Re: Why
- From: John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:11:54 +0100
Henri Wilson writes
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 20:02:39 +0100, John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henri Wilson writesOn Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:07:19 +0100, John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bilge writesJohn Kennaugh:John, ask Bilgey the following questions:
How can the light emitted by a remote star immediately find itself travelling at c wrt every other object in the universe?
Does it somehow possess an infinite number of speeds?
Standard answer:
'Relativity is a principle theory and as such does not attempt to answer those sorts of questions.'
As far as I can see from Einstein's own definition of a 'principle theory'
"The elements which form their bases and starting-point are not hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones, general characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to mathematically formulated criteria which these separate processes or the theoretical representations of them have to satisfy. They employ the analytic, not the synthetic, method." AE
It makes relativity a mathematical model. No! says Bilgey it is a physical theory. He is yet to explain how Einstein's own definition differs significantly from that of a mathematical model.
"The advantages of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability, and clearness, those of the principle theory are logical perfection and security of the foundations." AE
Implying that the disadvantages of a principle theory are that it lacks the advantages of a constructive theory i.e. instead of completeness, adaptability, and clearness a principle theory is incomplete, inflexible, and vague. I am also at a loss as to the 'security of the foundations' of relativity. It is based on a belief in source independence which comes from belief in ether theory. Far from being 'secure' no one these days believes in what it is founded on.
Very true John.
I still think we should not completely rule out the possibility that 'local EM FoRs' exist around very large masses. From studying variable star brightness curves, there is reason to believe that thermal velocities of source molecules is somehow dampened before light leaves the vicinity of a star. That could be put down simply to a gaseous cloud surrounding the star or it could be due to a 'local EM speed reference'. It is not out of the question that such a field might be associated with gravity. Any thoughts?
Current theory sucks - so we shouldn't rule out any possibility. My own thinking is that c is the natural speed of photons relative to matter. If photons 'encounter' matter at a speed other than c interaction will take place to restore the relationship. I think the concept of extinction assumes that light is absorbed and re emitted by matter (not sure maybe you know). I think that an 'encounter' may simply involve passing through the action at a distance field of influence of matter. The stronger the field and the shorter the distance a photon would need to travel before its speed became c relative to the source of that field. While it seems logical that an electrostatic field and an electromagnetic field would have an effect (Maxwell's equations must mean something) gravity is a difficult one but I am inclined to the view that everything ultimately comes down to charges in some way. A charge gives rise to an electrostatic field. A moving charge to a magnetic field. Moving charges involve energy. Energy = mass. Mass produces gravity. I would guess that a gravity field would also return the photons speed to be c relative to the mass producing the gravity but gravity is a much weaker force so to have an effect you either need a strong gravity field or to travel under its influence for a long way. Close into the sun would be a strong gravity field and so all light leaving the sun would have speed c relative to the sun as a whole with the variation due to thermal and due to rotation being ironed out.
-- John Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal .
- References:
- Prev by Date: johnreed take 12
- Next by Date: Re: New improved facts part 3v031
- Previous by thread: Re: Why
- Next by thread: Re: Relativity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
