Re: MMX and FORs Revisited

From: Peter Kinane (pkinane_at_iol.ie)
Date: 06/18/04 

Date: 18 Jun 2004 04:56:37 -0700

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:ZMrxc.907$uB3.780@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Peter it is obvious you did not bother to read the paper I linked to that
> shows relativity really has nothing to do with light.

Bill, here, http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html "The Apparent
Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle
of Relativity", he seems to be talking about both light and
relativity.

In any case, further to what I see as confusion he expresses in
earlier pages, in now saying
"The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c.
  But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity
set forth in Section V. For, like every other general law of nature,
the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the
principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as
reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference." he is
implying that in Section V he showed that velocity was the same in
both frames. However, what he actually showed was that a mass m is
moving uniformly in a straight line in both:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html

"If a mass m is moving uniformly in a straight line with respect to a
co-ordinate system K, then it will also be moving uniformly and in a
straight line relative to a second co-ordinate system K', provided
that the latter is executing a uniform translatory motion with respect
to K".

He did so using the analogy:
"If we were to observe the flying raven from the moving railway
carriage, we should find that the motion of the raven would be one of
different velocity and direction, but that it would still be uniform
and in a straight line".

It gives me no pleasure to say that no doubt he goes on to develop
the confusion. (I wonder if it is contagious). 

-- 
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are these people insane? Seriously.
    ... inertial reference frame. ... principle of relativity must ... The principle of Relativity is more than a law of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Source and Observer
    ... |> pkinane@iol.ie (Peter Kinane) wrote in message ... |>> the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity": ... For, like every other general law of nature, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Black holes radiate - the end of GR is there
    ... the principle of deriving Snell's law is vastly ... almost all modern physics can be written in terms of a principle ... That's the correct thing to do -- to extremize the proper time. ... we're not talking about general relativity any more. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Is There a Force of Gravity?"
    ... Look in the FAQ for references. ... "The Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light ... "But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einstein the joker
    ... | "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... |> conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section 5. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)