🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug10.184700.3204@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, rscott@csws1.ic.sunysb.edu (Robert Scott) writes...
> 
>WELL, MAYBE I DIDN'T MAKE MYSELF CLEAR.  I WASN'T TRYING TO SAY THAT
>THE ORTHODOX VERSION OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS WRONG AND THAT IT NEEDS
>TO BE REPLACED BY A COMMON-SENSE VERSION IN WHICH EVERYTING IS
>EXPLAINED AS A SIMPLE RESULT OF SPEED-OF-LIGHT DELAYS.  RATHER, I WAS
>TRYING TO SAY THAT THE ORTHODOX VERSION OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY _IS_ A
>COMMON-SENSE VERSION IN WHICH EVERYTHING IS EXPLAINED AS A SIMPLE
>RESULT OF SPEED-OF-LIGHT DELAYS, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH SOME TEACHERS
>AND TEXTBOOKS TRY TO OBFUSCATE THIS POINT.  AS FOR THE "GALILIEAN

Sorry, but this is just not true.  There *are* some effects which are 
solely due to speed-of-light delays.  You will find several in the 
FAQ entry entitled "Effects due to the finite speed of light."  

However, SR is much more than that.  You must add the important 
postulate/observation that the speed of light is the same in all
inertial reference frames.  This is what makes SR really interesting
(and accurate).  This is a much more powerful statement than the 
mere finite speed of light.  And you will find that you cannot 
derive any of the predictions of SR without it.  

Of course, if the speed of light were infinite then SR would not
be saying much, because as everyone knows, "infinity + 1 = infinity"
so that the speed of light would by default be the same in all
reference frames if it were infinite.  However, for reasons known
to none but God the speed of light is finite - *and*, nevertheless, the 
same in all reference frames.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver