Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR

[StarThrower]

This definition requires one of the objects in question to have a rest frame. Since photons don't have rest frames, this definition does not work.

Well then Hurkyl, that's really what it all boils down to huh?

A photon placed at the origin of a frame is at rest in a frame. It's in a rest frame, regardless of whether or not that frame is inertial. I mean we can view life from a photon's point of view.

It all boils down to this:

Is a photon which isn't being subjected to a force in an inertial reference frame?

The answer of course is yes.

Kind regards,

StarThrower

 

[Hurkyl]

A photon placed at the origin of a frame is at rest in a frame.

Too bad that the time axis of such a coordinate chart is a null vector, and thus can't be considered a frame.

Is a photon which isn't being subjected to a force in an inertial reference frame?

The answer of course is yes.

Why of course?

 

[Hurkyl]

And no I'm not getting sloppy.

Earlier on, you insisted on long, detailed proofs, even of elementary facts (though, admittedly, you were making tons of implicit assumptions).

Now, your assertions are backed up with phrases like "of course it's yes".

That's what I call getting sloppy. You were only interested in proving the things with which you know I'll agree; once we get to points of debate, you have lost all interest in proof.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, what a nice thread. Scrolling back a little, I found this gem:

I did not "assume" the speed of light depends upon inertial frame, in fact, I assumed the exact opposite (that it doesn't), and subsequently arrived at a contradiction.

Translation: I assume SR to be wrong, therefore SR is wrong.

Hmm...speaking of contradictions.

If you consider an inertial reference frame to be one that can always be brought to rest by a change of coordinates, then I have news for you: A photon cannot be placed at the origin of such a frame.

We've discussed this one too.

Essentially guys, StarThrower bases his beliefs here on several basic assumptions that are contrary to accepted physics. I honestly don't know how to fix that: like he said, "you can lead a horse to water..."