I wrote: > > > The paper assumes that Einstein's light clock (on which all of special > relativity is based) needs light to propagate as spherical wave, but I > think this assumption is unnecessary, so it means his relativistic > Shrödinger's > cat paradox is a non-sequitur. However, I believe the primary conclusion > of the paper still holds whether or not Einstein's light clock makes use of > spherical waves of light or rays of light: > > or particles of light.
harry > <<In classical Physics, a mathematical description of a phenomenon > always lays on a physical model. In the case of the SRT, in spite of > the simple mathematical model involved, the contrary to experience > consequences of the light postulate make it often difficult to conceive > adequate physical models for the various relativistic effects. Probably > because of this reason, most expositions of the SRT are based on > algebraic demonstrations, but lack adequate "physical" explanations, > that should instead be the basis of every physical theory about the > macrocosmic world, as well as an indispensable element to any > possible analysis or confutation. The case of the stellar aberration is > emblematic. The algebraic route, consisting in the application of the > SRT transformation to the system of the star and to that of the > observer, does not apparently lead to contradictions. But the > underlying physical model, based on a radial light radiation (light > clock model), turns out to be incompatible with the parallel starlight > irradiation actually reaching the Earth. The fact that the stellar > aberration can instead be easily explained by assuming an > addition/subtraction of c and v, or more generally, a not constant > velocity of light (discussed by Marmet9, Selleri & Puccini10, Schulz > Poquet11 and others), seems to be a strong proof against the postulate > of the c constancy.>> > > > harry > > >
