Re: MMX and FORs Revisited

From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 06/12/04 

Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:37:48 -0700

Bill Hobba <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:Cu8xc.17664$rz4.4281@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:d8097fcc.0406071408.21dee989@posting.google.com...
> > "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:d8097fcc.0406070802.38b3954c@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > If readers see sense in my comments above perhaps they would care to
> > > attempt to define the inertial field of the source of light, or rather
> > > to take another look at the concept of "the speed of" the inertial
> > > field of the source of light?
> >
> > It seems to me that the Theory of Relativity commences with little
> > knowledge of the nature of light, premises certain principles and goes
> > on to build a system.
>
> Then your 'seeming' is wrong. Relativity really has nothing to do with
> light per se.

That's really funny, Bill. Try reading Einstein's 1905 paper. It's based
on Maxwell's equations.

> > Then, what appears to me, the nonsense of the
> > concept of "correspondence with reality" is sometimes floated as
> > adding weight to the system.
> > I prefer the concept of (a degree of)
> > coherence to that of "correspondence with reality".
>
> Do you really think nature cares what you prefer?

Do you really think that nature cares about an uninvolved 'observer?'

> > (The theory of a
> > flat earth would have seemed to have a degree of coherence to those
> > who subscribed to it - indeed a greater degree than rival theories, if
> > any. If they subscribed to the philosophy of "correspondence with
> > reality" then they would have found support in that too).
> >
> > Given the above, and my suspicions about the definitions of the
> > concepts of "source", "observer", etc., they may be a good place to
> > commence a revision.
>
> Given the above I suspect you do not understand whir relativity really
> is - it actually has nothing to do with the nature of light - see
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076

LOL! SR includes more than *just* the mathematical curiosities called
"Lorentz transforms" by relativists.

That quirky effort has been splashed before. It took two explicit new
'definitions' and six explicit new 'assmptions' to get out from under
calling it SR. And assumption #2 includes the statement that the
"Relativity principle (sic, e-synching) can be used to calibrate units of
length and time in each inertial system."

Which is simply the core of SR, snuck in under the explicit #2. 

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Quantcast