- #1
dayalanand roy
- 109
- 5
Respected physicists and members
(I am not a physicist)
I have a little doubt that i want to clarify.
If I am sitting in a stationary train, having a ball in my hand, the ball will remain stationary relative to my hand and plateform. Now if the train starts moving, again the ball is stationary relative to my hand, though both my hand and ball are moving in relation to the plateform. The ball's status is dependent on the movement of my hand. Now if i throw the ball from the moving train, its speed will be greater than it were had i thrown it from the stationary train. So again, it is evident that the speed of ball is dependent upon the speed of my hand.
Now, if the ball is fitted with some light source and is emitting light, the light will be traveling away at the speed c even if the train, and hence the hand and the ball are stationary. Thus it appears that light is a naturaly different entity from the ball, its status and speed are not dependent upon the status and speed of the hand or the train. There are some intrinsic reasons which cause light always to travel at this velocity, and never let it rest. When the train, and the hand and the ball too, are moving at a certain speed, the speed of light being emmited from the moving ball too could not depend upon the speed of the ball itself. Are those reasons, that were responsible for the speed of light emitted from even the stationary source, not responsible for its speed now?
It appears to me that the constancy of the speed of light is a natural property of it. If its speed is not dependent upon the zero velocity of its source, why it should be dependent upon its higher velicity? Is not the constancy of the speed of light its intrinsic property? Do we really need a ' time dilation' and a ' length contraction' theory to explain the constancy of the speed of light? (Though i have full faith in theory of relativity)
Regards
(I am not a physicist)
I have a little doubt that i want to clarify.
If I am sitting in a stationary train, having a ball in my hand, the ball will remain stationary relative to my hand and plateform. Now if the train starts moving, again the ball is stationary relative to my hand, though both my hand and ball are moving in relation to the plateform. The ball's status is dependent on the movement of my hand. Now if i throw the ball from the moving train, its speed will be greater than it were had i thrown it from the stationary train. So again, it is evident that the speed of ball is dependent upon the speed of my hand.
Now, if the ball is fitted with some light source and is emitting light, the light will be traveling away at the speed c even if the train, and hence the hand and the ball are stationary. Thus it appears that light is a naturaly different entity from the ball, its status and speed are not dependent upon the status and speed of the hand or the train. There are some intrinsic reasons which cause light always to travel at this velocity, and never let it rest. When the train, and the hand and the ball too, are moving at a certain speed, the speed of light being emmited from the moving ball too could not depend upon the speed of the ball itself. Are those reasons, that were responsible for the speed of light emitted from even the stationary source, not responsible for its speed now?
It appears to me that the constancy of the speed of light is a natural property of it. If its speed is not dependent upon the zero velocity of its source, why it should be dependent upon its higher velicity? Is not the constancy of the speed of light its intrinsic property? Do we really need a ' time dilation' and a ' length contraction' theory to explain the constancy of the speed of light? (Though i have full faith in theory of relativity)
Regards