24
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,094:
Line 1,094: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 20:50, August 19, 2010
, 20:50, August 19, 2010→Searchlight Paradox
I await the removal of this counterexample. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
I await the removal of this counterexample. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
: I agree with this general sentiment. There is a mistake in reasoning in the article that even if we suppose that the light source was a movie projector for instance. Two observers that are located the same distance away from the light source would receive the same information, they have not communicated with each other in any way. Imagine a light source that radiates in two polar directions, and two observers located 1 light year away from the source. Both would receive the information in 1 year. Using the naive reasoning in the article this constitutes a breakdown in causality because the observers are two light years apart, however they clearly have not communicated with each other and have simply received the same information from a single source. There is no way for observer A to confirm that observer B has received the information. You can argue that they agreed that they will be in the same location, but this act of agreement requires transmission of information (telling the other where to wait) along a causal channel, and you have gleaned no NEW information about the other observer, all the information you have gleaned has come from causal channels. This same reasoning applies to the sweeping light source.I would remove the argument, but since I am a new user I would prefer to wait for someone who has more say in the community--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:50, 19 August 2010 (EDT)