Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light

harry:
>
>Curious schrieb:
>> Harry wrote:
>>
>> > Quite, the second formulation encompasses the first:
>> > If the measured vacuum speed of light is the constant c in any
>> inertial
>> > frame, it is by definition independent of the motion of objects in
>> that
>> > frame and that includes light sources.
>>
>> 'Scuse me for asking dumb questions:
>> 1. So the measured vacuum speed of light is a constant in an inertial
>> frame independent of the speed of BOTH the source AND the observer,
>> correct?
>
>Not dumb at all! According to SRT, yes. And there is a quite some
>experimental support in forward and backward directions. But be careful
>with the word "observer", as here you obviously mean detector, while
>the same label is commonly used in relativity to sloppily mean inertial
>frame of reference! Thus your correct use of that word can lead to
>misunderstanding if you don't make sure to be understood.

Don't try to explain relativity, harry. You always screw it up
with your own half-baked diatribe that bears litte or no resemblence
to the actual theory.

>
>> 2. Does it follow that the ACTUAL vacuum speed of light in an
>inertial
>> frame is also constant, or can't we tell?
>
>If you mean with "actual" "real", such as in a model of propagation,
>than you just hit the heart of a century old and never ended debate
>(meanwhile largely removed from journals) that is still continuing in
>this group!

It's not a debate, harry. It;s a correction of your misconceptions.

>The diplomatic answer is that physics is about measurements, it's not
>intended to cover such "philosophical" matters.
>Still, you can find papers in physics journals that cover that subject:
>some concluded that the answer on your question is Yes, and others such
>as Ives and Builder concluded that the answer is No.
>
>I also found an example on the web of a reasoning that supports the No:
>
>http://www.twow.net/ObjText/OtkCaLbStrC.htm
>
>No doubt other participants can provide more links that support each
>pov.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
    ... >> Harry wrote: ... >>> frame and that includes light sources. ... > experimental support in forward and backward directions. ... you can find papers in physics journals that cover that ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... SNIP ... > contingent, Harry? ... > (or the observers reference frame). ... GPS works fine with SRT. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: On The Irrelevance Of The Absolute Rest Frame In Special Relativity
    ... harry wrote: ... At this point I *will* postulate an absolute rest frame, ... Lorentz at least within that subcase. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... Any object measures shorter in terms of a frame relative to ... Tell that to Van de Moortel, ... With his SNIP Harry missed the first line of my reply. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
    ... >> frame and that includes light sources. ... > frame independent of the speed of BOTH the source AND the observer, ... experimental support in forward and backward directions. ... you can find papers in physics journals that cover that subject: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading