Re: A little challenge for relativists.

shuba wrote: 
John Kennaugh wrote:

I have now had time to look at the maths
you suggested I studied.


Then why do you need to write obfuscatory crap about light
clocks?


I thought I would try and make it simple for you.

You never addressed the mathematics at all, except to
show that you reject mathematical explanations out of hand.

On the contrary I pointed out the fallacy of your argument. What was derived was obvious anyway and is totally valid for relativity although it only shows that in trying the reconcile the second postulate with the PoR that all possible degrees of freedom are 'used up' in the process and there is not an alternative solution to that supplied by Lorentz.

However it can say nothing whatsoever re Galilean Relativity, because in terms of Galilean Relativity, it introduces an infinity into the maths.

 You
are even so mathematically inept that you object to starting out
with the most general case of a linear transformation.

You can start with the general case if you wish. It does not prove relativity is right it only proves in a complex and roundabout mathematical way that if you assume the second postulate there is but one solution because there are not enough degrees of freedom (no more axioms of physics which can be ditched) to give more than one solution.

You can make it more obscure - look cleverer - if you assume an invariant speed, show that there is the only possible solution and 'Surprise'! that invariant speed turns out to be c. What you cannot do is say that in order to get to Galilean Relativity the speed of light, or the invariant speed must be infinite because that conclusion is simply the infinity which was introduced into the maths.

If you divide by (x-1) the solution is not valid for x = 1. You can 'prove' 1 = 2 that way.

There
simply isn't much hope for a veteran crackpot such as yourself to
learn anything about relativity, since you are still hung up on
source dependence and light clocks after four decades.

I have no quarrel with Einstein. I suspect his theory is wrong but I could be wrong about that. He had a perfect right to take the view that the evidence for the ether, supported as it was by Maxwell's equations, was too strong to reject which is why he did not reject it. He could have done. The no ether source dependent route fitted all the criteria.

He was very impresses by Lorentz's attempt to rescue the ether and Maxwell - He described Lorentz as having made the biggest contribution to electrical theory since Maxwell. His justification for symmetry is well founded and his attempt to try and improve on Lorentz's theory by trying to come up with a symmetrical ether concept was perfectly reasonable. He assumed that every observers relationship w.r.t the ether was equally valid = symmetry. That is exactly what his second postulate describes - every observer is stationary w.r.t the ether. You have to admire his imaginative solution - which any lesser man would have torn up as rubbish.

Unfortunately he failed to come up with a physical interpretation of an ether which everyone can be stationary w.r.t. My problem is not with Albert but with self deceivers like you who swear by Einstein's ether based theory yet sneer at people who suggest there is an ether.

My original challenge was:

"As a modern physicist I completely reject the idea of the ether but I still believe Einstein was justified in assuming source independence because ..........".

Note the question was not why you think you are justified in assuming source independence (that is a separate question) but why you think Einstein was in 1905. The logic is that if you don't believe in the ether then Einstein was not justified in assuming source independence because you reject his reason for assuming it.

--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
.

Relevant Pages