|
Trevor Morris: Look how I use 240 words to say nothing. (10-Oct-2002) |
|
"Martin Hogbin" > news:4fdc437b.0210071421.dc168c9@posting.google.com... > > "Martin Hogbin" > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > Martin Hogbin > > > > An example would help with understanding your point, here. > > I do not want to appear awkward but it would be easier if you > were to give me an example of a paradox that exists in SR but > not in LET. > > Martin Hogbin OK. You know already that what are often called "paradoxes" in SR can in fact be described in terms which show that SR is self-consistent, and are therefore not true paradoxes. But the emphasis in SR on denying the necessity for a "privileged" reference frame for light propagation leads to certain problems which can be presented as paradoxes (leaving aside for the moment the logical validity of that denial itself). One of these problems is the lack of any explanation in SR of the physical source of the difference between the elapsed time measures (and biological ages) of the famous Twins when they are reunited. Another (related) aspect which has led to some confusion is the exact meaning of Einstein's second postulate. Is it a substantive statement about how light actually propagates (isotropically at speed c relative to all inertial reference frames), or a statement of how light will appear to propagate in terms of measurements in all inertial frames? The first is clearly physically impossible, whereas the second "measurement" interpretation is perfectly acceptable in both SR and in LET. In these examples, LET has no ambiguities of meaning, and it offers a simple physical model of how the effects come about, so I wondered why you said that LET is no better at resolving paradoxes than SR. In a trivial sense that must be true if there are no real paradoxes anyway, but did you have more than that in mind? Trevor Morris |
|
Index Original post and context: 4fdc437b.0210100857.7cdaf863@posting.google.com |