Re: Light Postulate Invalidated
From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 09/08/04
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Previous message: stew dean: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: EjP: "Re: Light Postulate Invalidated"
- Next in thread: EjP: "Re: Light Postulate Invalidated"
- Reply: EjP: "Re: Light Postulate Invalidated"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:57:23 +0200
"EjP" <nospam@hackers.are.bad> wrote in message
news:chl189$jjp$1@info4.fnal.gov...
> Cadwgan Gedrych wrote:
>
> > Surprisingly, simple observation without measurements can
> > disprove the basis of SR (aka Einstein's light postulate).
> >
> > Consider any two entities which are on a collision course,
> > as shown below:
> >
> > E(a)-------------><--------------------E(b)
> >
> > The location of their meeting point depends only upon their
> > relative motion, and this depends on their individual speeds,
> > as the following analysis shows:
> >
> > Suppose the two entities E(a) and E(b) always leave frame A
> > points (0,0,0) and (10,0,0) respectively at the same time (per
> > frame A's clocks at the given points).
>
> OK, but realize that it will not in general be simulataneous
> in other frames.
>
> ? E(a) and E(b) will of
> > course always move toward each other so that they eventually
> > collide. Now suppose that after one such collision point is
> > marked on frame A, E(a) and E(b) return to their starting
> > points, and again leave on a collision course, except this
> > time E(a) moves at a different speed. This change in entity
> > E(a)'s speed will change the location (wrt frame A) of the
> > entities' collision point.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Indeed, a change in either or both
> > of the entities' speeds will make their collision point shift.
> >
>
> You've taken a lot of space to express a pretty simple point.
> Please move on.
>
> > Clearly, any shift in the location of the collision point
> > indicates a change in the entities' relative motion.
> >
>
> ...or point of origin, or the time they started (both of
> which would be different in a different frame of reference).
>
> > Just as clearly, the conclusion just given holds regardless
> > of the physical nature of the entities.
> >
> > For example, the conclusion holds in the case where entity
> > E(a) is an inertial observer, and entity E(b) is a light ray.
> >
>
> Except that now you're "frame jumping". By making E(a) an
> "intertial observer", you're bringing another frame
> of reference into the problem.
My first impression was the same. However, as you should have seen, he did
not switch to another frame. If I read him well, the whole point of what he
tried to make clear relies on the fact that he does *not* jump frames in
this thought experiment but *remains* in frame A. From that he draws
conclusions about observer E(a) that for observer E(a) are difficult to draw
because of involvement in the change.
> > In this case, if the observer changes his speed during each
> > iteration of the experiment, then the shifting meeting point
> > provides direct visual proof that the motional relationship
> > (aka the relative motion) between the light ray and the
> > observer has changed.
>
> Not at all. As said before, in the inertial frame defined
> by E(a),
What a pity, you lost track because you jumped frames...
Harald
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Previous message: stew dean: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: EjP: "Re: Light Postulate Invalidated"
- Next in thread: EjP: "Re: Light Postulate Invalidated"
- Reply: EjP: "Re: Light Postulate Invalidated"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
