Re: Lights approaching velocity.

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in

On Mar 1, 8:03 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
j...@xxxxxxxx wrote


A simple gedanken will show you, that i am correct. Problem is nonone
that beleive in SR will perfom why do not you be the first.

My simple gedanken showed you are wrong.

Gedanken ist nicht reality.

To displace SR you must do either one of two things:
<< Point out a significant inconsistancy in SR....
real data that is significantly different
from that predicted by SR. >>

Einstein did that for us in 1920 by moving inertial
effects to the GR section.

He confined 'inertial Frames of Reference' to small regions of space.
He extended 'Relativity' to accelerated frames of reference which he said
could not be distinguished (over small regions) from frames in gravitation

He did NOT 'remove intertial effects' from SR. He did not impose further
limitations on SR. His initial paper limited the scope of SR to inertial
frames of reference.

GR expanded relativity to non inertial frames of reference.

Leaving us with an SR that says:

SR says exactly what it said in 1905, nothing has been 'removed' from it.

"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"

...and time dependent Maxwell's equations that
don't give birth to absurd twins.

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)

As far as I know, SR is still usefull for work within and between inertial
Frames of Reference. Show me an example where it predicts the wrong


please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap