🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 10, 5:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/01/Minkowski.pdf
> Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "An examination of the status of
> length contraction in the context of Einstein's 1905 treatment of SR
> will illustrate the way in which principle theories fail to be
> explanatory. Recall that in this derivation the first conclusion drawn
> from the two fundamental postulates is the invariance of the speed of
> light, that it has the same constant value in all inertial frames.
> This gives the 'k-Lorentz transformations', the Lorentz
> transformations up to a velocity dependent scale factor, k. What has,
> in effect, been shown is that if the speed of light as measured with
> respect to frame F0 is to be found to be the same value as when
> measured with respect to the 'resting frame' F, then rods and clocks
> at rest in F0 had better contract and dilate (with respect to frame F)
> in the coordinated way that is encoded in the k-Lorentz
> transformations. One then appeals to the relativity principle again--
> the principle entails that these coordinated contractions and
> dilations must be exactly the same function of velocity for each
> inertial frame, along with the principle of spatial isotropy, in order
> to narrow down the deformations to just those encoded in the Lorentz
> transformations. What has been shown is that rods and clocks must
> behave in quite particular ways in order for the two postulates to be
> true together. But this hardly amounts to an explanation of such
> behaviour. Rather things go the other way around. It is because rods
> and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with the
> relativity principle, that light is measured to have the same speed in
> each inertial frame."
>
> That is, the speed of light is constant because Einsteinians can trap
> a long train inside a short tunnel:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=
>
> and also  a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn:
>
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
> at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
> switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
> the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
> instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
> close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
> them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
> contracted pole shut up in your barn."
>
> If Einsteinians were unable to perform miracles of this kind, the
> speed of light would be variable and would obey the equation c'=c+v
> given by Newton's emission theory of light, where v is the relative
> speed of the light source and the observer.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Isn't the velocity of light the same irregardless of the motion of the
source or the observer?  Only a frequency change results?  But....what
is the light traveling relative to???????