Re: if c is constant why redshifts?

Bilge wrote:
> EL:
> >[Arthur Dent wrote]
> >> The lightspeed may be constant, but the energy per photon is not.
> >>
> >> Now that is denying a definition.
> >>
> >> AD.
> >[EL]
> >You are correct, but I was raising a different question.
> >On what is basis was the assumption that the speed of light is constant
> >in all inertial frames in vacuum?
>
> (1) The postulate regarding the ``speed of light'' is irrelevant
> to relativity. The first postulate is sufficient to derive
> special relativity with galilean relativity as a limiting
> case, c->\infinity.
>
> (2) The justifications for assuming that c = the speed of light
> are (among others):
>
> (a) Experimental support for maxwell's equations,
> (b) Charge conservation,
> (c) Experimental support for qed,
>
> >I am asking about the reasoning behind the postulate for a very
> >specific reason.
> >Is there any other reason else than _Guessing_ an explanation for the
> >MMx by an unjustified dogma?
>
> Einstein postulated it because, when combined with the
> first postulate, maxwell's equations are free of the ether dogma
> and easy to understand. There was no guessing involved. Anyone
> who reads and understands einstein's original paper will realize
> that. Moreover, even if it _were_ a guess, why is that relevant?
> Does guessing the correct answer render the answer incorrect?
>
> >I am not arguing the obvious constancy of any wave's speed in any
> >homogenous and isotropic medium.
>
> You ought to, since the waves in any homogeneous and isotropic
> medium only have a constant velocity as an approximation.
>
> >I am arguing against the irrelevance of the observer's speed relative
> >to the source when the speed of light is _c_ relative to the source.
> >Is it a forced yet falsifiable postulate or is it a natural phenomenon?
>
> Do you believe that physics is the same here as across the street?
> Do you place any value on experiments being repeatable? If you think
> both of those assumptions are reasonable, then you've already accepted
> what is necessary to derive galilean and special relativity. Galilean
> relativity is ruled out by the fact that we observe the masses of
> atoms and nuclei to be less than the constituents. The only remaining
> question is whether or not the photon is massless. If it is, then
> the speed of light is constant.
[EL]
Now that was more like you Bilge, thank you.
However, your reply was still not focussed enough as the relevant part
was extremely short and disoriented.
You said: "when combined with the first postulate, maxwell's equations
are free of the ether dogma".
Yet you know that stating such a statement does not simply make it so.
Not through empiricism, because I seek no proof of being right or wrong
as much as seeking the justification.
Maxwell founded the notion of constancy as characteristics of vacuum
(Aether).
Einstein avoided taking it further than being a postulate or a strong
assumption.
I do not even endorse the idea of the classical Aether, which was
empirically disproved.
I am exposing the fact that Einstein must have believed in Aether, at
least while building his SR with Lorentz and Minkowski. The corpuscular
model of light supports a variant velocity model for light propagation,
while constancy is deeply founded on the characteristics of media as
can be seen in quartz, silica and water.
You say that it is irrelevant, but I think that irrelevancy itself is
irrelevant to whether the constancy of the speed of light waves in
media is media dependent hence Aether must be at the foundation of the
concept.
I take this logical step further to say that I do not mind a model to
get rid of Aether but with one condition for consistency, which is to
accept the variance of the speed of light when the medium is absent to
dictate how such propagation should proceed.
Then I take it further to ask for the reason behind assuming that the
observer while moving relative to the source, which is the centre of
the expanding radius of light propagation, will experience a constant
phase speed of light wave-front even though it is geometrically obvious
that that is not the case.
In fact, the variance of the relative velocity between the observer and
the phase speed of lights wave-front is the only remaining reason for a
frequency shift; which is precisely what the OP was asking.

Kind regards.

EL

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: if c is constant why redshifts?
    ... >> The lightspeed may be constant, but the energy per photon is not. ... The postulate regarding the ``speed of light'' is irrelevant ... special relativity with galilean relativity as a limiting ... >Is there any other reason else than _Guessing_ an explanation for the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: FAQ - (the heretics version)
    ... Some would claim that source independence requires it to be an aether ... Since special relativity does explain what you think it does not, ... >no attempt to provide a reason why. ... Since special relativity is a perfectly good theory even if light does ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Tom Roberts, M-Max, Hobba
    ... >> A Physicist's Derivation of Special Relativity ... >> THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE ... > So there is no real need to assert Euclid's axioms of ... As far as aether goes, though, it seems some part of spacetime is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dirac and the aether postulate
    ... one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out ... >>> subject to quantum mechanics and conformable to relativity, ... > I see that Chris Hilman, continues to claim that 'Albert Einstein, ... > the postulate of an aether of any form. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... you accept "no aether" the decision to go with Einstein makes absolutely ... Physics ... impression that the evidence for relativity is stronger than it actually ... Relativity - light leaves the source at different speeds relative to the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)