The discussion centers on the complexities of time dilation and the behavior of light when an observer moves at 99% the speed of light (0.99c). Participants clarify that time dilation is relative; an observer moving at 0.99c will perceive their own time as normal, while stationary observers will see their clocks running slow. The conversation emphasizes that the speed of light remains constant regardless of the observer's motion, and the addition of velocities in special relativity does not allow for speeds exceeding the speed of light. The confusion arises from the simultaneous observation of light beams moving in opposite directions relative to a fast-moving observer.
PREREQUISITESPhysics students, educators, and anyone interested in the principles of relativity and the behavior of light in high-speed scenarios.
TrickyDicky said:
Nope, I agreed with the definition of postulate, which is not the same as agreeing that a definition is a postulate. Hope this is not too subtle.harrylin said:Sure a postulate is a postulate.
However, you agreed that a definition is a postulate.
My point was that a mere definition isn't a postulate.
Ugh, I'd say it is, but I think I can agree with this.harrylin said:A postulate may be open to falsification (as is the case with both SR's postulates); and to be precise it should relate to definitions (as is also the case with both SR's postulates). In contrast, a definition is a human choice that can't be falsified (although it can be poorly chosen).
Is that too subtle??
TrickyDicky said:
harrylin said:Evidently it's still not clear to you that you called a mere definition a postulate... Thus I'll have to start it as a topic. Anyway, it should become a FAQ.
Cheers,
Harald
