Re: Androcles's accusations of lying

On Feb 23, 8:11 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:58 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Feb 23, 6:23 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 23, 3:08 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 23, 2:57 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sue... a écrit :

On Feb 23, 2:32 pm, pcardin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Think of androcrap as a fart: Unpleasant, noisy, and bringing forth
nothing useful.  Responding to him is like talking into somebody's ass.

Even if  Andro is Joe Stalin reincarnated
that doesn't excuse the original poster from
withdrawing or substantiating words he has
credited to another person.  (Einstein)

No results found for
"Light always travels at a constant speed in a
vacuum relative to any inertial frame of reference"

A difference between psychopaths like Sue or Androcles and
sane people is the ability to consider meanings of words
instead of litteral writings.

   If K is a Galileian co-ordinate system, then every other co-ordinate
   system K' is a Galileian one, when, in relation to K, it is in a
   condition of uniform motion of translation. Relative to K' the
   mechanical laws of Galilei-Newton hold good exactly as they do with
   respect to K.

        Albert Einstein (1879–1955)
        Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Chapter V.

Even if other posters can't distingush
the first from the second postulate of SR
that doesn't excuse the original poster from
withdrawing or substantiating words he has
credited to another person.  (Einstein)

No results found for
"Light always travels at a constant speed in a
vacuum relative to any inertial frame of reference"

Since light has no mass to couple to a gravito-inertial
field, but the original poster persist in advancing
formula as tho it did. The issue is likely more
than just semantics or errors in translation.



I don't understand your objection, Sue.

Light always travels at a constant speed in a vacuum relative to any
inertial frame of reference.

That implies observer dependence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

<<Second Postulate: Speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source and the observer
This flows directly from the Maxwell equations!>>
http://www.vicphysics.org/documents/events/stav2006/jamieson1.ppt

< A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational [inertial by equivalence] field. >>
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml

<< where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical
constants which can be evaluated by performing two
simple experiments which involve measuring the force
of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed
parallel current carrying wires. According to the
relativity principle, these experiments must yield
the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial
frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same
in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

Sue...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting.  Philosophically I agree with what you said, that the
speed of light is dependent on the observer.  However, it is quite
possible to establish a frame of reference with no observer traveling
at that speed.  Either way, there is a Coordinate system associated
with Maxwell's Laws, either x, y, and z, or r, theta and phi.  

<< In physics, an inertial frame of reference is
a reference frame, tied to the state of motion
of an observer, >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

It is
with this coordinate system with a point (0,0,0) or (0,theta,phi)
which is either traveling, or not traveling with respect to the
source, or the observer, and it is this point or any other point in
the coordinate system with which the speed of light is constant.

For there to be divergence and curl and all those neato things in
electrodynamics, you have to have a coordinate system, and that's
essentially the same thing as an inertial reference frame.

Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html


I don't know if it was your intention, but you've convinced me,
qualitatively, Uncle Ben has given an equivalent statement of this
second postulate, differing only in semantics.

Well, I guess Einstein just wrote that observer
independence in so Uncle_Ben could take it out.

Sue...



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Androcless accusations of lying
    ... vacuum relative to any inertial frame of reference" ... Relativity: ... speed of light is dependent on the observer. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Androcless accusations of lying
    ... vacuum relative to any inertial frame of reference" ... That implies observer dependence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference ... there is a Coordinate system associated ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
    ... because you view the event from a different inertial frame of reference ... *** Is the velocity of light dependent on the velocity of the source? ... 330m/s WRT observer who is in still air relative to him. ... values for x', y', z' and t', no matter what inertial frame of reference ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Androcless accusations of lying
    ... the general theory of relativity. ... vacuum relative to any inertial frame of reference" ... speed of light is dependent on the observer. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... > rotations, translations, inertial frames and doesn't provide the ... First I choose one inertial observer. ... in order to define inertial frame. ... > to define them as affine transformations that preserve globally ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
Loading