Re: A little challenge for relativists.

Joe Fischer wrote: 
On Thu, John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote: 
On Tue, John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Einstein did no(t)? assume 'no ether' he followed on from Lorentz. 

          You have some good reasoning today, but because you do not
have correct facts, your conclusions and assumptions are diametrically
opposite from what actually happened.

There was
a considerable amount of convincing evidence of the wave-like properties
of light and there was the pure elegance of Maxwell's work so it was not
unreasonable to assumed that Maxwell's ether theory was still correct
but that a modification is required to explain the MMX. What today we
would describe as coming up with a suitable fix. The fix comprises of
assuming the ether has additional properties. This line was followed
first by Lorentz and then by Einstein.


        This is total nonsense, unless all the published papers were fake.

        In almost every paper between 1901 and 1914, Einstein stated
that an ether is not needed, and suggested nature does not have fat
in the form of unneeded entities.


I have provided quotes to make my case. If you have quotes to
substantiate your claim then quote them. Last time you made such a claim
I recall you failed to come up with any. You sent me to three totally
irrelevant web sites.


         I don't think you are insincere, but if you have wasted your time
and that of others posting so many articles which seem to be based on
nothing but the 1920 lecture before a general audience at a school,

WITHOUT READING THE FOLLOWING, relativity paper #1

[QUOTE]
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth
relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather
that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called
the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate,
which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in
empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the
electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction
of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed
will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a
velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place."
[UNQUOTE]

It is from his SR paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" A.E June 30, 1905 which I would hope that anyone interested in relativity will have a copy of. I have quoted and discussed the passage you quote 5 times this year already - the latest in this very thread on 4th Nov in a post replying to Tom Roberts I wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
One has to study the following with care to get the actual meaning:

"The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place".

The key word here is 'inasmuch' - He is not saying the ether is unnecessary he is saying that an ether which implies an 'absolutely stationary space' is unnecessary. One can be sure of this interpretation because he clarifies it in his 1920 lecture.

----------------------------------------------------------

Sorry you will have to try again to find something which justifies your claim. I would agree that this statement may have led to the misconception but Albert did not always choose his words with precision. His first attempt to define his second postulate is open to a least 3 interpretations and you have to await his second version later in the paper to get clarification. We are perhaps reading it without ambience of the time.

then you should be ashamed of yourself, young man,

Hardly young my friend - I can remember the death of Albert Einstein being in all the papers. Now be a good lad and go and look for a relevant quote or accept that you were mistaken.

--
John Kennaugh
'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' Bertrand Russell.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Difference between predictions of SR and LET - perhaps!
    ... formal statements of 1920 about the underlying physics. ... exists an ether. ... The ether of electrodynamics now no longer had any special or ... The Origin of Gravity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: 2005 is Einstein Year
    ... what 'no ether' means in relation to Maxwell's equations. ... In Maxwell's world an electric field represented a stress in the ether. ... >>That says that the second postulate of relativity is apparently ... "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
    ... > belief in the ether which is itself rejected by his followers. ... The second postulate is in no way a direct result in ... It took a while for physicists to abandon ... consistent with predictions based on the postulates. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: FAQ - (the heretics version)
    ... Modern rejection of the ether could be wrong of course in which case sticking with the ether route may have been right but Einstein's contribution was only a mathematical trick to take Lorentz's theory and select the observer's FoR as the ether frame. ... "The Einstein theory assumes the universal validity of the Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics: and to make them comply with the principle of relativity, it introduces the Lorentz transformation: it is then found that its results are consistent with all observations made to the present time." ... My argument is the same in simple terms - the choice was to stick with Maxwell's ether and explain why every observer appears to be stationary w.r.t the ether - which results in drastically changing the classical concepts of space time and mass as per Lorentz/Einstein. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: FAQ - (the heretics version)
    ... Modern rejection of the ether could be wrong of course in which case ... Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics: and to make them comply with the ... classical concepts of space time and mass as per Lorentz/Einstein. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast