🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 10, 9:58 am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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???????-

The dielectric of free-space:

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html

Sue...


 Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -