Re: SR theory is simplistic


By the way, I visited your fascinating web site, agree with your
diagrams completely.

Thank you, I try to please.
Coming soon to a computer near you, the latest epic from Dumbledore Studios:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/trailer.JPG
In glorious technicolor and 3D.

Your comments on AE's 1905 train and embankment thought experiment are
sort of related to
the topic, will look at it and get back to you, obviously, it is
possible to test if what
you are saying is correct.


read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.

[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]- PD
/unquote.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm

Not only is your site informative, it forms the basis for discussion
of AE's simple assumptions- since then various other people have
expanded the universe of SRT considerably, I dont think even AE hought
it would go so far.


I have several questions regarding the following AE's simple
explanations :

"
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good. "

OK- agreed, however does he mean WITHIN all frames of reference for
experiments contained within
one frame of reference or not?

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is "only" apparently
clearly irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Several questions here: definite velcity wrt to what? WRT to empty
space? What is he talking about?

Also if light is independent of the velocity of the moving body IN OUR
OBSERVATIONAL reference frame, then the source can do anything- this
means that the source can even close in on the photons
emitted ahead of it.

"By means of similar considerations based on observations of double
stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the
velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of
motion of the body emitting the light."

Did he show that? Did anyone show that?

Appreciate all comments from others in the group, thanks

g


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some troubling assumptions of SR
    ... frames of reference are considered. ... in the frame of reference of the body as a whole". ... velocity, and some of those velocities will be nonzero. ... given interstitial bodies and overlapping frames of reference. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Question about relativity
    ... if there is no hierarchy for frames of reference, ... The ONLY thing that physical laws ... And they also have to ignore "relative" velocity when it ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... reference and said the clock was in S. ... I did no flipping of frames of reference. ... state velocity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Whats wrong with these pictures???
    ... velocity of light instead of speed of light, ... traveling at c in two different frames of reference is solved," ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Note to all the world.
    ... In response to your parallel comment to me, here some checks about "lies" ... Does LET say that relativsitic mass increases with velocity? ... Langevin was a well respected scientist who promoted relativity theory ... frames of reference, the other does not. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading