Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!


harry wrote:
> surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
....
>
> > Commonsense has been shown to be a detriment to understanding physics
> > in the first place. There is extensive liturature on this.
>
> I don't need to read literature about other people's experience to know
> my own.

Common sense does not refer to the opinions of any one person. Common
sense is the sense common to most people in a given population. There
is no such thing as a personal common sense.

> I only really understand SRT since the time that I could make
> sense of it (which was about two or three years ago).

And I believe that your initial inability to "understand" or "make
sense of" relativity was almost certainly SOLELY due to the
attrociously bad way that relativity is taught in most popular or
textbooks accounts of it. Adding to that stumbling stone to
apprehension is the fact that Newtonian mechanics (assuming that you
even studied it) is taught so badly in most cases. One never seems to
learn in such a presentation what is even meant by a "law of physics"
and a Galilean transformation of coordinates and what importance they
have in the evolution of physical concepts. Lacking this foundational
material to Einstein's relativity is a sure way to get hopelessly
confused about relativity itself and what problems that research
program was trying to solve. Einstein wasn't the only prominent
relativist. Galileo and Mach were two others worth noting. The three of
these physicsts asked themsleves this profound question: To what degree
can the laws of physics be developed without the use of references to
absolute spaces of either velocity or acceleration?

The physical concepts that are taught in textbooks never just came from
nowhere or are introduced frivolously. They evolved slowly since the
time of Galileo as a result of the need of particular creative
physicists in their attempts to invent successful theories in terms of
formal points of view they preferred themselves. This principle is true
both for relativity and for quantum mechanics.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How can I become an expert anti-relativist?
    ... > doesn't accept relativity most likely has not properly understood it. ... > common man: i) Sniff out what the common consensus regarding a particular ... > However, the singularity theorems, as any true mathematical theorem, are ... far enough back in time before the singularity is reached some new physics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... equivalence) is held by both Galileo and Einstein (and modern ... the laws of physics that the principle of relativity applies to. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Rigorous definition of Plancks Constant
    ... Let Mthe mass of the electron. ... Two bodies interact about a common point in a common time. ... define a fine structure constant for the proton ... and this time please promise that you'll do physics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Rigorous definition of Plancks Constant
    ... Consider a system composed of one electron and one proton. ... Let Mthe mass of the electron. ... Two bodies interact about a common point in a common time. ... and this time please promise that you'll do physics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How do you see the unity of all Physical Laws ?
    ... Two-body physics deals with how two bodies interact. ... Two bodies interact about a common point in a common time, ... Time is a cycle ratio. ... Tangents are dimensionless functions of interaction and common time. ...
    (sci.physics)