"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
Do me a favour.
Einstein wrote
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body"
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Then he wrote:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that
x'/(c-v) = t."
I don't know what the context of this is. I assume he's not talking
about how fast the light is moving in a given frame, but rather how
fast the light is moving away from some other object, as seen not
in the object's own frame but in a frame where the object itself is
moving at velocity v. In this case, although light will still
travel at c in this frame, the distance between the light ray and
the object moving at velocity v will be seen to grow at the rate
(c-v) in this frame. In the object's own frame, though, the
distance between itself and the light ray would grow at the rate c,
as relativity predicts.
You didn't reply to this part of my post--can you provide me with the
context of that statement by Einstein?
I've given you the reference.
Ah, I didn't notice that you were quoting from a website, sorry. But
that's a pretty long article, which section did you get the quote
involving the equation x'/(c-v) = t from?
Section 3. It wouldn't refer to it as an "article" though. It's the
original
paper that Einstein wrote in 1905 creating special relativity.
You are one of those that starts at the Lorentz
Transforms, proceeds to lecture on what you imagine I'm not aware of,
then conclude you are right.
You didn't really read my post, so how do you know this?
I didn't read it in depth, no. I quickly glanced down and saw some
equations I recognised as wasn't prepared to comment on, since they
cannot be derived in any sensible manner.
In fact, I didn't assume the Lorentz transformations were correct
without argument, I pointed out that all the current known laws of
physics are Lorentz-invariant,
Sorry, but I do not agree the laws of physics are illogical. The PoR
stood the test of time until Einstein who corrupted it in favour of his
own
insistence concerning the speed of light, which he stated in 1905 was
"only apparently irreconcilable" and in 1920 recognized was
irreconcilable. He
rejected the PoR in favour of c = (c+v)/(1+v/c). Trouble is, he used
c+v to derive the composition of velocities.
thus *if* these laws are correct, the laws must remain unchanged under
a Lorentz transformation but not under other types of coordinate
transformations, which shows that the Lorentz transformation is the
most natural type of coordinate transformation to use if these laws
are correct (and any physical rulers and clocks which obey
Lorentz-invariant laws must also show length contraction and time
dilation).
If you are arguing that physicists have got the laws of physics wrong,
that they should actually use modified laws which are
Galilei-invariant rather than Lorentz-invariant, that's fine, but it's
incumbent on you to show some evidence that existing laws are wrong
and these modified laws are correct.
No it isn't. The burden of proof is upon the claimant, and Einstein
failed to prove
his case. All I have to show is the error in his math/logic.
If you think my understanding of his meaning is incorrect, could you
explain why?
I do not know what you understanding is.
I just explained it in the post you responded to--here it is again: "I
assume he's not talking about how fast the light is moving in a given
frame, but rather how fast the light is moving away from some other
object, as seen not in the object's own frame but in a frame where the
object itself is moving at velocity v.
You admit you are making assumption. Im not in the assumption game.
Einstein makes many assumptions, many invalid.
This is the worst one.
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Where does that ½ come from?
Consider McCullough's silly little puzzle, which I'll embellish
slightly.
Sam and Joe are walking along carrying a 32 ft ladder between
them, at 3 fps. A mosquito flies from Sam to Joe and back to
Sam again at 5 fps, ground frame. How long does it take the
mosquito to make the round trip?
x' is the 32 ft ladder, c the speed of the mosquito and v the speed
of Sam and Joe.
Answer. 16 seconds to reach Joe and 4 seconds to return.
So (16+4)/2 = 16 ?
I don't think so. Einstein tries to justify it by saying Sam cannot
know when the mosquito reaches Joe, so he'll simply use the ½.
That is assumption, not mathematics.
In this case, although light will still travel at c in this frame, the
distance between the light ray and the object moving at velocity v
will be seen to grow at the rate (c-v) in this frame. In the object's
own frame, though, the distance between itself and the light ray would
grow at the rate c, as relativity predicts."
As far as I'm concerned we never
get to the Lorentz Transforms, hence I have no interest in them.
Insofar as
Einstein's postulate, "light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body"
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
there is no justification for it. What we would expect to happen if
slow, earlier emitted light were to be passed along the way by later
emitted faster light
is exactly what we do see.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm
So if we look at light from a given star at two points in the earth's
orbit, the first when the earth is moving away from the star and the
second when it's moving towards it, why isn't any difference in the
speed of light measured?
It is. You'll see as doppler-shift.
Androcles.
Jesse