Re: A little challenge for relativists.

shevek wrote:
> John Kennaugh wrote:

[...]

> > They also implied that the speed of light would be dependent upon the
> > speed of the observer - that is what the MMX was all about. If you
> > interpret MMX as showing there to be no ether (which is not what either
> > Lorentz or Einstein did) then you have to decide what it is that ME are
> > physically describing before you can use them again. As I point out,
> > without an ether, ME must be describing light leaving the source at c.
> >
> > The only physical model which will give you source independence is the
> > ether. If the speed of light is not dependent upon the source, either in
> > terms of the physical processes taking place in the source, or simply as
> > a reference point from which a natural progression starts to take place
> > at constant speed - then it must be dependent upon something else and
> > that something else must take charge of it the moment it leaves the
> > source. That 'something else' is called the ether and it has to be
> > physical as it has to take part in a physical process. It requires a
> > physical process which Maxwell's equations may (or may not) model within
> > their sphere of applicability.
>
> I agree - replace the word 'ether' with 'electromagnetic field' and
> you'll get a lot more agreement as well without really changing the
> content.

With an ether model, there is a distinct mechanism to explain why the
speed of light is independent of the source; that's the way fluids
work. Substituting the word "electromagnetic field" for the word
"ether" takes away the physical model which explains source
independence. Aren't you really just saying that an electromagetic
field is responsible for light speed's source independence, but I don't
know why or how?

This thread has been interesting. Bilge asserts that the speed of
light is independent of the source as a function of geometry.
Space-time just works that way; there's no more reason to question it
than you would question why a^2+b^2=c^2 in Euclidean space. Tom
Roberts and Harry indicate that it's experimental evidence that is the
justification for not questioning why or finding a mechanism that
explains light speed's source independence. Others, including you,
seem to lean towards it not being a question that needs to be answered
to validate SR; it is more of a problem for QM and GR. But I find John
Kennaugh's reasoning sound. SR should not be accepted regardless of
the experimental evidence if no mechanism can be posited for why SR
postulates that the speed of light is independent of the source. A
light-wave-carrying medium is the only mechanism or model that anyone
has offered.

Vern

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
    ... >> The belief in source independence which Einstein put into his second ... >> belief in the ether which is itself rejected by his followers. ... >independance" is an inadequate phrasing of the second postulate. ... Lorentz said) that if you assumed the principle of relativity was ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
    ... >>any belief in an ether. ... > independence in his theory because his theory was ether based. ... > assumed source independence in his second postulate. ... > distinguishes Relativity from Ritz/Ballistic theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
    ... nothing else it can be dependent upon. ... The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it ... because the second postulate was based on belief in source independence ... which was and is only justified if you believe in the ether as Einstein ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
    ... > nothing else it can be dependent upon. ... > "Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether. ... > because the second postulate was based on belief in source independence ... > which was and is only justified if you believe in the ether as Einstein ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
    ... >> nothing else it can be dependent upon. ... >> because the second postulate was based on belief in source independence ... >> which was and is only justified if you believe in the ether as Einstein ... If that is the justification of the second ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)