Re: A little challenge for relativists.

Harry wrote: 

"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j+MAbNAE8IdDFwZ3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Harry wrote:
>
>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:o5$yqhSPc7cDFwh8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> shuba wrote:
>> >John Kennaugh wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am NOT writing the following for Shuba's benefit because I am sure
he
>> >> won't bother to read it but just in case anyone else mistakes the
chunk
>> >> of maths he referred to as showing anything relevant I thought I
would 
>> >> explain what is going on. The reference Scuba quotes is section 10.8
>of:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
>> >
>> >For the record, the educator being bashed in this thread by John
>> >Kennaugh and Harald Van Lintel is a David Morin of Harvard
>> >University.
>>
>> I am not 'bashing' anyone. At your request I have studied the
>> mathematics you asked me to study and found that it does not achieve
>> what is sets out to achieve and have taken the trouble to explain to
you 
>> why that is.
>
>Are you sure that the mathematics in that course sets out to achieve what
>Tim Shuba suggested?
>I think that Shuba lured you into a debate that is based on a
>misunderstanding. Look again! The course does *not* claim that from the
PoR 
>alone follows that light speed is source independent.
>
>Note: I hope that you *do* agree that, together with the PoR:
>- IF there is a limit speed

What do you mean by a 'limit speed'

Speed V in that document.

The equation (10.67) where the author defines V is not justified in any way by him. It seems to be a case of
"I am defining V in this way because it gives the answer I want. If I define it this way it gives A = gamma* where gamma* is the same as gamma apart from V is instead of c"

>AND
>- IF the speed of light equals that limit speed,
> that THEN the speed of light must be independent of the source.

If one assumes source independence one gets A = gamma conversely if A = gamma it implies source independence simply because there is only one combination which works. i.e. if A implies B then generally B may imply A, or B or C...... In this case we know that there are no additional degrees of freedom and A uniquely implies B so B uniquely implies A (see previous post).

Clearly if there was no such thing as light but there was 'something' whose speed V is constant and independent of the speed of its source then of course we can show that A = gamma* conversely if we know A = gamma* we can show that 'something' is source independent.

If we start by defining A = gamma* (as the author of the maths does) we have assumed that 'something' is source independent but A cannot have two different values so only one thing could be source independent i.e. if there is such a thing as invariant speed there can only be one.

Maybe I have missed something?

The problem is that there is no obvious reason why there should be an invariant speed in nature such an idea comes from relativity.

A far more important question is what physical process could result in source independence? In relativity maths each observer is given his own personal ether i.e. an environment where the speed of light is every which way = c. It is called the observers frame of reference. That is maths, the FoR is a mathematical abstraction mapping out real physical space - where in that real physical space do we find the physical process the maths is describing? It should really bother a physicist, a mathematician will say 'who cares'.


--
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 Reason why no mass can move at "c"
    ... 70,000 times their rest mass. ... called relativisitc mass, but generally it isn't terribly useful a concept. ... E = gamma m C^2 ... (only for real physicists not for fuckers) ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: OBarr: The illogic of SR experts!
    ... John Kennaugh wrote: ... > One can understand the mathematics of SR to any degree one wishes. ... > light travelled at c relative to the ether but because of interaction ... It is time real physicists stuck their head above the parapet ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)