Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 12/03/04 

Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 03:25:37 GMT

"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bEPulRPRzhrBFwV3@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> Gauge writes
> >John Kennaugh <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:<Mu$LvxEVcJqBFw84@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk>...
> >>
> >> In one period of my life I spent more than a year leading a team
working
> >> on one part of a new Radar to go on a new type of Navy Destroyer. It
all
> >> went into the shredder when the government decided not to go ahead and
> >> order the ships. I didn't feel very good about it.
> >>
> >> I feel sorry for Bill and Bilge (the flowerpot men :o) because I
believe
> >> that some day their entire life's work will go into the shredder. They
> >> haven't been very nice to me ..
> >
> >bilge is unable to be nice to anyone he can't force his opinions on.
> >
> >> The belief in source independence which Einstein put into his second
> >> postulate is an irrational belief because it is a direct result in
> >> belief in the ether which is itself rejected by his followers.
> >
> >The second postulate (invariance of c) is in no way a direct result in
> >any belief in an ether.
>
> ????

John you claim to be an electrical engineer. Think John, think - put you
misconceptions aside and think. Maxwell's equations contain within
themselves something called the wave equation -
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxsup.html. If
Maxwell's equations are true in any inertial frame as demanded by the POR
then the wave equation must be true. Now any electrical engineer knows that
the solutions to the wave equation are waves traveling at the speed of
light. Thus the speed of flight must be the same in any inertial frame.
Why you can not see it is beyond me, Bilge, Gauge or anyone that has engaged
you over the years. I have tried tons of different tacks. I suspect your
inability to understand it is imbedded in a mental block that sends your
defense mechanisms into overdrive rather than look at the problem
rationally. If you had studied electrical engineering you should not have
responded with '????' - what I have written should be obvious.

