Jem wrote:
Joe Fischer wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 08:31:20 -0500, jem wrote:


Joe Fischer wrote:

There should be no disagreement at all in Special Relativity,
it is too simple, as long as the observer viewpoint is stated.

You mean there should be no disagreement over "too simple" concepts like
"only small things can move at speeds near c".


I did not say "only small things _can_ move at speeds near c".

You think because you said _make_ them move, what you said is OK? In
SR, Fischer, speed isn't a property of objects; it's a relationship
between two objects. If one of them is moving fast, so's the other.

I see no reason to assume that nothing can "move at c",
or even faster than 300000 km/sec., the limiting factor in math
is that nothing can be measured or observed as moving at c
or above, so comparison of objects in two frames is out.

That gibberish is pretty much indecipherable, but FYI, in SR, Inertial
observers can't measure relative speeds that exceed c.

Both views are right at the same time. In QED, the measured speed of
light is c, but the model is that light moves at all speeds from source
to destination.

wrote:

Jem wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 08:31:20 -0500, jem wrote:



Joe Fischer wrote:


There should be no disagreement at all in Special Relativity,
it is too simple, as long as the observer viewpoint is stated.

You mean there should be no disagreement over "too simple" concepts like
"only small things can move at speeds near c".


I did not say "only small things _can_ move at speeds near c".

You think because you said _make_ them move, what you said is OK? In
SR, Fischer, speed isn't a property of objects; it's a relationship
between two objects. If one of them is moving fast, so's the other.

I see no reason to assume that nothing can "move at c",
or even faster than 300000 km/sec., the limiting factor in math
is that nothing can be measured or observed as moving at c
or above, so comparison of objects in two frames is out.

That gibberish is pretty much indecipherable, but FYI, in SR, Inertial
observers can't measure relative speeds that exceed c.


Both views are right at the same time. In QED, the measured speed of
light is c, but the model is that light moves at all speeds from source
to destination.


That's one interpretation, but QED is not SR.

jem wrote:
wrote:

Jem wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 08:31:20 -0500, jem wrote:



Joe Fischer wrote:


There should be no disagreement at all in Special Relativity,
it is too simple, as long as the observer viewpoint is stated.

You mean there should be no disagreement over "too simple" concepts like
"only small things can move at speeds near c".


I did not say "only small things _can_ move at speeds near c".

You think because you said _make_ them move, what you said is OK? In
SR, Fischer, speed isn't a property of objects; it's a relationship
between two objects. If one of them is moving fast, so's the other.

I see no reason to assume that nothing can "move at c",
or even faster than 300000 km/sec., the limiting factor in math
is that nothing can be measured or observed as moving at c
or above, so comparison of objects in two frames is out.

That gibberish is pretty much indecipherable, but FYI, in SR, Inertial
observers can't measure relative speeds that exceed c.


Both views are right at the same time. In QED, the measured speed of
light is c, but the model is that light moves at all speeds from source
to destination.


That's one interpretation, but QED is not SR.

True, but I offer it as an example for theory building in theoretical
physics generally.