Wait, sorry, I missed this. Conserved quantities? That could plausibly be different from what I'm asking.
Let's look at it this way. Back in the good old days, it all made sense: everything was material, and this material "stuff" has certain properties, which we reified into various "laws."...
Hahaha, crazy in a good way. I should have said "shocking/incredible/surprising/impressive" etc.
But also crazy in a crazy way. The whole point of my paper is using Einstein and Kant to ask: "didn't we have an a priori concept of some substratum, instantiated in nature as some...
Not sure I am. You said rest mass is identical with matter. I'm giving an example of an object's rest mass being augment without adding more "matter" to it. Therefore, the concept of rest mass cannot refill the gap vacated by our previously naive view of "matter" meanings "stuff." We'll need...
If you tense a string, doesn't it have more mass than when it is relaxed? This does not sound like the concept of "matter" that is never created or destroyed.
A given electric or magnetic field does, no? I'm stationary relative to a magnet, and experience no electric force. I'm moving relative...
Hi, I'm currently writing a paper on Relativity, which mostly uses original papers of Einstein. For this reason, I have little idea what the ultimate fallout of all his upheaval is. I am aware that electromagnetic fields become "shadows" of the complex mathematical entity called the...
Okay, that all sounds good. Quick question, just out of curiosity:
That can't be correct, right? I thought a photon's speed was the same in all reference frames?
---
Anyways, thanks for all your help, I greatly appreciate it. Our discussion really helped me clarify my ideas, fix...
Yeah, that's what I figured. You must admit that that is a bit weird-- how do you define energy?
But, if I measure the momentum of the photon emitted from an emitter moving relative to me, don't I measure it as having more momentum than if the emitter was stationary? That sounds like the...
That's interesting. That sounds like a denial of the law of equal and opposite reaction, no?
Also: would it be fair to say that this thought-experiment points to the fact that we need to rethink "push" as a limiting case of a more general concept of energy-transference?
Hmm, I still...
Not quite sure what you're referring to here. Which kind of arguments?
Hmm. I think you're losing me here. If I'm wrong about this, I should revise a couple of paragraphs in my paper. So I guess I'd better figure out if I'm wrong about this.
I'm well aware that light's velocity can't...
Fair enough. I should've said "a moving emitter which emits two light beams in opposite directions gives off more energetic light (overall)."
Not sure what the difference here is. Are you saying there's some "energy" which is independent of all our measurements of it? That's not very...
My phrase "the little extra energy light has" WAS referring to the effects that movement has on light. What else would I be referring to?
I feel like maybe this whole discussion has gotten a bit obscured. What I'm saying really shouldn't be that nebulous. A restatement is in order. Let me know...
Einstein's C is just a constant having to do with arbitrary zero point in units, if I understood it correctly. You can't use it here in place of f(v), because C stays constant before and after emission by definition. But whether f(v)'s value is variable depending on energy content, or whether m...