🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:18:27 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 10, 2:35�pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:47:35 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >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
>>
>> 'EMPTY' space has NO dielectric properties.
>
>What makes you say that?
>When are you going to learn that physicists don't dictate physical
>laws to nature? It goes the other way around.

Prove I'm wrong....




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Relativists believe that a rotating Sagnac viewed in the rotating frame is identical to a nonrotating one viewed from the nonrotating frame. Hahahaha! What about all the imaginary effects?