<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jim]: Hi Jan, Here again I'm confused-this time it the term transversal-speed.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
My understanding of the article goes as far as this: It is argued that light goes through various stages before we measure the "actual" SOL (Speed of Light). The article says that whenever we try to measure the SOL that has originated from the Sun and arrives at Earth for example, we are modulating the light radiation. As a consequence, we are rendering the SOL invariant and cannot detect any difference, if any, of the SOL when the Sun approaches or moves away from the Earth. To answer your question, and I may certainly be wrong, the transversal speed is referred to as the speed between emisson and absorbtion-emission.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jim]: Do you have a photon hitting the mirror at an angle or is the mirror perpenticular to the motion of the photon?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Does this relate to the article? If your question refers to another post of mine, then the mirror is at an 45 deg angle when the photon hits the mirror.
The article re-assesses the Invariance of Light as posited by SR. It is argued that whenever your paradigm leads to insurmountable complexities, confusion, obscurities and all sorts of mental gymnastics, then one should re-assess the paradigm. To put this in practice, consider the SR paradigm:
Let object A be a laser cannon moving away from object B with a velocity of "0.5c" in space. Sensors mounted at the laser exit record "c" when the puls begins its traversal through empty space. SR predicts that object B feels the pulse hitting it with "c".
SR relies on geometry and geometry alone. Is there anyone on this forum that truly thinks SR is a perfectly logical and intuitive theory and should not be re-assessed?
