Re: relativity of simultaneity


john_doe_ph_d@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
> > john_doe_ph_d@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > << Nice question relating to a fundamental idea of SR. >>
> >
> > I thought the "fundamental idea" of SR was:
> >
> > << 1. First postulate (principle of relativity)
> >
> > The laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
> > frames in which the laws of mechanics hold good.
> > Every physical theory should look the same mathematically to every
> > inertial observer.
> > The laws of physics are independent of location space or time.
> >
> > 2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
> >
> > The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is the same to all
> > inertial observers, is the same in all directions, and does not depend
> > on the velocity of the object emitting the light. When combined with
> > the First Postulate, this Second Postulate is equivalent to stating
> > that light does not require any medium (such as "aether") in which to
> > propagate.
> >
> > Maybe I need a refresher course on reading for content. :o)
> >
> > Sue...
> >
> No, just a refresher course in vocabulary. According to
> Merriam-Webster, fundamental means "of or relating to essential
> structure, function, or facts" or "of or dealing with general
> principles rather than practical application." I think a conceptual
> question about simultaneity falls in these categories.

The author of the theory no doubt intends that you think that.
Do you carry empty containers to the store so you know what
to buy? Or perhaps you make a list instead.

It is not necessary for you prove that empty containers are
cumbersome when shopping, to be admitted in the store with
your list of empty containers.

It is not necessary to prove signals have delays to make
use of an imaginary time axis.

There is nothing fundamental or even real about the
relativity of simultaneity argument. It is simply an
illustration of imaginary numbers. Read the appendix
about Minkowski space so you are discussing rigorous
definitons rather than the ambiguous gedanken. :o)

Sue...


Note that I
> didn't say "a fundamental postulate of SR."
>
> This is a tough group.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... The choice of Galilean transforms between inertial reference ... frame does not do that for the laws of electrodynamics. ... whether the laws of electrodynamics satisfy that lesser criterion. ... Note that there isn't a WHY that is attached to a postulate, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Democrats seek criminal probe of Bush abuses
    ... Sue wrote: ... The government ought to work on both simultaneously. ... we must hold accountable in our courts those who are directly responsible for the most egregious violations of our laws and abuses of their proper authority. ... The incoming administration doesn't have any other choice, for it is their sworn and sacred duty to protect and defend our Constitution, which, having recently been so badly abused, must now be set aright. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: To David and Renia former Re: Merchandise harbor Greenland - killing a Myth
    ... And that from a brain-dead idiot like you? ... Now sue me, Morondotir. ... The changing laws stating that even in Sweden a part-time teacher ... being fired from teaching religion to minors. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me
    ... >>> that do not depend on one observer's position or velocity. ... >> laws of nature are the same in all reference frames. ... Then, postulate ... >vectors are invariant - essentially, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... >>Why would logical impossibility not matter? ... > Because the theists don't accept it as a reason to stop being theists. ... >>is not bound by the laws of physics and the laws of logic. ... > We can postulate ANYTHING. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)