# Why would I think I'm not moving?

by Layman
Tags: moving
P: 66
 Quote by A.T. Nope. SRT just ALLOWS them to do so. It also ALLOWS both to consider the other guy to be at rest.
Well, that's not what physicists like Baez tell me.

And, really, you don't need an authority to tell you. Just think about it. If two observers agree that one of them is moving and one of them is not (and it the same "one"), then the speed of light is not constant in all frames, etc.

If both parties agree on which one is moving, you have absolute simultaneity, not relative simultaneity.
P: 4,059
 Quote by Layman Einstein differs from Newton, somehow. How?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
versus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
P: 413
 Quote by Layman There's nothing you're saying that was not well-understood by, and well explained by, Newton. But Einstein differs from Newton, somehow. How? Btw, I don't think you can really say that the "absence of ether" is an "experimental fact." It is a postulate, an expediency. Al just said it wasn't necessary, not that it didn't exist. In fact, in later writings, he said there MUST be an ether--he just didn't think it was as Lorentz, Maxwell, et al, thought it to be.
It's when you add the second postulate that the speed of light is the same for all observers that you get SRT. If it were not, then you could measure your absolute velocity by measuring the speed of light in all directions: that would tell you exactly what your universal motion is: your motion relative to the rest of the universe.

The problem is, of course, that you find the speed experimentally to be the same in all directions, so, in a way, this is one reason to conclude that you are not moving wrt the rest of the universe.

By the way, the absence of a universal ether was the subject of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. It was critical to SRT.
P: 4,059
 Quote by Layman If two observers agree that one on them is moving ....
There is nothing to "agree" on here, because there so absolute meaning to "moving".
P: 66
 Quote by PeroK It's when you add the second postulate that the speed of light is the same for all observers that you get SRT.
Well, it's more than just that. Lorentz and Poincaire said the same (as far as "measurement") goes.

With respect to Michelson-Morley, the failure to "detect" an ether wind was NOT taken to prove there was no ether. The assumption that there WAS an ether, combined with the inability to detect it, is in fact what led to the LT transformations, which Einstein appropriated wholesale.
P: 4,059
 Quote by Layman the failure to "detect" an ether wind was NOT taken to prove there was no ether.
You cannot prove the non-existence of anything. That's why we use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
 Sci Advisor HW Helper Thanks PF Gold P: 5,252 If you are inside the train car, all the windows are covered, and the ride is very smooth, there is no experiment you can do to prove either that you are moving or that you are not moving. If you can think of one (aside from removing the covers from the windows), tell us what it is. Even if you do remove the covers from the windows, you still can't prove with physical experiments that you are the one that is moving and it is the earth that is stationary. Your notion that you are the one that is moving is just a bias. Chet
P: 413
 Quote by Layman Well, it's more than just that. Lorentz and Poincaire said the same (as far as "measurement") goes. With respect to Michelson-Morley, the failure to "detect" an ether wind was NOT taken to prove there was no ether. It is in fact what led to the LT transformations, which Einstein appropriated wholesale.
So, you are saying:

a) There is an ether.

b) The speed of light depends on your motion: some observers moving against the ether will measure a higher speed of light.

c) Relativity is wrong.

d) All modern cosmology and particle physics is wrong.

e) Sometime soon, someone will come up with Newton's 4th law of motion, that will set the record straight and we'll all realise relativity was just a 100 years bad dream!

Nature and nature's laws lay hid by night,
God said: "let Newton be" and all was light!

It did not last, the devil howling "yo",
"Let Einstein be", restored the status quo!
P: 960
 Quote by Layman Well, that's not what physicists like Baez tell me.
That is not a valid reference. What did Baez say and where? It is pretty clear that you are misinterpreting it, but without a valid reference, it is hard to say how.
P: 66
 Quote by Chestermiller If you are inside the train car, all the windows are covered, and the ride is very smooth, there is no experiment you can do to prove either that you are moving or that you are not moving. If you can think of one (aside from removing the covers from the windows), tell us what it is. Even if you do remove the covers from the windows, you still can't prove with physical experiments that you are the one that is moving and it is the earth that is stationary. Your notion that you are the one that is moving is just a bias. Chet

I could have syphilis right now, and not know it. My "knowing" it has nothing to do with whether it exists, as a physical fact.
P: 4,059
 Quote by Layman In that case, the "absolute" frame is ...
If the absolute frame is different in each case, then it is not absolute.
 Mentor P: 41,475 On that note, it's time to close this thread. Please see the post at the top of the Relativity forum: IMPORTANT! Read before posting

 Related Discussions General Physics 5 Introductory Physics Homework 15 Introductory Physics Homework 3 Special & General Relativity 17 Introductory Physics Homework 5