Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- From: John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:12:16 +0100
Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:Put simply if the speed of light is not dependent on the physical processes taking place in the source then what physical process is it dependent upon?
As I keep saying, you need to re-examine your premises and assumptions. It is clear to me you have an enormous amount of "philosophical" baggage, most of it unacknowledged by you, and much of it wrong (i.e. inconsistent with modern physics, both theory and experiment).
Ask yourself this: what "physical process" keeps the light moving in a straight line?
I would suggest that if light moves in a straight line it is because of the ABSENCE of a physical process which would make it deviate.
[Don't say "conservation of momentum", because that is not
"physical" (your word, not mine).]
The answer in modern physics is, of course: this is not a "physical process", it is a _geometrical_ aspect of the way light behaves. And indeed, the constancy of the speed of light is likewise _geometrical_.
Indeed, conservation of momentum is geometrical, too. C.f.
Noether's theorem....
Tom Roberts
--
John Kennaugh
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- References:
- Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- From: bz
- Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- Prev by Date: Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
- Next by Date: Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- Previous by thread: Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- Next by thread: Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|