Re: SRians, How Can You Claim SR is not LET in Disguise?
- From: "Trevor Morris" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:45:38 -0000
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:1rhvr2tq4equjvj0iqgn62udtkh9amegsh@xxxxxxxxxx
Run my demo: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe
It's quite safe.
It illustrates, plainly and simply, the second postulate of SR
Nice animation, Henri, but it illustrates an ether model, not SR. The
second postulate of SR only says that:
"Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of coordinates with the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body. Hence velocity = (light path / time interval) where time
interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in #1."
So we gather right away that "stationary" means something special, and so do
time intervals if they have to be specially defined over a couple of pages.
" #1" is the preceding section in the 1905 paper dealing with the special
procedure for synchronizing clocks and using them to measure times for light
signals to cover measured distances. This special procedure lets each
observer *assume* that light travels at speed c in all directions relative
to his own chosen inertial rest frame (hence the quotes around "stationary"
in the postulate - meaning that it is a choice made by the observer),
independent of the speed of the source.
Thus the inhabitants of your two moving boxes will, in SR, each *separately*
be allowed to assume that light moves at speed c in all directions relative
to his own rest frame (or any other *single* rest frame he might choose for
convenience or from theory). Each would then of course conclude that light
was not moving at speed c in all directions relative to the other's
differently chosen rest frame. And they would assess differently the
simultaneity (or time sequencing) of spatially separated events (like
lightning striking both ends of a train).
Now, the funny thing is that if the underlying mechanism of light-travel is
really as shown in your animation, and nothing can go any faster, the
assumptions of the second postulate are still allowed, so that any awkward
1-way effects for observers not at rest in the unique light-frame cancel out
and everything works out just fine as SR predicts. The only thing that
really gives the game away is the disagreement among inertial observers
about simultaneity that I mentioned, confirming the rather obvious point
that they are really making physically incompatible assumptions about
light-travel.
and (warning) it
may come as a shock when you realise what it implies.
Not to me. I quite like it.
In the demo, the light pulses all move at the same speed wrt the screen.
Please explain what causes them to move at the same speed.
Because you have illustrated a unique-frame (ether) model, in which light
moves at speed c relative to only a single frame of reference.
Please provide a physical interpretation of what the computer screen might
represent and why the pulses move across it at the particular speed they
do ..
Ah, now you are asking...
TM
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Is relativity relative?
- Next by Date: Re: Is relativity relative?
- Previous by thread: Re: SRians, How Can You Claim SR is not LET in Disguise?
- Next by thread: Re: SRians, How Can You Claim SR is not LET in Disguise?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
