Re: SR theory is simplistic

bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:+MWdbjMFY4yFFw5d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Uv1njHCEbIxFFwHd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Oh dear this is getting incredibly long and I have work I must get on
with. I only have time to pick out a few points. Apologies re any snips
you object to.

No objections. It needed trimming.


But it seems like the photon is neither 'a wave' nor 'a particle' but
has characteristics analogous to each(just as a mule is neither a horse
nor a donkey and the bonds between carbon atoms in benzine are neither
single nor double bonds).

There are many things in life that do NOT fit into the 'either a or b'.
What makes you think a photon must conform to YOUR idea that it must be
either a particle or a wave?

I can accept that we may not yet have a clear understanding. I don't
accept that nature doesn't know what light is, that it is confused as to
whether it is a wave or particles nor that we are incapable of
understanding nature.

I agree, but 'physical metaphors' may not be sufficient. Math may be the
ONLY language that can describe some things (for example, the photon)
correctly.

It requires the right person at the right time
with the right imagination but to encourage that we should stop teaching
the wave particle duality as if it was satisfactory science.

Teaching 'our best understanding'(obu) is the best way to spark curiosity and
perhaps inspire someone to improve upon 'obu' BECAUSE everyone who encounters
'obu' feels 'a frustrating lack of solidity' to the idea.

To use you
analogy we know precisely what a mule is because we understand the
underlying science.

You are sure of that? I am not. WHY are mules and gennies unable to
reproduce? We know it is a fact but not why. But lets skip that branch.

Treating light as both a wave and a particle was a
temporary 'fudge' something left for future physicists to resolve.

I disagree. It may well be that there will NEVER be a better way of
describing the photon in any language besides math.

I see too many occurrences where 'may well be' is replaced with 'is' as
an article of faith. What Dr Scott Murray describes as the doctrine of
the improper question.
" ... [we are told that] 'Microphysical entities are hazy, and one
should not ask old-fashioned questions about them'. - Personally I am
very suspicious indeed of this doctrine. It seems to be just a little
too flexible in its application to be intellectually honest".


Future generations inheriting that fudge have treated it as a problem
'resolved' by their predecessors.

Some words or phrases do not translate well from one language to another.

"[math]Photon" may be one such 'idea'.

However, I don't think that attempts to do so will ever be abandoned.

----------------
[snip]

There is no question that he 'likes' the idea of some kind of media that
carries em radiation, but the 'aether' he refers to in 1938 is NOT the
'aether' that was envisioned by MM and others. I 'like' the idea of a
medium too but don't see any support for it.

If we assume an aether, we must propose properties for it. Those
properties MUST be consistent with all observations.

It turns out that an aether with properties consistent with all
observations would be difficult to formulate. It would be inconsistant
with our idea of 'how a medium should work'.

Since it is unnecessary, why not dispense with it entirely?

So why not forget physics i.e. the physical, and turn 'physics' into a
branch of mathematics.

Because mathematics does not care if the results correspond to
experimental data. It is sufficient for math that it be self consistent.
Physics, on the other hand, must ALSO be consistent with reality.


The pressure law works, why bother to explain gas
in terms of molecules and temperature in terms of the speed of
molecules. If the earth was a planet shrouded with cloud we could
probably work out a mathematical model for the tides. If mathematical
modelling is all that physics requires there would be no need to explain
why the tide goes in and out. We can dispense with hypothesis that there
might be a moon going around the earth.

But even if we couldn't see the moon from the earths surface, it would be
there and visible once we climbed above the clouds and its influence would
be felt.

Until we climb above the clouds, however, it might be difficult
to know if 'the moon' is larger and further away or closer and smaller (or
even something much smaller, within the earth, shifting around). They
would all give the same results.

My point is that what you were in effect saying is that if you have the
maths you don't need to worry about what it is physically describing so
you can forget the aether. By that same argument you wouldn't bother to
look for a cause or physical process because you can do the maths
without it.
That is a very 'convenient' argument for relativity because physics has
painted itself into a corner and accepted a theory, and based 100 years
of physics on it, which ether has a totally impossible (magic!)
causality or is the result of Lorentz's aether - a VERY unfashionable
idea. To avoid embarrassment it is an article of faith that relativity
can only be described in the language of mathematics. Relativity is of
course a 'principle theory' the definition of which appears to me to be
indistinguishable from a mathematical model. I would want to know why
the tides go up and down and I want to know the physical process which
makes light travel at c in the observers FoR if in fact it does. It is
certainly not the FoR which brings this about. A FoR is a mathematical
abstraction and cannot effect anything physical - that does not prevent
relativists talking as if it can. One asks a question 'why' and one gets
the answer 'because it is in a different FoR'. If I ask how the FoR
brings about the difference they find the question incomprehensible.

....
Not exactly. SR has some higher order effects that Newtonian physics do
not include.

You are not paying attention. Relativistic Transverse Doppler is a
second order effect. It is a shift in frequency by a factor of gamma
because of time dilation. Ballistic theory, Newtonian mechanics also
predicts a Doppler shift of gamma but it has absolutely nothing to do
with time dilation.

I get nu'(doppler shift) = nu cos(phi) v (c/(c^2-v^2)) (relativistic)

at 90 degrees, shift is zero, no matter what v is.

OK possibly a little confusion. In Einstein's 'Doppler' equation he
derived the *total* change of frequency due to v. Frequency is the
inverse of time so time dilation causes a reduction in frequency. His
equation therefore includes a time dilation term. I would agree that
maybe that term is not caused by Doppler shift as I understand Doppler
shift but it did appear in Einstein's equation and is generally referred
to a orthagonal, or transverse Doppler shift. The frequency difference
at 90deg. I rather assumed you had studied the link you gave me.

Newton, on the other hand, has those wave fronts emitted, when the source was
at 90 degrees, arriving from a point 'down the path' with a shift downward in
frequency.

Which is exactly the same shift as expected from time dilation. Taking
into account aberration both theories predict the same frequency and the
same apparent direction of a light ray emitted when the source is at
90deg. They also agree on the point of zero frequency shift. SR says it
is when the forward component of Doppler is equal and opposite to the
time dilation effect. Ballistic theory that it is the point at which
light must be emitted such that the source arrives at the 90deg point at
the same time as the light reaches the observer. Both points are the
same.


[snip]

A X
B->v

Relativity - light leaves the source at different speeds relative to
the source in the different FoR of A and B arriving at A at c relative
to A and arriving at B at c relative to B.

NO NO NO. In relativity, light NEVER leaves the source at different
speeds relative to the source FoR and it never arrives at the
destination at a speed different from c in the destinations FoR. This
makes absorbtion and emission symetrical in Feynman diagrams. ANYTHING
else would break the symetry.

Sorry mate but what you say is completely consistent with my statement.
I'll take you through it:

In relativity, light NEVER leaves the source at different speeds
relative to the source FoR

I didn't say it did. In the source FoR which is also A's FoR light
leaves the source at c relative to the source because that is c relative
to A's FoR which is also the sources FoR.

it never arrives at the destination at a
speed different from c in the destinations FoR.

Again I didn't say it did. In B's FoR, the destination FoR it leaves the
source at c-v relative to the source because that is c in B's FoR the
destination FoR. I might add that B sees light hitting A at c-v relative
to A.

But then you have the 'magic' of the observer 'controlling' the speed of
the photon AT THE OTHER END(the source).

That is my point but that is what relativity says. B's FoR extends all
the way to the source and beyond. The source exists in B's FoR. Light
travels at c everywhere in B's FoR so it leaves the source at c-v
relative to the source in B's FoR.

Much 'simpler' if B says 'I measured it as moving at c' when it arrived
here and 'I know that A measured it as moving at c' when it left the
source at his end. Since he is moving wrt me, I know that our clocks are
not in sync.

It does not change anything I have said nor does it remove the need for
magic. It is simply saying 'lets not think about it'. If there is no
aether relativity requires that the speed at which light leaves the
source is determined by the observer. The second postulate says

"The speed of light is constant w.r.t the observer observing it"

The alternative is Lorentz's theory which says that the speed of light
is actually c relative to the aether and that A and B's different speeds
through the aether distort A and B's measurements in different ways thus
it *appears* to them that light is leaving the source at different
speeds relative to the source because that is what their distorted
measurement tells them. Both calculate the speed of light as being c
when clearly the same light cannot be travelling through the same bit of
space at c relative to both if they are in relative motion.

Strictly speaking SR is silent on the subject of what it is describing.
The improper question bans such questions. I am told that "relativity is
a principle theory and does not attempt to answer those sorts of
question". If however you take SR and take with it the widely held
assumption that there is no aether then there is physically nothing
which can distort their measurements. A's measurements are undistorted
and so are B's. So now the light does actually have to leave the source
at different speeds relative to the source, not merely appear to and the
event causing it does actually have to take place at different times not
merely appear to.

