Re: Anyone ever read this Einstein physics book?

Eric Gisse wrote:
>
>If you assume Maxwell's equations are true, you have c being constant
>for source and observer regardless of velocity, given the nature of c.

A K
B-->v

Observers A and B source K.
In A's FoR light leaves K at c relative to K



v<--A v<--K
B

In B's FoR light leaves K at c-v relative to K (which is c relative to
B).

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of K, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v,...." AE 1905 paper.

In relativity the light seen by B is a different frequency to that seen
by A because the same light leaves the same source at two different
speeds giving Doppler shift.

>Maxwell's equations DO NOT ALLOW c to be variable, PERIOD. If you
>accept Maxwell's equations to be true, then c has to be constant.

c in Maxwell's equations is indeed a constant and it has units of speed.
Speed has to be measured relative to something.

Maxwell thought that light travels at c - constant w.r.t the ether.

Ritz's emission theory said that light travels at c - constant w.r.t the
source.

Relativity says that light travels at c - constant w.r.t the observer
observing it.

Maxwell's equations are not violated by any of the above.

You must understand that those who write text books have to get their
text books selected by those who teach the subject. Those who teach have
the job of presenting current theory as best they can to students and
the basic problem is that there is no legitimate route - i.e. one using
only logic and experiment - to get to relativity. The actual route - the
one trod by Einstein - was based upon a belief in the existence of an
ether. The lecturer cannot present that route because current theory
says there is no ether.

In the 1960's text books tried to make out that the 2nd postulate
follows from MMX by using carefully crafted semantics. "MMX showed that
the speed of the observer had no effect on the speed of light" - A smart
student might see through that one.

Later they satisfied themselves by making reference to Maxwell's
equations. This is safe because only 1% of students will have heard of
them and 0.000000% will understand them.

You won't find Ritz mentioned in a text book for two reasons, firstly
because the lecturer does not want to let on that there was an
alternative and secondly having introduced it he would have to explain
why it was abandoned.

You can appreciate the problem better if you remember that the
legitimate intellectual route to relativity involves an assumption of
the ether, the lecturer has to teach that there is no ether and there
existed of a theory (Ritz's) which was tailor made for 'no ether' and
that was abandoned for no better reason than Ritz died in 1909.

People who 'write' text books compile them rather than 'write' them and
when in difficulty they check how another text book has dealt with the
same difficulty. Fashions change. It used to be 'blame it on MMX', then
blame it on Maxwell, now they ignore history altogether and attempt to
show that no other explanation is consistent with the maths.

The average student is very trusting and if you can get him patting
himself on the back at having mastered some of the maths he will move on
from there and come out the other end firmly believing that it had all
been properly explained to him at the beginning.


--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"
    ... it but the speed of the observer would. ... Choice 1 - Assume that there is no ether. ... with relativity it supports relativity while in fact the simplest ... Implication is that two clocks at different latitudes will not keep time. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Michelson and Morley
    ... This was the moving observer. ... and that isn't the way physics went. ... The answer is that physicists had believed in the ether for more than ... Relativity is now a 'principle ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... as would be expected by both relativity and ballistic theory. ... the source whether there is an observer or not. ... It is even more absurd if one tries to deny the existence of the ether. ... A and B coincide it means that it set out at different speeds arrived at ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... as would be expected by both relativity and ballistic theory. ... the source whether there is an observer or not. ... It is even more absurd if one tries to deny the existence of the ether. ... A and B coincide it means that it set out at different speeds arrived at ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... constant w.r.t the source as per Ritz or constant w.r.t the observer observing it as per relativity although how an observer has the power to influence the speed at which light leaves a source over vast distances and back through time no one has yet explained. ... If he ASSUMED light is a wave travelling in the ether THEN and ONLY THEN ... physics trying to work out equations for the conditions which existed ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)