Bill

>
> > In fact it is the opposite.
>
> ??????????????????????????
>
> >One who accepts
> >the invariance of c has no reason to need an ether since the speed of
> >light will be independant of the motion of said ether.
>
> And what pray makes it independent of the speed of the source?
>
> > And "source
> >independance" is an inadequate phrasing of the second postulate.
>
> The second postulate is a combination of the first postulate and source
> independence.
>
> > It is
> >not enough for the speed of light to be independant of the motion of
> >the source. The postulate is that the speed of light is independance
> >of the motion of the source *in all frames of reference*. That is what
> >Einstein meant when he said "with a definite velocity c".
>
> For 200 years people believed in the wave ether theory. Light travelled
> in the ether and its speed was constant w.r.t the ether and therefore
> not affected by the speed of the source. MMX represented a T-junction.
> There were two possible ways to go.
>
> 1/ Conclude that there is no ether, therefore a source (in vacuum) is
> surrounded by nothing which can affect the speed of light, so the only
> thing which can determine it is the physical processes taking place in
> the source. Conclusion - the speed of light adds to that of the source
> as other velocities add. (Newton was right after all) This idea was
> taken up by Walter Ritz in his 'emission theory'. Unfortunately Ritz
> died in 1909 so his battle with Einstein was cut short. The idea is
> given a boost when light was found to be made of particles. (Newton was
> right after all)
>
> 2/ Conclude that despite the MMX result the wave ether theory is too
> good a theory to abandon. Lorentz found a 'fix' for it. Interaction
> between the ether and ponderable matter which expressed mathematically
> gave the Lorentz transforms. Poncere speculated that rather than have an
> ether who's properties conspired to make it undetectable and in that way
> make the laws of physics appear the same to all observers (which is what
> Lorentz said) that if you assumed the principle of relativity was
> axiomatic you might get the same result without the need to assume an
> ether. This is what Einstein attempted to do but if you start with the
> PoR and only the PoR you end up with Ritz's ballistic approach.
> Einstein was continuing the route following by Lorentz not that chosen
> by Ritz and the difference is whether light is source dependent as per
> Ritz or source independent as per Lorentz. Lorentz assumed source
> independence in his theory because his theory was ether based. If you do
> not believe SR is also ether based you have to explain why Einstein
> assumed source independence in his second postulate.
>
> >> The
> >> evidence of MMX leads to the first postulate ...
> >
> >That is incorrect. One cannot deduce the first postulate from the
> >second.
>
> I didn't say you could. It was thought that there was an ether. It was
> thought therefore that certain experiments would give different results
> depending upon the speed relative to the ether. In other words the ether
> provided a reference against which absolute velocity could be detected
> which is the antithesis of the first postulate. MMX and other
> experiments indicted that that was not the case. The first postulate was
> therefore an acknowledgement that there is no such thing as absolute
> velocity - an acceptance of experimental evidence. i.e. that whatever
> your velocity all experiments will give the same result including MMX
> and its like.
>
> The second postulate does not follow from MMX only the first. The first
> postulate says that independent of your velocity you will get the same
> result, it does not specify what that result is.
>
> The simplest explanation is that which Ritz assumed i.e. that all
> observers will find that the speed of light is c+v where v is the speed
> of the source. This is totally compatible with the first postulate and
> the simplest explanation of the null result of MMX.
>
> It is the second postulate which postulates/assumes what the law of
> physics is, namely that the speed of light is constant w.r.t the
> observer observing it. It is the second postulate therefore which
> distinguishes Relativity from Ritz/Ballistic theory.
>
> Relativity does not spring naturally from the PoR. Ritz/Ballistic theory
> does without compromise but if you study Einstein's original 1905 paper
> he says that the second postulate is 'apparently irreconcilable' with
> the PoR. The reason is simply that the second postulate comes from
> belief in the ether and the first is an acceptance that there is no
> ether. He reconciled it by ditching the previously axiomatic concept of
> universal time which is a hell of a big price to pay. Modern relativists
> claim there is no ether and yet here is Einstein ditching universal time
> in order to preserve a belief in source independence which itself was
> totally dependent on there being an ether. If the speed of light is not
> dependent upon the source then it must be dependent upon something else
> and that something else must take charge from the moment light leaves
> the source. What is that 'something else' if not the ether?
>
> >> The reason such an absurdity was accepted was because Physicists were
> >> not prepared to accept they had been wrong for 200 years so they
> >> continued to believe in the properties of the ether while being modern
> >> and trendy and disowning the ether itself. You cannot get sillier than
> >> that.
> >
> >It wasn't readily accepted. It took a while for physicists to abandon
> >the ether theory. Many didn't want to and thus they didn't believe SR.
> >It was too strange for them and it didn't have the overwhelming
> >experimental support for it. But that changed oved the last 100 years.
> >It would be poor physics to accept the MMX experiment as proof of SR
> >today.
>
> Oh dear! One of the things which made me suspicious of what I was being
> told was when I found my text book was deliberately trying to deceive
> me. From two of your comment it seems you were deceived. The point about
> a text book is that it is designed to make life easier for the
> lecturer/teacher not to give a balanced view. It is written so as to
> avoid awkward questions which the lecturer/teacher would have difficulty
> with. In my text book, in the chapter covering MMX, it stated "thus it
> was shown that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the
> observer" this was later reproduced in the chapter on relativity trying
> to give the impression that the second postulate follows from MMX. It is
> clever semantics. The statement in context of MMX is not strictly wrong
> but deliberately misleading. All that MMX showed was that if you have a
> piece of apparatus with a *fixed* distance between source and detector
> it will always give you the same value for the speed of light
> independent of the uniform motion of the apparatus. It tells you
> absolutely zilch about what you would measure to be the speed of light
> if source and detector are moving relative to each other it can
> therefore have nothing to say about whether light is source dependent or
> source independent. The simplest explanation of MMX is that the speed of
> light is constant w.r.t the source, it then doesn't matter what speed
> the apparatus is going provided the source - detector distance is
> constant.
>
> >The phenomena of extinction makes it an invalid experiment.
>
> I don't understand that comment.
>
> > But
> >there have been many many many other experiements of varying kinds
> >done all over the world everday which are consistent with special
> >relativity.
>
> That does not in any way show that they are inconsistent with the
> Ritz/Ballistic approach. You have perhaps been told that you cannot
> prove a theory only disprove one and that if something does not fit with
