable

[but factually true.
Compare http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
with http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Real scientists don't deal in assumptions and probables or persuasion].

In short, let us assume
[No, I will not assume]
that the simple law
[because Einstein says it is a law]
of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably
believed by the child at school
[who also believes in Santa Claus, but not believed by thinking
rational adults].

Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously
thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?

[and solved them, not being a peanut brain like Einstein,
it wasn't that difficult]

Let us consider how these difficulties arise

[because Einstein can make up fairy tales] ."

[Skip silly train story]

At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena.

[Einstein wants to be famous]

As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time
and space,

[insert here this 'analysis' in Einstein's own words]

"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."
[end insert. Some great analysis, that was.]

it became evident that

[Einstein is lying through his teeth]

in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the
principle of relativity

[which he hasn't discussed at all, he doesn't know if New York will
stop at this train]

and the law of propagation of light

[Because Einstein says so, it's a LAW, stomp foot]

and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically

[huh? That was your question, I believe]

rigid theory could be arrived at

[such as the speed of light being infinitely great in his theory].

This theory has been called the special theory of relativity

[or the special theory of the excrement of the male bovine]

to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall
deal later.

In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas
of the special theory of relativity

[but the conscientiously thoughtful physicist isn't taken in by it]."

The fundamental idea of special relativity is nothing than a
a confidence trick by the greatest huckster ever to have lived.

Referring again to
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.

In agreement with experience,
x = AB
-x = BA,
x + (-x) = 0.
Hence c = 0.

"Hagrid had Norbert packed and ready in a large crate.
'He's got lots o' rats an' some brandy fer the journey',
said Hagrid in a muffled voice. 'An' I packed his teddy
bear in case he gets lonely'.
From inside the crate came ripping noises that sounded to
Harry as though teddy was having his head torn off."
--J.K. Rowling, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.".

I hope you now understand relativity.

Androcles, tearing Einstein's head off.

Helmut Wabnig wrote:
On 26 Nov 2005 10:03:18 -0800, "
wrote:

Hey,I've been reading Einstein's book "Relativity".
I'm stuck on light travelling at a constant, whether or not the
observer or emitter is moving.
What exactly is it travelling 3000000km/sec relative to? What frame of
reference are we using?
Thanks ahead of time.

PS. I'm a high school senior. I don't have that much math/physics under
my belt. I would highly appreciate it if you keep that in mind in your
explanation.
Have you ever watched a duck swimming in a pool.
Duck sitting constant, wave front expanding circularly around her,
duck moving slowly, generating circular waves.
Waves move at same speed whether duck is sitting still,
or moves slowly. Only if duck starts moving faster than
the water wave front, the model fails.
Stuff for you to think about: WHY?

c+v is Bull****. Learn Duck Pond Physics.
w.

Exactly right.
The speed of light is determined by the mass and coupling
of the charges it interacts with:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

If you want to understand where the funny clocks work you
need a lot of electromagnetic theory like this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm


Sue...




w.

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey,I've been reading Einstein's book "Relativity".
I'm stuck on light travelling at a constant, whether or not the
observer or emitter is moving.
What exactly is it travelling 3000000km/sec relative to? What frame of
reference are we using?
Thanks ahead of time.

PS. I'm a high school senior. I don't have that much math/physics under
my belt. I would highly appreciate it if you keep that in mind in your
explanation.


Ok, I'll try to explain it as simply as possible.
Speed is distance/time, right?

According to an idiot like you, that implies that speed can
be negative:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...eDistance.html

Dirk Vdm

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey,I've been reading Einstein's book "Relativity".
I'm stuck on light travelling at a constant, whether or not the
observer or emitter is moving.
What exactly is it travelling 3000000km/sec relative to?

Any inertial frame.

What frame of reference are we using?

Usually a Cartesian coordinate system conceptually attached to the inertial
frame.

Thanks
Bill


Thanks ahead of time.

PS. I'm a high school senior. I don't have that much math/physics under
my belt. I would highly appreciate it if you keep that in mind in your
explanation.

Bill To understand relativity its best to realize it don't fit well in
the sub-micro realm. It was thought in the past by combining GR and QM
it would be capable of describing a theory of quantum gravity. GR,and QM
turned out not to be compatible. Thus hypotheses about the origin of the
universe have a shaky theoretical foundation. Reality is both theories
need more experiments. Bert