sci.physics.research

On Sep 1, 8:33 am, Mal wrote:
> On 11 Aug, 03:25, Zurab Silagadze wrote:
>
> > "Relativity without tears" can be found here /abs/
> > I'll appreciate corrections of English. Other comments are also
> > welcomed.
>
> You say:
>
> Because for Newtonian intuition "to take as a postulate that the speed
> of light is constant relative to changes in reference frame is to
> assume an apparent absurdity. It goes against common sense. No wonder,
> thinks a student, that we can derive other absurdities, such as time
> dilation and length contraction, from the premises"[5].
>
> But is this really so absurd? It may go against common sense
> initially, but surely it can be accepted with little pain? The rocket
> ship goes faster, time dilates. Where's the problem in accepting that?
> It's just a fact like any other. Accepting quantum mechanical
> paradoxes is much more of a problem.

i think that for Einstein, it there was no non-absurd option other
than the speed of the same bean of light had to be constant relative
to different inertial observers.

given the axiom that the laws of physics are the same for every
inertial observer (and why shouldn't they be?), then it is that
Maxwell's equations are those laws of physics that, if identical in
every respect for any and every inertial observer, is the principle
from where you deduce that the speed of light in vacuo is the same for
every observer.

so you have this changing E field that is causing this changing B
field that is causing this changing E field that is causing this
changing B field that is causing this changing E field that is causing
this changing B field and all that changing E and B field is, by
solving Maxwell's equations, propagating at this speed, c = 1/
sqrt(eps0*mu0), would not two inertial observers, both moving relative
to the other and both observing the same little beam of light (doesn't
matter which of them might be holding the flashlight), measure that
speed to be the same for each observer? they have the same eps0 and
mu0, don't they? why should one observer be preferred over the other
(which is what would have to be the case if one measured c to be
different than the other) so that this one observer has the more
"correct" value for c?

r b-j

__________________