The only theoretical structure consistent with relativity goes like
this. If two observers move relative to each other then they exist in
parallel universes. In A's universe some physical entity causes all
light to travels everywhere at c relative to A and similarly in B's
universe light travels everywhere at c relative to B. An event which
happens in A's universe may take place at a different time to a
corresponding event in B's universe. A source which is stationary in A's
universe may have an equivalent source which moves in B's and the light
which leaves the source will leave it at different speeds relative to
the source in the two universes.

Replace the word 'universe' with FoR and you have a bog standard
relativity description. In relativity the FoR - a mathematical
abstraction, has the physical properties of a separate parallel
universe.

Conceptually relativity is the same as saying that A is stationary w.r.t
the propagating medium in his FoR and B is stationary w.r.t the
propagating medium in his FoR. In B's FoR the source is moving relative
to the propagating medium so the speed at which the waves leave the
source is c-v.

The only way you can explain Doppler shift in relativity is because the
same light leaves the source at different speeds relative to the source
in A's FoR and in B's FoR.

Relativity encorporates the newtonian explanation for doppler shift so
'the only way you can explain...' is false.

No. Consider the following mechanical analogy of Newtonian Doppler. If
you take two schoolboys running their ruler along a set of railings then
the boy running faster will produce the higher frequency.

Continuing the analogy the problem with relativity is that in effect it
says the railings always go past the boys at the same speed independent
of the speed of the boys w.r.t each other. The standard Newtonian
explanation thus fails.
A S
B-->v

In relativity, ignoring second order effects (time dilation) you have a
source producing a frequency f. In A's FoR it travels away from the
source at c and its wavelength L is c/f. In B's FoR the sources
frequency is still f (I'm ignoring time dilation) but the light leaves
the source at c-v so the wavelength is (c-v)/f. The frequency B measures
for the wave reaching him travelling at c is c/wavelength = cf/(c-v).

If you insist that light leaves the source at c in B's FoR then it will
have the same wavelength as in A's FoR. Both A and B observe the same
wavelength passing them at the same speed so must measure the same
frequency. They don't. Relativity doesn't say they do, you have
misunderstood what it says. Relativity says that in B's FoR the source
is moving and therefore light leaves the source at c-v BECAUSE that is c
in B's FoR and light travels everywhere in B's FoR at c as above.

I repeat that in relativity Doppler shift is the result of the same
light leaving the same source at different speeds to go to the different
observers.

My hunt for enlightenment started 50 years ago. One of the steps along
the way was when I read in a maths book an analysis of time dilation and
read the statement that the motion of light is unaffected by the motion
of the source. The word 'motion' struck me as rather too encompassing. I
thought 'that is not true'. The frequency changes with the speed of the
source and frequency is part of lights motion. I thought if the speed of
light is always the same what causes Doppler shift. I looked in several
physics text books and found reference to train whistles and comments
such as "similar principles apply". I added it to my growing list of
semantic tricks which text books use to avoid difficulties. In the end I
had to work it out myself.



People like you get too tied up in the maths, applying transforms, you
lose track of what relativity is describing.

Not at all. If you just follow the K.E., it all makes perfect sense.

SR is counter intuitive

I disagree.

(what I would call silly) but what it is describing is very very simple.
The second postulate describes exactly what an observer stationary w.r.t
the aether would observe.

Except that a medium that transports photons without causing drag is ALSO
so counter intuitive that it is a real drag.

You would need a 'Teflon' aether.

OK so aether is a taboo word

You can call it anything you like, 'Sam' for all I care. If it is a 'medium'
that 'waves' travel through then you have to explain why it does NOT do
certain things that other media do.

You are surely not suggesting that nature is constrained by what you can
imagine :^)


but conceptually
it is just that. All that relativists have done is to name the aether
which B is stationary w.r.t, B's FoR.

unfortunately for your argument, the 'aether' is stationary for EVERY FoR.

I am merely describing what relativity is describing. According to
Maxwell (god!) the MMX should only give a null result if the apparatus
is stationary w.r.t the aether. Lorentz tried to explain it Einstein
simply wrote a postulate describing exactly what an observer stationary
w.r.t the aether would observe.

"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility...... We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must
give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it,...the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of
motion to the ether". Einstein's 1920 lecture

He is in my view deliberately vague but he is arguing for an aether
which every observer could naturally find himself stationary w.r.t.
to give substance to his second postulate.

But that makes A's aether that surrounds B move wrt B whereas B's aether that
surrounds B is NOT moving (from B's viewpoint).

Not my problem that is what relativity is describing.

How can B be surrounded by two different aethers, one that is moving(A's),
and one that is not moving(B's)?

