Re: SR's Basic Mistake.

On May 9, 11:41 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henry....correct as usual.......

The basic mistake of SR is to state that the observer on the platform
sees light moving in his frame at c and also sees a train moving, and
insisting that light should move at c wrt to the moving train as well.

It's not a matter of insisting that it should. It is a recognition
that in observation, it DOES, whether we think it SHOULD or not.

Relativity is based on the premise that the observation that it DOES
is correct, and then explores the implications of what other
observations would be expected if this were the case. As it turns out,
all those other implied observational consequences so far have also
turned out to be correct.

Can you give us the names and address of those
in the train experiment who stipulated and
concluded?

This is precisely the problem with calling those *pedagogical
instruments* "thought experiments". They are not "experiments" of any
kind. The experimental support for relativity in no way comes from any
of these "thought experiments". It comes from REAL, documented
experiments, whose authorship generally does not include Einstein.

Einstein mentions one such experiment:
"Theorem of the Addition of Velocities.
The Experiment of Fizeau"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/13.html


"Thought experiments" are ways of explaining the ideas of relativity.
They help people think through the implications of the premises of
relativity. They are not intended to *prove* that relativity is
correct, nor even convince you that it is probably correct. That
function is reserved for the results of REAL experiment.

Do you think maybe we should ignore the
thought-experiment and rely on the real experiment ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment



Some people have difficulty following "thought experiments"
nonetheless, and they feel cheated, finding themselves feeling
unconvinced after having looked through one or more of them. These
folks are basically barking up the wrong tree.



<< Einstein's relativity principle states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

Is that the "right tree" ?

Sue...

http://books.google.com/books?id=-r5IGSTJVPcC&pg=PA4&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unidirectional character of 1905 Einstein Relativity Transformation
    ... The things are a little different in 1905 Einstein ... Relativity, where the NM absolute frame (and then also all the derived ... ones moving with all possible uniform velocities with respect to it) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... fundamental part of physics since at least the time of Newton. ... I don't reject Galilean relativity, ... What my transformation predicts is that a moving stick is contracted ... but forgetting that the rest frame remains S, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Doppler effect
    ... of view it is moving toward you at x m/sec. ... relativity we still have a perfectly good object which might be called ... that's _not_ the closing velocity at measured in ... the rest frame of the sink, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
    ... relative to a set of coordinates where observers at rest in the frame ... If an observer is moving relative to the coordinate ... This is an axiom of Relativity. ... then relative and closing speeds must mean the same thing. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Unidirectional character of 1905 Einstein Relativity Transformation
    ... also to the NM relative velocity concept between any two ABSOLUTE ... Relativity, where the NM absolute frame (and then also all the derived ... ones moving with all possible uniform velocities with respect to it) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)