- #36
NanakiXIII
- 392
- 0
So you're saying that this question hasn't been answered before?
You more or less have it: the only speed you can measure directly from your reference frame is the speed relative to you. Yes, the person on the platform can find the speed of the man relative to the train, but it requires two speed measurements (the speed of the walking man and the speed of the train relative to the platform) and a transformation equation (just subtract). This is analagous to the transformations done in SR.NanakiXIII said:I think you formulated that wrong, or I'm misinterperting (I can never spell that word) it. He's walking 1m/s relative to the train. How could someone on the platform not agree? He may not be walking 1m/s relative to the platform, but we're talking about relative to the train.
a different killometer or a different second
What you measure to be 1km (or 1sec) may very well be something altogether different to someone else. Keeping the train analogy, if those people (on the train and on the platform) in my thought experimen have a way to measure the speed of the walking man to a precision where Relativity matters, they will in fact disagree over how far, fast and long the man walks. The one thing they will always agree on (if they bounce lasers off of each other) is the speed of light.'scuse me?
Maybe I'm not reading this right, but I didn't know there were different types of kilometers and seconds.
An inertial frame of reference is one that is not accerating. And I'm shocked to hear English isn't your native tongue - you are quite fluent.Also, what does "inertial" mean? I'm sorry, English is not my native toungue.
What you measure to be 1km (or 1sec) may very well be something altogether different to someone else.
they will in fact disagree over how far, fast and long the man walks.
Have I mentioned GPS yet (I always do)?
"it just is."
And I'm shocked to hear English isn't your native tongue - you are quite fluent.
A comparison.NanakiXIII said:What exactly is "analogy" ?
Time/space dilation.How could that be?
I read your question in too much haste. I think you meant, "if the MM exp. had found anisotropy (shifting of the interference pattern)." I was for some reason just reading it as, "if there were an ether." Well, I haven't thought about the "what if shifting interference" too much, so I don't know, but I suppose you're right, there wouldn't be anything immediate to suggest that the Galilean transformations were incorrect as an epistemic device.jdavel said:I don't think that's true. If the Michelson Morley epxeriement had detected a medium for light waves, why would the Galilean transfomations have needed to be replaced? What would have replaced them? Surely not the Lorentz transformations!
did u ever doubt the concepts of absolute space abnd absolute time when the Newton's laws were taught to u in u'r school.since every motion is relative in this universe these concepts were thrown out by modern physicsts.einstein replaced them with absolute speed and that is the speed of light.thus the speed of the beam emitted from a moving aircraft is not (vel of light +vel of aircraft) but only that of light. this is a factand have been proved by experiments.NanakiXIII said:Now I'm not absolutely sure this is the right forum, but here goes.
I've been told that the relative speed of light is supposed to be the same in any reference frame. Is that true, and if so, how is that possible?