Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.


"Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:466f2a50$0$1181$61c65585@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
[...]

When Einstein developed his SR theory, he used an
example of a moving train to do this. The speed of
light going past this train had to be exactly known,
in order for him to develop his SR theory. Einstein
said that the velocity of light relative to the train
that was moving at v on the fixed tracks was exactly:
c +/- v.

Incorrrect terminology. ie deceitfulness on your part

It would certainly be "deceitful" if someone purposefully messes up
standard definitions in order to provide his peculiar view. Of course,
the question is then who is changing the terminology.

When you see the words "relative to" and you are talking about SR, that
implicitly means "relative to the intertial frame at which the object is
at rest"

Not so: in the standard physics definition, "the velocity" implicitly means
"relative to the used intertial frame", while "relative velocity" is defined
as below.

Now, the above account is historically imprecise but Einstein's
terminology was certainly correct; it's standard physics language.
Typically, "relative velocity" is *defined* in physics text books as the
vectorial subtraction of the velocities of the objects - see for example
Fundamental University Physics part 1 chapter 2 by Alonso&Finn.
I wonder who told you that that is "incorrect", and why you believe
misinformation ("deceitfulness") so much that you call well-defined
physics terminology "deceitful".

It is standard terminology when talking about SR.

Only for those who changed the terminology without a valid excuse - I've
read a paper about it that was written by an upset physicist. Standard
physics textbooks such as the ones that I was taught physics with as well as
Einstein *do* talk about SRT.

To misuse it shows either ignorance or deceit.

A change of terminology that is uncalled for probably shows either ignorance
or deceit. Evidently, that's exactly the kind of things that makes O'Barr so
angry - and he's certainly not the only one.

Regards,
Harald


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
    ... be going in the frame of the train. ... example of a moving train to do this. ... Incorrrect terminology. ... was certainly correct; it's standard physics language. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If it aint broke...
    ... Except he bases his "physics" web page on the way he thinks. ... Physical properties are defined by the "standard units" used ... best represented by units of "spin" (Angular momentum). ... and several orthogonal dimensions that standing and traveling waves ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: If it aint broke...
    ... wants more contributions about physics from me. ... Physical properties are defined by the "standard units" used ... best represented by units of "spin" (Angular momentum). ... and several orthogonal dimensions that standing and traveling waves ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Seven dimensional vector operator explains physics
    ... This post explains how a seven dimensional vector operator ... The essence of physics is Dimensional Analysis. ... and the number of standard units involved. ... several orthogonal dimensions that standing and traveling waves ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable
    ... What I am deducing that particles ... The whole discussion is really about the standard ... the huge disagreements in physics about the errors of maxwell. ... programmers had kept faithfully to Maxwells equations alone. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)