Re: Why SR?
- From: hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc)
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:05:43 GMT
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:47:12 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Henry Wilson, DSc wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:13:28 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
This is not really a surprising result, to people who have actually
studied the matter. Here's a simple explanation:
Assume the world we inhabit is causal. That is, for a given point in
space P and given time T, all phenomena located at P at time T can
depend only on phenomena near P a short time before T. This implies that
it is not possible for some object or influence to "zoom in from
infinity" with infinite speed and affect any phenomena located at P at
time T [#]. So there must be a finite upper bound on the speed of all
objects and influences -- that's the only way to ensure they are near P
a short time before T. Mathematically this implies that the only valid
transformation group among inertial frames is the Poincaré group [@],
which has the property that all objects and signals are restricted to
speeds less than a universal maximum speed; experiments show that this
universal speed limit is equal to the vacuum speed of light. The theory
that describes this is known as Special Relativity, and experimentally
it has been observed to be valid for all phenomena that have been tested
under conditions where gravity can be ignored. A more advanced theory,
General Relativity, extends this to include gravity.
What you are essentially claiming is that EM radiation is nothing more than a
mechanism used for information transfer. Thus, ALL information from a
particular POINT in space travels at a fixed speed c towards, for instance, an
observer on planet earth....or to any other observer, for that matter. [...]
NOT AT ALL! LOOK UP THERE AND READ WHAT I WROTE. DO IT NOW.
Tom, you obviously didn't understand what I am saying.
Your 'simple explanation' is just a load of meaningless drivel. In fact all
your postings are beginning to sound like those recorded messages one often
receives over the phone.
If you did that, then you will have noticed that I did not mention "EM
radiation" or "c" anywhere at all.
You need to learn how to read. Literally. Stop listening just to your
own opinions and READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WRITE.
Tom, if you would address the issue we are discussing, you might be worth
listening to but you just keep repeating the same old variation of P2 as though
it constitutes some kind of self proof.
I will repeat the question, please read it and try to provide an intelligent
answer IN PHYSICAL TERMS.
P2 claims that all EM passing through a particular point in any one direction
moves at the same speed. How can this happen if space possesses NO absolute
properties? (Note: There are no sources or observers directly involved).
Tom Roberts
Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.........putting Physics back into Phairyland...
.
- References:
- Source Independency of Light Speed Without an Aether???????
- From: Henry Wilson, DSc
- Why SR? (was: Source Independency of Light Speed Without an Aether???????)
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Why SR? (was: Source Independency of Light Speed Without an Aether???????)
- From: Henry Wilson, DSc
- Re: Why SR?
- From: Tom Roberts
- Source Independency of Light Speed Without an Aether???????
- Prev by Date: Bonehead is insane!
- Next by Date: Re: GR => UFT
- Previous by thread: Re: Why SR?
- Next by thread: Re: Why SR?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
