A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 1 Mar 2010 14:26 On Mar 1, 7:13 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 1 Mar, 12:29, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 12:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 28 Feb, 16:33, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 28, 1:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Illustration: > > > > > > E1 > > > > > > -------- > > > > > > E2 > > > > > > The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the > > > > > observers may move while always reporting both events to be > > > > > simultaneous. > > > > > You are correct about E1 and E2 being simultaneous to all observers on > > > > the line despite their motion relative to other observers on the > > > > line. The statement about spatially seperated events is about > > > > seperation along the axis of travel. In the train experient A and B > > > > are on the tracks, which we call the x axis. You have E1 and E2 off > > > > to the sides of the tracks on the y axis, which isn't normally > > > > considered in the train experiment. > > > > This is called "revisionism", Bruce. The statement was not "about > > > seperation along the axis of travel". It was about "what is > > > simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", and "Ste, > > > you are an idiot who knows nothing about SR". > > > I haven't read every one of the posts in this thread but I think the > > topic was RoS. The question is "Is what is simultaneous in one frame > > necessarily simultaneous in the other?" You have set up a special > > case where they are. But we can also set up situations where they are > > not, so the answer is no. > > But I didn't dispute this in the first place. What I *was* disputing > was the contention, certainly by more than one poster, that such > simultaneity could *never* occur between two frames, and thus my > special case (arrived at without any mathematical comprehension of SR) > falsifies that assertion. > > > And I did not call you an idiot. > > No, I was gloatingly referring to what others have alleged. At this point, I have to say I'm disappointed. You came here a short time ago ostensibly to ask of experts (like any student might) for an elaboration or a better explanation of things you did not understand about relativity. In the course of the early conversations, you asked several insightful question and pressed for clarification, just like any fairly decent student would, and I believe I encouraged you on that. Now it appears that you have been less interested in getting what you said you came for than in the sport of verbal jousting. It's a common game on newsgroups, where an amateur comes in to see how long he can mix it up with the experts, and a "win" is to be had if the amateur can catch the expert in the act of making an inaccurate or misleading statement. Anybody put in a teaching position is well familiar with the experience of telling a student, "You're right, I could have said that better," or "Yes, you're right, what I just said is not quite right," and then the expert revises his explanation to better and more accurately represent what he's trying to explain. It's nothing really to gloat over. > > > Please > > comment on the remainder of that post. > > I must admit I struggled to understand the rest of the post, but as > far as I can tell there was nothing inconsistent with my existing (and > wholly non-mathematical) understanding of SR. The basic principle of > SR, as far as I can tell, is very simple, based on the finite speed of > propagation. And that's not so. > > It also seems to me that the predictions of SR (like perceived time > dilation, etc) can be replicated, and easily demonstrated, with sound, And that is also not so. > with the only exception that the medium must be presumed to be always > stationary relative to the sound-source (which, of course, is the one > big way in which light and sound are not analogous). Not even with this caveat. It gets the wrong answers.
From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 17:40 On 1 Mar, 13:43, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> Haha! And these pillocks wonder why I won't go out and spend a grand > >> in money and 6 months of time, working through their extensive reading > >> lists! > > >> ________________________________ > >> I don't wonder why don't learn SR. I think its because of two reasons. > >> Firstly, you are lazy. Secondly, you have such a low opinion of your own > >> abilities that you think you won't understand it anyway, so you think its > >> a > >> waste of time. > > > Guffaw! > > OK, you tell us. > > It wouldn't cost you a "grand in money" as you said above. It probably would by time I'd forgone other profitable uses of my time, reading reams of nonsense that I'd paid good money for, and end up back here asking the same questions.
From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 17:54 On 1 Mar, 15:00, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 11:23 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > The point was to explain the theory to someone who hasn't already > > implicitly internalised the conceptual model on which the equations > > rest. This is, after all, the test of whether the equations are a > > complete description of reality, as Paul contends. > > In this case, then, I do agree that this is a good goal. And this is > in fact what physics students do all the time: get an explanation of > the theory prior to their internalizing the conceptual model on which > the equations rest. Perhaps that's the problem then Paul, which explains why people here have such a poor ability to explain the conceptual model, because it is either learned implicitly or not at all. I tend to put a lot of work into ironing out the conceptual model as I go. (Incidentally, I notice I referred to you in the third person above in a previous post. I must have got confused and thought I was talking to Peter.)
From: PD on 1 Mar 2010 18:13 On Mar 1, 4:54 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 1 Mar, 15:00, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 27, 11:23 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > The point was to explain the theory to someone who hasn't already > > > implicitly internalised the conceptual model on which the equations > > > rest. This is, after all, the test of whether the equations are a > > > complete description of reality, as Paul contends. > > > In this case, then, I do agree that this is a good goal. And this is > > in fact what physics students do all the time: get an explanation of > > the theory prior to their internalizing the conceptual model on which > > the equations rest. > > Perhaps that's the problem then Paul, which explains why people here > have such a poor ability to explain the conceptual model, because it > is either learned implicitly or not at all. I tend to put a lot of > work into ironing out the conceptual model as I go. > > (Incidentally, I notice I referred to you in the third person above in > a previous post. I must have got confused and thought I was talking to > Peter.) You were talking to Peter, but one-on-one conversations are supported via email, not in a pubic discussion forum. Again, I find it odd that you think that people here have the poor ability to explain it, when it may be that they simply decline to do it here for your edification on demand, especially when far superior materials have been prepared already and are available to you, and which you mysteriously, consistently decline. I find it odd that you have an expectation that if someone can do something, then they SHOULD do something, in the venue of your choice and upon demand. And if nothing of the sort is forthcoming, then you presume it must be that they cannot do it at all. Please stand outside naked, covered only in potato skins, take a picture, post the picture on a website, and place the URL of that picture here. Since you CAN do that, I'm sure you'd be willing to demonstrate that you can by actually doing it. PD
From: bert on 1 Mar 2010 18:21
On Feb 13, 1:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/13/10 11:23 AM, bert wrote: > > > > > Photons if ever slowed begs this question What energy brings them back > > to c? > > Photons ONLY exist propagating at c, Herb! Sam A lab in Cambridge Mass has slowed light down to 3mph when going through super cold sodium. This shows imperial thinkers can't reason. treBert |