Light clock treating horizontal and vertical motion differently?

[Ibix]

I think it's also worth noting the existence of the so-called "one postulate" derivations of the Lorentz transforms, which only assume the principle of relativity. They do not use the light speed postulate, so cannot be said to assume anything special about any speed. They show that there are only two systems of physics that are consistent with the principle of relativity - the Galilean transforms and the Lorentz transforms but with an unknown finite invariant speed in the place of the $c$ that you get if you do use the second postulate. You would then use an experiment like Bertozzi's to show that we don't live in a Newtonian universe and that the unknown finite invariant speed is actually $c$, or observe that the invariant speed has to be $c$ for Maxwell's equations to be covariant.

Bertozzi's experiment:

 

[Dale]

Or zero-postulate derivations (not what they call themselves) that don’t assume either postulate and simply use experimental evidence instead.

 

[Ibix]

Or zero-postulate derivations (not what they call themselves) that don’t assume either postulate and simply use experimental evidence instead.

You're thinking of stuff like Poincaré's 1904 paper, which has the complete maths of SR collected from empirical study of electromagnetism without him quite realising what he'd got?

 

[Dale]

You're thinking of stuff like Poincaré's 1904 paper, which has the complete maths of SR collected from empirical study of electromagnetism without him quite realising what he'd got?

I didn’t know about that one. I was actually specifically thinking of Robertson’s paper “Postulate versus observation in the special theory of relativity”. He shows that, without assuming either of the postulates, we can infer the Lorentz transform to about 1% accuracy from just the Michelson Morley experiment, the Kennedy Thorndike experiment, and the Ives Stillwell experiment

 

[sophiecentaur]

The question I had is based on whether artificial distinctions are being made between different types of motion because people are looking for a certain answer.

Physics has the luxury of the availability of very reliable and repeatable experiments. Whatever outcome people are "looking for" the answer from a well designed experiment gives what it gives and we rely on the result until someone comes up with a well supported alternative theory. That's unlike what politicians do: Quote from a UK education minister "We are gong to do a survey to show that . . . . ."

Scientists do experiments to find out if . . . . .

Motion can be classified, either as inertial or non-inertial. This thread is about inertial motion and there's only one of those.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

That's unlike what politicians do: Quote from a UK education minister "We are gong to do a survey to show that . . . . ."

Scientists do experiments to find out if . .

One time at a department meeting the chair declared that some educational data we'd collected was "bad" because it didn't show the desired result!

 

[FactChecker]

The question I had is based on whether artificial distinctions are being made between different types of motion because people are looking for a certain answer.

"artificial distinction"? What??!! Riding fast in a car, can't you tell tell the difference between smoothly going straight and going around a curve?
IMHO, there is something strangely wrong about this entire thread.