Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SeanF
I'm not "ignoring the problem," Sam5, I honestly don't understand what you think the problem is. Why won't you just explain it?
|
Ok, I’ll explain it. |
Okay.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
Einstein knew from Lorentz theory that if his “stationary system” had light moving through it at “c”, in both directions of travel along the x axis, then everyone in that frame or “system” would see light move at “c”. But if he had the “moving system” move relative to the “stationary system”, everyone in that “moving frame” would see a “stationary system” light beam move at c – v in one direction of travel and c + v in the other direction of travel.
|
Mmm. No, not quite. He knew (based on his constancy postulate) that the "moving" observer should see both light beams as moving at
c relative to the "moving" observer, even though the "stationary" observer would see the light beams as moving at
c+
v and
c-
v relative to the "moving" observer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
So, at the beginning of the SR theory, he’s got to get rid of that c – v and c + v problem. He does away with the c – v problem by slowing down the “moving frame's” clocks. So, a “slow ticking” clock will see a slow light beam (a c – v light beam) moving at “c”.
|
No. The SR-predicted time dilation rate of sqr(1-v˛/c˛) is not the correct amount to transform
c-
v into
c. If you understood math, you would see that immediately, and you would realize that you are wrong about the time dilation. It does not turn
c-
v into
c and it
was not intended to. That is simply not how it works.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
See?
Got it so far?
But that still leaves the c + v problem, and he had to use a different method to get rid of it.
|
Well, you've been wrong about everything else, but how about telling us the "different method" he used to get rid of the "
c+
v problem" anyway?