Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 16:38:45 GMT
John Kennaugh wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:What "physical process" makes it be _straight_?
As per Newton's laws of motion.
This is not at all a "physical process".
If you like it is an axiom of physics that 'straight' is natural and a physical process is required to change it from that natural state.
So you DON'T really expect a "physical process", even though you have repeatedly demanded one. This is in essence an assumption that Euclidean geometry applies (geodesics in E^3 are where "straight lines" come from).
What justification do you have for this assumption, compared to a quite similar assumption of SR: the geometry is not Euclidean but rather is Minkowskian. Then the "reason" for the speed of light being c in every inertial frame is PRECISELY the same as the "reason" for straight lines.
For me, and for modern science, the justification for such assumptions is that the theories based on them agree with experiments. By that standard, the assumptions of SR are VERY MUCH better than your (Newton's, Euclid's) assumptions.
Tom Roberts
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- From: John Kennaugh
- 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
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- Prev by Date: Re: Welcome! to the Physics Newsgroups
- Next by Date: Re: Would this invalidate General Relativity?
- Previous by thread: Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- Next by thread: Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|