Re: O'Barr: The illogic of SR experts!


"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:l_hne.9328$BR4.3832@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> in message news:MHfne.6286$h32.1551@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Xb5ne.8496$BR4.655@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1117563437.851764.245800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > The illogic of SR experts!
> > > > Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)
> > > >
> > > > Take inertial reference frame A. This inertial
> > > > reference frame includes an observer A, and a far
> > > > distant star at rest in this same frame. Observer A
> > > > is going to measure the velocity of the light coming
> > > > from star X. The velocity of light from star X is
> > > > measured by observer A (in frame A) to be c. This
> > > > fact is, on its own, logically possible. And this is
> > > > what is measured.
> > > >
> > > > Now take inertial reference frame B1, and send it
> > > > at half the speed of light, c/2, moving directly
> > > > towards the far distant star. Let its observer B1
> > > > measure the speed of light from this distant star.
> > > > What does B1 measure? Why this observer also
> > > > measures c. And although this is a true fact, the
> > > > fact is not logical.
> > >
> > > How can a fact be illogical?
> >
> > Well, if they are stupid, like Ronnie used to say, why
> > couldn't they be illogical?
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> This is really getting in philosophy territory but facts (as defined in a
> dictionary) are 'Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed'.
> A contradictory fact would have rather disastrous consequences for our a
> priori belief in a logical world. I think it is more reasonable to think
> the way we organize and interpret facts (ie theories, models etc) would be
> at fault. In the cited case it is not the fact that both observers measure
> the speed of light the same that is the problem - it is our a priori belief
> in absolute time - a theory we accept as true without proper examination.

<Wink> ;-)

Dirk Vdm


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast