Re: A little challenge for relativists.

John Kennaugh:
>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.

Then why do you go out of your to avoid the history and underlying
natural philosophy of relativity?

>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.

Since you can't ``do enough of the maths'' to understand relativity,
(despite its simplicity), your claim is inconsistent.

>OTOH the maths is the only thing which interests you.

That's pretty funny. As I'm an experimentalist, I probably cause
mathematicians to cringe. The math I post is more or less the basic
stuff every physicist is expected to know and understand, not anything
esoteric. It's not much different than F = ma as far as the difficulty
of seeing the physics - assuming one actually wants to know.

>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.

If you were interested in studying the history and natural philosophy of
relativity, a good place to start would be correcting your misconceptions.

>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.

Galois was 20 years old when he died. Articles he submitted for
publication were lost or suffered other misfortunes. Yet, galois
theory is an important branch of mathematics. Your excuse is bull***.

>I do not believes that today's physics was preordained.

Naturally - physicists might have followed the wrong course by
adopting the point of view you suggest. However, physicists know
more physics than you and didnt do that.

[...]
>
>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.

You are free to pursue any alternative you wish. If you had the
courage to pursue your conviction, you would realize why you are
wrong once you understood enough physics to make the attempt.

>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.

Which embarrassment is that? Modern physics explains nature better
than any previous theories have ever explained nature. The only
embarrassment here is your inability to recognize when you dont
know enough about a subject to say something intelligent. You're
just like every other instant expert who believes his opinion is
the only qualification required to demand being taken seriously.
Do yourself a favor. Become a politician.

>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.

Knowledge is being aware of the mistakes others have already made
and understanding why thier mistakes were mistakes. However, like
every other instant expert, you've discovered that acquiring
knowledge is a lot more work than your opinion is worth and would
rather remain deluded.


[...]
>If light is source independent then what physical process makes it so?

If a line is 1 meter long, independent of what angle you rotate it,
what physical process makes it so? The answer to both questions is
exactly te same.

>A true physicist may say "I don't know and that concerns me" a

A ``true physicist'' knows the answer given by the theories and
is only concerned if that answer bothers him. No physicist is
bothered by the fact that _you_ don't understand the physics behind
the theory or that your lack of understanding bothers you just because
you want to blame your misconceptions about physics on the physical
theories you don't understand.

>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.

No, but is likely that you'll say that in order to maintain your
delusion of expertise without having to expend the effort required
to become an expert.

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

Basically, I suggest that you prove your assertion by showing you can
design a real experiment to illustrate what you call physics better than I
can design a real experiment to illustrate what you call ``maths.'' We can
see who has a better grasp of the underlying physics. I'm quite certain
that my ``maths'' will show up in the outcome of a real experiment better
than your ``physics'' will.

.

Quantcast