On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:39 PM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > > Also, I would genuinely like to know if anyone disagrees with my >> arguments, or fails to understand them. >> > > I had a hard time following your examples and counterexamples, but I > suspect that relativity will not be so easy to pull apart. > Ok, let's keep it really simple. Can you explain how a moving 'train' could measure the velocity of the same photon/s as a stationary observer and measure the same velocity of those photons despite the trains motion, especially photons moving the opposite direction of the train? As far as I can tell, length contraction and time dilation would only help with photons moving with the train, not against it. And if somehow you can pull it off, how could photons travelling in the opposite direction (slowed by the trains motion) be normalized by the same distortions being applied in a consistent manner? Basically to understand my argument, I guess you have to have some understanding of SR in the first place. There's probably a misunderstanding about one or more of the claims it's > making. I get the impression that relativity fits the known facts to > within a very small error, > No, it does not. However it makes many of the same predictions as an entrained aether. But it being impossible and illogical is a bit of an issue. I can happily debate it with you, but only if you try to understand my argument, since you asked no specific questions all I can ask you is to explain how it could work. I am sorry, but that was a very lazy reply, it is hard to answer. John
