Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614322

Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate.

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate.
Date	2023-07-03 00:08 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<u7thj6$3k0rd$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<55379066-f06b-4e5f-a575-b139c6ae5032n@googlegroups.com> <kgeiqiFtaceU2@mid.individual.net> <f84c30aa-e18b-4af5-b5fe-4ce98ed9b691n@googlegroups.com> <u7tevn$3jkdl$5@dont-email.me> <9be85d28-7f83-4176-9322-febbb4f21765n@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/2/2023 11:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:23:38 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/2/2023 8:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 5:24:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 03-July-23 9:46 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source.
>>>> Run that past me again. Why does particle behaviour mean velocity is not
>>>> source independent? They look to me to be two unrelated things.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.

>>> Particle behavior means something shares the velocity of the source which is the opposite of independence from the velocity of the source.

>> That's not part of the definition of a particle.
>>
>> Don't forget that the SR speed combination formula works for particles,
>> and at relativistic speeds the velocity is not a simple sum.

> It doesn't have anything to do with a definition.

You worded it as if it did. "Particle behavior means something shares 
the velocity of the source."

Remember the speed combination formula works for any speed of anything 
as long as both speeds are c or less.

The speed of light being constant falls directly out of the math. The 
formula is w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). If u=c, the formula simplifies to w=c no 
matter what v is. This is saying it doesn't matter what the speed of the 
source (v) is, light moves at c in all frames of reference.

> If the SR formula result is the same as for a particle, it is unnecessary.

What does that mean? It's the same for particles but what it says isn't 
what you think.

> Ordinary additive velocity suffices.

Not for relativistic speeds. For very small u and v, w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) 
is VERY close to w=u+v and that may "suffice" as a low speed 
approximation. But not for relativistic speeds.

> They suffice at the velocity of the Earth and the MMX.

Again only as a good approximation for low speeds.

> They also suffice for all velocities contrary to SR.

Nope, not for relativistic speeds. Try it for u=.8c and v=.8c.

> You are disagreeing with Feynman.

Nope.

> I'm with Feynman. You're with Einstein.

No, you are quote mining. Feynman said many things that conflict with 
your misinterpretation of that quote.

Thread

Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 16:46 -0700
  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 16:52 -0700
  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-03 10:24 +1000
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 17:39 -0700
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-02 19:43 -0700
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 23:23 -0400
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:39 -0700
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 00:08 -0400
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:31 -0700
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:45 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:50 -0700
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 01:01 -0400
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-03 09:52 +0200
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-03 12:16 -0700
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:04 -0700
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:28 -0700
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:53 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:03 -0700
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-03 22:56 +0200
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 10:36 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-05 21:21 +0200
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 14:27 -0700
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:59 -0700
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 00:11 -0400
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:12 -0700
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-03 13:27 -0500
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:02 -0700
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 14:36 -0400
  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 18:45 -0700
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 19:15 -0700
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:05 -0700
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:34 -0700
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:49 -0700
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:15 -0700
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:38 -0500
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:03 -0700
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 16:10 -0500
  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-02 23:19 -0500
  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:22 +0200
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 00:26 -0700
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:55 +0200
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 01:23 -0700
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 10:37 +0200
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 02:01 -0700
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:43 +0200
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 03:03 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:23 +0200
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 05:29 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 14:33 +0200
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 05:39 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 14:57 +0200
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 06:08 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 15:42 +0200
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 06:53 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2023-07-03 15:21 +0000
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 20:10 +0200
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:34 -0500
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 12:17 -0700
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:17 -0700
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:22 -0700
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:24 -0700
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:39 -0500
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 17:22 -0400
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:06 -0700
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:35 -0700
  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:14 -0700

csiph-web