🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug10.202618.1433@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>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
>>ELECTRODYNAMICS" PEOPLE, I REALLY DON'T KNOW VERY MUCH ABOUT THEM, BUT
>>IF THEY ARE TRYING TO ARGUE THAT GALILEAN INVARIANCE IS A MORE USEFUL
>>ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE IN PHYSICS THAN LORENTZIAN INVARIANCE IS, THEN
>>THAT SOUNDS LIKE A VERY FOOLHARDY THING TO ATTEMPT.  (ACTUALLY I
>>SUSPECT THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE ALTOGETHER, BUT I
>>HAVE VERY LITTLE INTEREST IN FINDING OUT WHAT IT IS.)
>
>      It is not this simple.  It is not just that there are 'speed of 
>      light delays'.  That was perfectly understandible in terms of 
>      a fixed propagational ether.  It is that the speed of light
>      appears to be the same no matter what your motion (or relative motion
>      with respect).  And no matter how you express this, it *is*
>      a bit complicated when one starts trying to determine then consequences
>      of this.

      More than two syntax, grammar and spelling errors, let's try again.

      It is not this simple.  It is not just that there are 'speed of 
      light delays'.  That was perfectly understandable in terms of 
      a fixed propagational ether (or an entrained ether, or galilean
      relativity).  It is that the speed of light appears to be the same,
      no matter what your state of motion (or relative motion).
      And no matter how you express this, it *is* a bit complicated 
      when one starts trying to determine the consequences.

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926