- #106
StarThrower
- 220
- 1
Hurkyl said:You wanted to set v = c; use that.
Give me a numerical value please Mr Hurkyl, since the speed of light depends upon inertial reference frame.
Regards,
Star
Hurkyl said:You wanted to set v = c; use that.
Hurkyl said:I thought you were trying to derive a contradiction within SR, you know, where the speed of light doesn't depend upon inertial reference frame.
Hurkyl said:Shall we make a clarification on the definition of "inertial reference frame?"
In particular, shall we declare that if an event (or state, if you prefer) occurs in one inertial reference frame, then it must occur in all inertial reference frames? Or shall we permit inertial reference frames that violate this condition?
StarThrower said:What do you mean?
Regards,
Star
An event is something that happens at a position in the inertial frame at a given time in that frame. Thus an event is located by three position coordinates and one time in each inertial frame. Of course, the coordinates of the events will be different in different inertial frames moving relative to one another at constant velocity, but the event itself is absolute. Examples of events are birth, death, explosions, detectors going off, etc. In other words, if you are born in one inertial frame, you are also born in any other inertial frame - the time and location of your birth may be different in different frames, but the fact of your birth is absolute.
Hurkyl said:Shall we make a clarification on the definition of "inertial reference frame?"
In particular, shall we declare that if an event (or state, if you prefer) occurs in one inertial reference frame, then it must occur in all inertial reference frames? Or shall we permit inertial reference frames that violate this condition?
Hurkyl said:The point of my numerical examples was to demonstrate that the conditions of the thought experiment fail in the case where v = c.
IF the photon does indeed traverse a triangular path from the gun to the mirror and back to the gun, then we can form the equation:
[tex] (\frac{c \Delta t^\prime}{2} )^2 = D^2 + (\frac{c \Delta t^\prime}{2} )^2 [/tex]
which simplifies to
[tex] 0 = D^2 [/tex]
Which is clearly false.
Hurkyl said:You're seriously asking me why D2 = 0 is false?
Hurkyl said:There's a whole grab-bag of reasons why we conclude D = 0. You presumed D was not zero, though, in the thought experiment, did you not?
not (c=c`) OR not (v=c )
Hurkyl said:If this is all you're trying to prove, we could have gotten here much sooner, and in a much less sloppy manner. Oddly enough, if you've paid attention, you'd've noticed we've been telling you not(v=c), so you wouldn't have wasted all this time proving the above statement which we already take to be true.
Hurkyl said:This whole thought experiment is supposed to be done in the context of SR, remember? And since SR => not(v=c), it is thus true that not(v=c).
Hurkyl said:This whole thought experiment is supposed to be done in the context of SR, remember? And since SR => not(v=c), it is thus true that not(v=c).
But the case where v=c is where two photons are fired at right angles to one another, and this experiment is do-able in reality.
The case where v=c is do-able.
Hurkyl said:On what grounds do you assert that?
Hurkyl said:Excellent! What was your experimental setup? What were the lengths of the sides of the triangle? What was the the reading on the clocks at each event of interest? What was the experimental error?
And what bearing does the experiment have on the internal consistency of SR?
Hurkyl said:Er, so the oscillosope was moving at light speed?
And what definition are you using for "relative velocity of photons" and what bearing does it have on the validity of SR?
But of course you are just sidestepping the issue.
Two photons are emitted from the origin of inertial reference frame F1, at right angles. What is their relative speed?
Hurkyl said:You seem to have lost all of your attention to detail. Don't you find it telling that you get sloppy every time you try to make your conclusion that SR is inconsistent?
Hurkyl said:The only definition of relative speed I'm aware does not apply to this situation. Would you care to provide one?