Re: .Simple SR question...
- From: asleep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dark Energy)
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:18:17 GMT
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:13:14 -0000, "Martin Hogbin" wrote:
"Dark Energy" <asleep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Unless you can somehow show how light isYou are quite right, Brian. I should have said
"measured to travel at c in all inertial frames"
during a one-way journey.
that it is postulated that light travels at c in
all inertial frames.
It's "Dark Energy," and your new answer is also wrong.
Here's why:
"To postulate" in physics means
"to assume to be an experimental result";
however, in this case, this is not possible.
That is, it is not possible for the speed
of light to be c experimentally between
two 'stationary' clocks in two or more frames.
(Please, no more evasion, Martin.)
|DE|
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: .Simple SR question...
- From: PD
- Re: .Simple SR question...
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: .Simple SR question...
- References:
- .Simple SR question...
- From: Jim Hutton
- Re: .Simple SR question...
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: .Simple SR question...
- From: Dark Energy
- Re: .Simple SR question...
- From: Martin Hogbin
- .Simple SR question...
- Prev by Date: Re: Variation in density of emr wavelengths from data recorded in transits. (Roemer)
- Next by Date: Re: About the Galilei principle of the relativity
- Previous by thread: Re: .Simple SR question...
- Next by thread: Re: .Simple SR question...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
