Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!


Harry wrote:
> "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1131661749.939496.19980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > The physical motions of photons in free space
> > are absolutely equal!
> >
> > Yes, let us take a fixed inertial line in free
> > space, and let points A and B be fixed points upon
> > this line. At point A, let there be two objects
> > moving upon this line at two different velocities,
> > positioned such that they will cross point A at the
> > same instant of time. At the instant they cross
> > point A, let them both send a photon towards point B.
> > Both photons will physically reach point B at the
> > same instant of time.
> > (Sub note: Each 'object' that simultaneously met at
> > point A can each actually represent a whole inertial
> > reference frame, in which they are each at rest. And
> > we will let each frame extend to both points A and B
> > and beyond. Thus, each photon emitted by each
> > object are each traveling in their own different inertial
> > reference frame at all times.)
> > Now please note, at any point on this original
> > line, as measured by any object on this line, no
> > matter what velocity any object might be moving on
> > this line, will show that at any meeting of any one
> > of these photons, will instantaneously include the
> > meeting of the other photon. Thus, step by step, at
> > every point, by all observers (by all inertial
> > frames), moving or not moving one way or the other,
> > they will all confirm that these two photons, sent by
> > two differently moving objects, moving in different
> > reference frames, will be physically moving together
> > in an absolute way across the space they are using.
> >
> > Thus, something exists in this space, that
> > controls the rate at which all photons physically
> > move, no matter what their original source might have
> > been, and no matter what reference frame they are in.
>
> Upto here, both Lorentz and Einstein would have agreed.

A photon is a quantum object and nobody knows what it does when it is
not being observed. All we know in SR kinematics is that its measured
speed in an inertial frame in a vacuum is the fixed number c. See
Feynman's QED for more on this.

>
> > This concept is absolute, and it absolutely
> > tells us that there is an absolute reference that
> > controls these physical acts.
>
> This is where Einstein disagreed, but AFAIK he didn't explain his reasoning.

You're right. Einstein would not have agreed to any such thing post his
SR paper.

> Is there someone here who is able to explain Einstein's reasoning on this?

Einstein made it very clear in his essays, even if SR books do not. To
Einstein, such an absolute space (i.e., inertial frame) would imply
that Nature has arbitrarily selected one inertial frame out of an
infinite number of them to be special (i.e., the laws of
electrodynamics are "true" in that frame only because measuring rods
and clocks are undistorted in that frame). Einstein regarded such a
possibility as a violation of his philosophic notion of the harmony of
nature and the egalitarianism of inertial frames (PoR). He also claimed
that nature does not seem to reveal any such frame in practice: Neither
the mechanics of Newton nor any experiment in electrodynamics seems to
reveal that any inertial frame is any different for the invention of
the laws of physics from any other inertial frame. So, to Einstein, at
heart Nature acts to rigorously maintain the PoR and the Light
Principle (locally), but not the dependence of light speed on the
source's motion. I emphasize that when I say "speed," I mean actual
measured speed, not some hypothetical, unmeasurable speed.

>
> > There is no logic that
> > exists that can defeat this concept. LET satisfies
> > this logic, and it is the only presently existing
> > science that accomplishes or satisfies this logic.
> > QED!
> >
> > Now I do not wish to argue this point with one
> > single soul! There is nothing at all to argue.

Of course there wouldn't be to a closed-minded dogmatist.

> > All
> > photons do physically move together, no matter what
> > velocity existed in their original frame of origin,
> > and they cannot do this unless they each are being
> > affected by something common.
> > It is my opinion that all SR experts are insane,
> > because they refuse to consider physical facts.

The Light Principle is a physical fact, as much as anything in physics
can be called a fact. It's the theory one voluntarily gives one's
allegiance to which forces a particuar interpretation of what this fact
means to an individual. This is true for all of us. You chose to bind
your soul to a luminiferous ether concept, so you necessarily get an
ether interpretation of this fact. And to you, no other interpretation
is possible. Above, I presented another interpretation of what Nature
is trying to do. I do not force Nature to satisfy my personal notions
of what is commonsensical. Furthermore, I do not require all
explanations in physics to be mechanical.

>
> As I told you before, a number of respected SR experts *presented* such
> physical facts and argued their logical conclusion to the scientific
> community in highly esteemed journals.
>
> Harald
>
> > To
> > assume that only math facts are important is insane,
> > and I no longer care to talk to SR experts. There is
> > no reason to ever talk to people who are insane, and
> > refuse to consider that a physical reality, and the
> > physical facts of that reality, must be known and
> > understood before any math fact can be considered or
> > used or understood.
> > You SR experts seem to enjoy your stupidity.


This second person script belies your true desire to address these
so-called "insane" SR experts.

> > So
> > be it! But you have all died. You have all died as
> > to things that have intellectual importance! And I
> > no longer care!

Not caring with an exclamation point?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question: Lorenz interpretation of SR v. Einsteins
    ... My understanding of the history of SR is that Lorenz ... > Lorenz treated them as purely a mathematical convenience, while Einstein ... > mechanism that actually follows from classical physics: ... existence of an aether frame and of a slow ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question:Lorentz interpretation of SR vs to Einsteins
    ... My understanding of the history of SR is that Lorenz ... > Lorenz treated them as purely a mathematical convenience, while Einstein ... > mechanism that actually follows from classical physics: ... existence of an aether frame and of a slow ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?
    ... > Einstein never showed why that belief of his was justified. ... > invariant of FoR although its kinetic energy is frame dependent. ... > him as the new mesiah of physics. ... >> word in physics, that they represent Reality. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?
    ... > Einstein never showed why that belief of his was justified. ... > invariant of FoR although its kinetic energy is frame dependent. ... > him as the new mesiah of physics. ... >> word in physics, that they represent Reality. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
    ... >>> Both photons will physically reach point B at the ... >>> we will let each frame extend to both points A and B ... nevertheless I'm pretty sure that Lorentz and Einstein would have ... > the laws of physics from any other inertial frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)