Re: A little challenge for relativists.

Bilge wrote: 
While I would be happy to explain it to someone who is really interested
in such an answer, neither you nor mr. kennaugh are such persons. You see,
before mr. kennaugh could be interested in such an answer, he would first
have to realize the rest of his post in which he tries to find some
reason to reject relativity, is silly.

My interest is in the history and the underlying natural philosophy of 'relativity' rather than the maths. I can do enough of the maths to satisfy my curiosity but there is no point it taking it further as there is nothing I need it for. OTOH the maths is the only thing which interests you. You and I therefore have very little (zero) common ground on which to have meaningful discussion however I have to correct you inaccurate statement.

I do not reject the Maxwell/Lorentz/Einstein ether theory (commonly referred to as relativity) but I am very reluctant to accept it because it is an ether based theory and I am prejudiced against the concept of the ether. I accept that this is prejudice on my part and that there is a great deal of evidence supporting it.

I would be less reluctant to accept the Maxwell/Lorentz/Einstein ether theory if I was certain that the alternative no ether, source dependent option had been properly evaluated. It appears that it wasn't for no better reason than Ritz's untimely death in 1909 and the fact that physicists generally were more comfortable continuing to believe in the ether which they had believed in for 200 years. I suppose it is human nature.

I do not believes that today's physics was preordained. A very good case existed at the start of the 20th century for taking the no ether Source dependent route suggested by Ritz and I believe that had that happened an entirely different physics would have resulted. I have no doubt that you would predict that Ritz's theory would eventually have hit trouble, however you only have to look at the way physics works these day to realise that once a theory is accepted you do not abandon it just because it hits a problem. You look for a way around the difficulty and modify/ develop the theory. No matter how many problems might be encountered, once having rejected the concept of the ether there seems no reason why anyone would be likely to re-invent it. This means that if and when the Ritz approach hit trouble whichever way it went there would be no route via the ether to converge with the Lorentz/Einstein ether route which is where we are today.

Quite logically therefore the physics we have today is not a unique way of interpreting the universe but a way which is dependent upon the route chosen a century ago. A different way of interpreting the universe must be possible and I for one would be interested to know that alternative.

As you have no interest in the real history and perceive it only from the spin version selected to cause least embarrassment to those trying to present theory, you will not have the faintest idea what I am talking about. Your reluctance to even contemplate the merest possibility that physics may have taken a wrong turning mirrors the reluctance of those a century ago who would rather carry on believing in the ether despite the clear difficulties experimental evidence had thrown up.

The irony is that while physic followed the ether route, today's physicist have gone off the idea of the ether and if they are right and there really is no ether then physics definitely took the wrong route.

If light is source independent then what physical process makes it so?
A true physicist may say "I don't know and that concerns me" a mathematician will say "I don't care" or quite likely in this daft metaphysical world he might say - "It is a property of the observer's FoR" oblivious of the fact that he is only describing the maths not the physics.

Basically bilge I suggest you forget physics and stick to the maths.

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... >>| 1/ Light is a wave travelling in the ether its speed is controlled by ... >>| the assumption at the heart of relativity is justified. ... > in physics. ... > distortion of A's measurements due to his motion relative to the ether ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Winds of change
    ... >>OTOH if there is no ether a field is metaphysical. ... >>that a photon must contain charge. ... interpretation is unnecessary in physics theories. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... You may wish to divorce physical process from the mathematics in order to preserve your belief system but I see no evidence that Einstein did. ... If you decide there is no ether then you have ... The only physical model which will give you source independence is the ... distance were axioms of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The biggest WHAT IF in scientific history.
    ... Physics was sailing in calm water, with the pieces falling nicely into place and then along comes Michelson and Morley to throw a spanner in the works. ... WHAT IF at that point in history physicists had bit the bullet and accepted that their theory was wrong, that there was no ether, and moved on. ... Lorentz did not accept the CORRECT DECISION that there was no ether and came up with a fix. ... If modern physics is correct then one might assume that at some point that route would have failed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... be of the opinion that Einstein came up with a clever theory which got rid of the ether. ... The attitude prevalent today is that the main problem in theoretical physics is to hit upon the right mathematical formalism, and that physical interpretation will follow as a simple - perhaps even unnecessary - adjunct. ... They suggest that again and again physicists have from diverse viewpoints hit upon similar-looking mathematics, and have agreed about formulas, but have differed, sometimes bitterly and permanently, on the physical interpretation needed to give operational meaning to the formulas. ... Whatever takes place in a Black Box may be a mystery, you may not wish to enquire as to the nature of that mystery but if the O/P is not directly related to the Input then a physical process has taken place. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)