Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!


<surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1132160367.717418.178660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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.

"Common" sense is all to often common nonsense. Copernicus
showed that. Almost every scientific breakthrough is the result of
the individual departing from "common" sense. Relativity is common nonsense.
Only a fuckwit would claim the velocity of light is defined as the Hobbit's
"There and Back Again".

>> 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

Einstein was a fuckwit who claimed
2AB/(t/A-tA) = c
AB +BA = x + (-x) = 0
Hence c = 0.
That's a sure way to get hopelessly confused about physics.
Absolute space is nonsense too.
Androcles.


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.
>


.