0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

(11) ((10) again). Observer (at midpoint M of A-B), holding 2 mirrors (inclined at 90dg to see A&B) -- can see if simultaneous.Alby says that (11) is ok if the lightning flash vel A-M is the same as B-M. Alby says...."That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which i can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity". (Comment -- i don't understand this)

Quote(11) ((10) again). Observer (at midpoint M of A-B), holding 2 mirrors (inclined at 90dg to see A&B) -- can see if simultaneous.Alby says that (11) is ok if the lightning flash vel A-M is the same as B-M. Alby says...."That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which i can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity". (Comment -- i don't understand this.)The equivalence of the 'inertial frame' to a 'pseudo rest frame' requires the outbound transit time to equal the inbound transit time. Since an absolute velocity for the frame (c-v or c+v) cannot be detected,it must be defined.

(11) ((10) again). Observer (at midpoint M of A-B), holding 2 mirrors (inclined at 90dg to see A&B) -- can see if simultaneous.Alby says that (11) is ok if the lightning flash vel A-M is the same as B-M. Alby says...."That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which i can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity". (Comment -- i don't understand this.)