Re: MMX and FORs Revisited
From: Peter Kinane (pkinane_at_iol.ie)
Date: 06/09/04
- Next message: Craig Levine: "Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death"
- Previous message: alen: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: MMX and FORs Revisited"
- Next in thread: Peter Kinane: "Re: MMX and FORs Revisited"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 9 Jun 2004 08:19:08 -0700
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:ZMrxc.907$uB3.780@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> > The essential point of this thread:
> > I should think that the point of an inertial field ('and' FOR 'and'
> > observer) is to clearly establish the source- -causes of events-
> > -effects.
>
> I presume you mean frame not field. A frame is simply a conceptual standard
> of rest on which experiments can be done. An inertial frame is a frame in
> which free particles move with constant velocity. Landau has an alternate
> definition I prefer - a frame that is homogeneous in space and time and
> isotropic in space. It has nothing to do with source, causes of events or
> effects. Purge you mind of such things as well as the idea SR is
> fundamentally about light and you might be able to get somewhere.
>
Bill, thanks for the replies. I will respond here to points from
different posts.
Re the link you posted: I am choosing how to tackle the subject I am
addressing, which I suppose would be called "Physics".
Regarding your reply above, "A frame is simply a conceptual standard
of rest on which experiments can be done.": This is pretty close to
what I had in mind in "an inertial field ('and' FOR 'and' observer)".
So, are we still in the same game if I say "a frame which is free of
outside interference and within which events occur"? (This is quite
different to what you mean by "an inertial frame", so apologies if I
was so mistaken).
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:rnOwc.9651$rz4.4336@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:d8097fcc.0406061148.1ff553e0@posting.google.com...
> > This is something of a back to basics thread taking a look at the
> > rigour of definitions of "Frame of Reference" and perhaps the
> > Michelson Morley Experiment.
> >
> > Source and quote:
> > " http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/6/13/6330/21089
> >
> >
> > Introduction to the Theory of Relativity Part I: History (Science)
> >
> > The speed of the light doesn't depend on how fast the light source is
> > moving, just like the speed of a boat doesn't change the speed of the
> > waves in water. But surely it must depend on how fast the observer is
> > moving through the medium.
>
> Nothing wrong with your logic so far []
So, you seem to say "nothing wrong with" "The speed of the light
doesn't depend on how fast the light source is moving". In which case,
I continue to make the point that experiments done in such a frame
(even your definition) would generate effects which result from the
causes- -source, and that it would be 'clumsy' to say that the
causes/source are, for example, moving.
In the case of "The speed of the light", to say that the speed
"doesn't depend on how fast the light source is moving", as well as
the standard clumsiness to which I allude, this seems extra clumsy if,
as seems the case, the source is not entirely known - ether or no
ether, etc. If it does involve an ether, how would one presume to
imply knowledge of the speed of same?
-- Peter Kinane http://www.effectuationism.com/
- Next message: Craig Levine: "Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death"
- Previous message: alen: "Re: A message to non-relativists"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: MMX and FORs Revisited"
- Next in thread: Peter Kinane: "Re: MMX and FORs Revisited"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
