Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:41:30 -0700
On Jun 8, 10:26 am,
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:31 pm,
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . .
This is what must be done. We need only two
pieces of data, the true length of the train, and the
time it takes for light to go from the end to the
front of the train. . . .
Phil wrote:
What?
First, what you say MUST be done, CAN'T be done.
Just CAN'T! . . . .
the "data" is obviously indeterminate so the
outcome you wish to
calculate will never be calculated.
O'Barr comments:
You have misunderstood me. And that is
why I wrote a second post and posted it
today, 8 Jun 07. It will make it more
clear that when I said that we had to
measure the true length of the train, I
was not meaning the real length of the
train that would be done in the ether
frame. I only meant the actual length
of the train as it was in the frame of
the tracks. One cannot use the proper
length of the trian, the length as it
might have been built, etc. But the
actual length of this train, as it is
while moving, as measured by the frame
of the tracks... Please read the post
that clarifies all this.
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Second, you should KNOW that because you say
that you agree with LET.
O'Barr comments:
Yes, I do agree with LET and its basic approach.
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> continues:
LET can find no agreement with your
speculation that the "data" of
"true length" (length according to
ether rest frame) can ever be
determined in experience.
O'Barr comments:
I, of course, was not really referring to
what LET could do or could not do. I was only
using SR, and SR frames. For your benefit,
and everyone else's, let me restate your
copy of the above statement:
*********************************
* We need only two pieces of data,
* the length of the moving train as
* measured in the frame of the tracks,
* and the
* time it takes for light to go from
* the end to the front of the train,
* as measured in the frame of the
* tracks.
**********************************
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is not observable physical quantity for
any inertial frame which is displacing wrt the
ether rest frame. To determine it, is to
determine motion wrt to the ether rest frame
which can not be done. It would violate
the relativity of LET. The paradoxes lie
in your befuddled understanding of not just
SR, but also LET.
O'Barr comments:
But we all now know that I was not trying to
say that we were obtaining the real length of
the train as it would be in the ether, I was only
saying that we had to have the true or correct
length of the moving train as measured in the
frame of the tracks.
I am truly sorry that my poor choice of words
caused some confusion, but a very careful reading
of my original post, and definitely a reading of
my last post, should put all of these concerns
to an end. So thanks for your help.
And thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
rest.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- From: Phil
- The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- Prev by Date: Re: Tom Robert's ill-conceived notion of electron acceleration.
- Next by Date: Re: Tom Robert's ill-conceived notion of electron acceleration.
- Previous by thread: Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- Next by thread: Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