> a theory, a theory is disproved and then abandoned. This is not how it
> works. You can only abandon a theory in favour of another theory. If
> alternative theory has been marginalized to the point where no one has
> even heard of it (have you heard of Ritz, or Waldren) then everything
> has to be interpreted assuming Relativity is correct.
>
> A clear example of this sort of thing in action is in the case of the
> Big Bang theory. The maths don't work. Theory disproved? No simply
> invent something to make them work. 'Inflation' - That for an initial
> period expansions was exponential not linear. Even then they had to
> invent dark matter and dark energy. Of course no one says "we have had
> to add these fiddles" they say that the BB theory "predicts the
> existence of....". What you can bet they didn't do, is to say "let's see
> if the BB theory works if we assume light is ballistic." If Ballistic
> theory is correct then there is a lot of matter and energy out there
> which we can't see because it is travelling away from us at a speed
> greater than c.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> The more bizarre it gets the cleverer they think they are in accepting
> >> it, or as they would say "understanding it".
> >
> >Once the postulates of a theory are put to the test and confirmed then
> >the rest of the predictions follow.
>
> Let us take the second postulate/source independence. There was no
> experimental evidence for it in 1905 when Einstein produced his theory.
> Ritz was too good a scientist to waste his time if there were. It was a
> belief which came from belief in the ether. Critics were silenced some
> years later by DeSitter's observation of Double Stars.
> That evidence was reviewed by J. G. Fox in 1965 and found to be
> seriously flawed. I make that 260 years of belief without justification.
> I asked in this NG for the best experimental evidence for source
> independence. I was told of experiments by Alvager et al in the mid
> 1960's. This consisted of hitting a fixed Beryllium target with high
> energy particles and measuring the speed of the gamma photons given off.
> Result showed that the speed was c relative to the target which proves
> nothing. No they say, the photons did not come from the target, a
> neutral pi-mesons was generated travelling at nearly c - this was the
> source not the fixed beryllium target - maybe. Note that if a pi-meson
> 'exists' it exists for only 8.4 x 10^-17 s and there were according to
> one critic other mechanisms which could have produced the photons and
> parts of the apparatus which were not explained.
>
> >There has never been an experiment
> >done to date which is inconsistent with SR. All experiments done to
> >date are consistend with SR. That is how physics is done - Take
> >postulates - design experiments to test them - compare experimental
> >results with predictions.
>
> "I would like to challenge two statements made by Allen D. Allen
> (November, page 90) in his reply to Wallace Kantor on the question of
> experimental relativity. Allen states "But Kantor is incorrect in
> claiming that there is a reliable experiment that refutes special
> relativity." With regard to this statement the 1961 interplanetary radar
> contact with Venus presented the first opportunity to overcome
> technological limitations and perform direct experiments of Einstein's
> second postulate of a constant light speed of c in space. When the radar
> calculations were based on the postulate, the observed-computed
> residuals ranged to over 3 milliseconds of the expected error of 10
> microseconds from the best fit the Lincoln Lab could generate, a
> variation range of over 30,000%. An analysis of the data showed a
> component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean sense". Bryan G.
> Wallace
>
>
> "Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether.
> The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it
> and its velocity can only be effected by the source if the movement of
> the source causes movement of the medium. Aether drag experiments,
> passing light close to heavy rotating flywheels has shown that they had
> no effect on the light passing close to them hence the speed of light
> cannot be effected by the speed of the source.
>
> Although the speed of light might be expected to vary with the speed
> of the observer Michelson and Morley had shown that not to be the case
> so it is a strange but indisputable fact that the velocity of light is
> constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer."
> "The Evolution of Physics" Infeld/Einstein
>
> That then is Einstein's own justification of the second postulate. Later
> in the book he gets philosophical and asks what we mean when we say
> something 'exists' and suggests that something which is undetectable
> cannot be said to 'exist' in the scientific sense but that is false
> logic. It is only our speed relative to the ether which is undetectable.
> He has used the existence of the aether as a justification for assuming
> source independence therefore an experiment which shows source
> independence shows that justification is valid and shows the presence of
> the ether.
>
>
> > It is impossible for a posulate to be proven
> >correct. All that can be done is what is accesible to experimentation
> >and that is to do an experiment and determine if the results are
> >consistent with predictions based on the postulates.
>
> I covered this above.
>
> >
> >> They are like those
> >> religious fundamentalists who think there is virtue in faith and that
> >> the more unbelievable something is, i.e. the harder something is to
> >> believe, the greater is the virtue in believing in it.
> >
> >Hardly. I've never met a physicist in my entire life who accepted
> >relativity because it sounded fun or strange.
>
> It is a catch 22 situation. All physicists believe in relativity (or say
> they do) because they wouldn't have got to become physicists if they
> didn't. It goes like this "If you don't accept relativity it is because
> you don't understand it, If you are too stupid to understand it you
> should look for another career". The option is thus ruled out that
> someone might understand relativity and doubt it.
>
> >In fact a physicists
> >isn't worth his salt if they haven't tried to think of ways to do an
> >experiment which would prove SR wrong.
>
> The fact that he tried would be injurious to his career.
>
> > All of them have at one time or
> >another tried to think of an experiment which would produce a paradox.
> >They accept it because it is consistent with experiemental results.
>
> See above. Have a word with Henri - he is a bit too dogmatic but can't
> be dismissed and there are other groups working along the same lines.
>
> Remember that relativity is based on source independence which was a
> belief based on the ether for 200 years, supported for a further 60
> years by DeSitter before his evidence was looked at critically. You
> might question why you had the impression that the second postulate
> follows from MMX when it doesn't. Why you have never heard of Ritz and
> don't know what his theory says. I would suggest that you have been
> manipulated and been led carefully down the path. Given the feeling that
> you are one of a special few who 'understand' relativity and not one of
> the 'stupid' who don't 'understand' it. You owe it to yourself to take
> off the blinkers and get your 'open mind' back. To look in the corners
> and under the carpet of knowledge to see if what you think is correct
> actually stands up.
> --
> John Kennaugh
> "Conformity may even bring you a university chair, but all advance comes
> from non conformity. If there had been no troublemakers, no dissenters,
> we should still be living in caves" - A J P Taylor Historian.

Quantcast