Re: It is not always c!
- From: bz <bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:40:07 +0000 (UTC)
THE_ONE <floppy01@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1187183045.923646.244890
@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
Imagine there are three football filed sized frames of reference.
Let's say that they are in close proximity to each other, perhaps
stacked, and are at rest relative to each other. Now imaging one of
them takes off from this location and reaches a velocity of 260,000 km
per second, and once done a second football field sized frame follows
the first, but at a velocity of 130,000 km per second. Once done, a
third football field sized frame takes off and follows the other two
but a 65,000 km per second velocity. Once all are at these velocities,
someone back at home base turns on a laser, and fires it in the
direction of the moving frames. The light eventually crosses all three
frames, yet in each frame, despite each one of them moving at a
different velocity relative to the laser light, each will still
measure the speed of the light passing across their frame to be c.
But it is just that, and that alone, meaning a measurement, and not
light actually passing through each frame at c relative to the frame
itself !
Makes sense right ?
Nope. Somehow a technician(three total) with equipment to measure the
speed of light survives the acceleration and is riding along with each of
those fields. Each measures the speed of light going through their football
field.
Each measures the speed as c. You MUST agree with this because it is what
you said, slightly reworded.
But then you say something meaningless. You imply that what is measured is
not what is 'actually happening'.
It is meaningless to imply that the light is 'not really moving at c'
relative to the frame because the DEFINITION of 'moving at xxx relative to
the frame' is the value measured by someone in that frame using equipment
that is stationary in that frame.
It is meaningless to try to say that the light moves at some other speed
wrt the frame when 'wrt' means 'as measured by equipment in that frame'.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
- References:
- It is not always c!
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: It is not always c!
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: It is not always c!
- From: THE_ONE
- It is not always c!
- Prev by Date: Re: It is not always c!
- Next by Date: Re: magnetic field lines
- Previous by thread: Re: It is not always c!
- Next by thread: Re: It is not always c!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
