![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 3, 8:54*pm, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote in sci.physics:
Swimmingpool physics (or duck - pond physics) shows clearly that there is no c+v Watch them duck waves ! http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/internet...tenteich_1.JPG http://www.schaerligbad.ch/restauran...eich/index.htm c is wave speed, v is duck speed. (or hanson speed, if he takes a swim). No Clever Wabnig you are confused again. c+v is unavoidable even if you prefer the wave model of light. In this case v is the speed of the observer relative to the pool. As you can see, Clever Wabnig, Einstein's 1905 light postulate is incommensurable with both the particle and wave models of light. Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains this quite well: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 25th 11 01:00 AM |
Book Review: Traveling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves | Robert Karl Stonjek | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 8th 07 11:49 AM |
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT | 46erjoe | Misc | 964 | March 10th 07 06:10 AM |
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS | ftl_freak | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 04:48 PM |
Einstein@Home: Search for Gravitational Waves | Davoud | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | February 25th 05 06:20 PM |