Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 12/12/04
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Gravitational Redshift According to the Ballistic Theory."
- Previous message: Henri Wilson: "Re: Building a Light Clock"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Reply: DavidBowman: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:14:45 GMT
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 03:56:49 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
>
>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:TQLsgAIdP0sBFw9i@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>> In message <YWtsd.59217$K7.39733@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Bill Hobba
>> <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> writes
>> >
>>
>> >> Let us go back a stage.
>> >
>> >That is one of your problems - you always want to examine the issue from
>a
>> >historical perspective rather than look at the facts. The aether assumed
>by
>> >Maxwell has never been detected
>>
>> If a source is surrounded by nothing which can affect the speed of light
>> (no ether) then light speed must be source dependent because there is
>> nothing else it can be dependent upon (causality).
>
>Yes there is - the laws of nature - namely Maxwell's equations. John how
>the hell did you get through you engineering exams?
You must be a person of very low intelligence Hobba.
The constants in Maxwell's equations are measured in the frame of the source.
His value of 'c' obviously refers to either 'light speed wrt the source' or
'light speed wrt an 'absolute medium'..
Maxwell didn't care one way or the other. He didn't have the advantage of our
current knowledge.
>
>Bill
>
>If it is not
>> dependent upon the source then it must be dependent upon something else
>> and that something else must take control from the instance light leaves
>> the source.
>>
>> Suggesting that its speed will be determined by the FoR in which it will
>> be detected is the sort of thing you can assume mathematically but not
>> physically. Einstein's own justification of the second postulate went:
>>
>> "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 1938
>>
>> I can understand why you try to deny the correct historical perspective
>> because the second postulate was based on belief in source independence
>> which was and is only justified if you believe in the ether as Einstein
>> clearly did in the end. If that is the justification of the second
>> postulate, and I have seen no other, then although our speed relative to
>> the ether cannot be detected any experiment showing source independence
>> proves the existence of the ether.
>>
>> If light speed is not dependent upon the source then it must be
>> dependent upon something else and that something else must take control
>> from the instance light leaves the source. That something else must be
>> real, have a physical existence, because it is dealing with real
>> physical energy.
>>
>> I am not keen on the idea of an ether so am not keen on Lorenz's
>> explanation but SR has not an alternative to offer. Having
>> experimentally established the validity of the PoR (MMX et al) it does
>> not seem logical to accept a theory which tries to reconcile it with an
>> irrational belief in source independence which was a hangover from 200
>> years of belief in the ether if you don't believe in the ether and it
>> cannot be justified any other way.
>>
>> --
>> John Kennaugh
>> to email convert the number from hex to decimal
>
HW.
A poster's IQ = (useful content)*(snipping efficiency)/(rant index)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Gravitational Redshift According to the Ballistic Theory."
- Previous message: Henri Wilson: "Re: Building a Light Clock"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Reply: DavidBowman: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|