Re: Errors being made by SR experts.


"Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:f9b28n$nfm$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1186504779_139@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1186495902.842445.217240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 7, 3:08 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1186436838.043558.159550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Aug
6, 3:38 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

What fun (don't people ever read?!):





And I know what I can and what
I cannot measure. And I know that I can measure the
relative velocity of any light or any radio signal or
any other such signal as it might be going past me,

Yes.

or a train, or a plane or a moon or a planet or a
star or any other inertial reference frame.

No. You can deduce it, but you must use the proper prescription for
deducing it. If you us a prescription that relies on subtracting or
adding two displacements and a common time, then you are assuming
that
the velocities combine as c+v or c-v, and that is simply wrong.

These
things are possible, and I know that my measurements
(I am not sure about your measurements), but my
measurements will be SR correct,

Not the way you've described them, they won't. If you end up with c+v
or c-v, that is not "SR correct".

That happens to be a literal part of Einstein's SRT derivation.

I am completely familiar with that paper, both in English and in
German. I am not implying that the 1905 paper is incorrect. I'm
implying that some people do not understand what they are reading.

There is no reason to think that O'Barr means anything else than Einstein
did when he wrote the same in 1905.

Its how he is using that .. he is deliberately misrepresenting and
misinterpreting it to try to show that SR is wrong in what it says about
the speed of light. That is where the dishonesty comes in. He tries to
use that to say that every observer, other than us, gets a different
figure than c for the speed of light in our frame, so therefore by
majority rule, the speed of light in our frame cannot actually be c. That
is a nonsense conclusion, as the closing speed in some other frame is a
different beast to the speed of light in our own frame .. and if those in
other frames actually did observer what we would measure in our frame
correctly (by looking at the closing speed AND the tools we would be
measuring it with), they would also agree that we would see the speed of
light as being c.

I'm quite sure that he debates metaphysics (as usual), but I must admit that
I haven't followed the discussion.
Cheers,
Harald


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The religious worship of SR.
    ... be based upon the results of measurements made of all ... the identical relative velocity as twin B, ... reference frame math, the real differences between ... Yes a photon does have mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: It is not always c!
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... Newtonian physics the relative velocity (as SR uses ... relative velocity within that frame. ... But not in all SR measurements. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarrs Lamentations!
    ... implications of specifying a frame. ... relative velocity as being the velocity of one object ... In math, a variable can be ... That is what SR measurements do show. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The religious worship of SR.
    ... be based upon the results of measurements made of all ... the identical relative velocity as twin B, ... reference frame math, the real differences between ... Yes a photon does have mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The religious worship of SR.
    ... be based upon the results of measurements made of all ... the identical relative velocity as twin B, ... reference frame math, the real differences between ... Yes a photon does have mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)