Not my problem that is what relativity is describing. Relativists simply
describe A's aether as A's FoR and B's Aether as B's FoR. It solves one
problem - how can B exist in two FoR at the same time but it does not
solve the conceptual problem of how can a FoR - which is an imaginary
matrix of measuring rods - a mathematical abstraction - somehow control
the speed of light. I am just telling it the way it is. You are the one
who accepts it.

It is at this point that I would expect you (if you are a typical
relativist) to adopt a superior tone and inform me that I am making the
mistake of applying 'mere common sense' and that relativity is 'counter
intuitive' and not everyone is capable of understanding it. I understand
it perfectly. I am having to explain to you what it says without the
usual semantic wrapping intended to make it sound more reasonable than
it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
But the phenomina you proposed is that c-v (wrt the observer) photons
enter one side and leave the other side a c(wrt the observer, at c+v
wrt the source![and there is the problem!!]).

I see no problem. Explain!

We lack a mechanism for getting energy from nothing. It must come from
somewhere. The above example requires speeding up a photon(which takes
energy) but fails to provide a source of energy for such acceleration.

How much energy do you need to accelerate zero mass?

Zero REST mass. Relativistic mass is NOT zero. You would have to ADD K.E.
without a source for that energy. Tanstaafl.

Have you never seen rotational energy turn into forward energy on a
snooker table.


I have said all
along that the energy remains the same. You do not need to input energy
if there is no change of energy

The problem is that we see doppler shifts WITH OUT seeing c'=c+v.

When we run 'time trials' on photons, we don't see any sign of them
traveling at different speeds.

Sorry you may think someone performs such an experiment but it is
incredibly difficult to do.

If the variations in variable stars were due to c'=c+/-v photons, AND we
looked at a variable star with a high proper motion, we would see the fast
photons arriving from a different location in the sky(different
aberation) than the slow photons. Rather than seeing the star get bright
and dim, we would see it in two separate locations at times(with vastly
different doppler shifts, but clearly the SAME star!).

I suspect such a sight would be quite noteworthy.

You are not up to speed. Fox took a look at the question and concluded
that there was no credible evidence from double stars.

If a star system consists of XY and Z then relativity says, because
light travels at c relative to you the observer, that you will observe
XY and Z no matter how far away you are. The false argument then goes -
as it is XY and Z the speed of light cannot be dependent on the speed of
the source otherwise it certainly wouldn't look like XY and Z.

This is false because Ballistic theory says that if a star system
consists of AB and C, then by the time the light reaches the earth it
may very well look like XY and Z. There is no direct way of getting from
what is observed n light years away to what it is which is actually
being observed other than guesswork and iteration. There are an infinite
number of possibilities. Such guesswork and iteration takes time and a
computer (so DeSitter had no chance) the result has been that in some
cases a very good match has been obtained with the data explaining some
things which conventional wisdom does not explain. In other cases it is
less successful so the jury is out.

It is impossible to go there and look to see whether what you are
looking at is in fact XY and Z or AB and C or, if neither theory is
right, something completely different.

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

You are incorrect. If Ritz were correct there would be no Sagnac effect.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm

Of course, Sagnac thought his data supported an aether, in addition to
ruling out c=c+v.

My understanding was that Sagnac thought his data supported an aether
and ruled out both relativity

The Sagnac experiment is not within the relm of applicability of Special
relativity because it involves objects accelerated wrt each other (circular
motion).

SR deals with inertial frames. The sagnac table is not an inertial frame.


and ballistic theory. The argument against
relativity and Ballistic theory are similar namely:

Take a Sagnac table:


B





A o C





D



Suppose light leaves A in two direction. As ballistic theory says that
the speed of light is constant w.r.t the source and AB and AC are a
constant distance it matters not whether the table rotates or not.

AS relativity says the speed of light is constant w.r.t the observer and
the distance AB and CD are constant it matters not whether the table
rotates or not.

Incorrect. Rotary motion is absolute. The rotation matters.

I give the argument put forward at the time.

You might take a very small rotation, approximate the movement of the
mirror by an inertial motion in 'almost the right direction' and try to
work your way around the square that way.

But your approximation would not tell you what SR would predict because SR
does not deal with accelerating frames.

As for handling it properly, with GR, good luck. Beyond my skill level.


The author of your reference is showing that this argument, when
examined carefully, is wrong in the case of relativity. He assumes that
it is still right for ballistic theory but makes no attempt to apply the
same rigor. Why should he. He is concerned regarding the threat posed to
relativity. He doesn't care about ballistic theory yet the arguments
against both are very similar.

I can show quite easily that Ballistic theory would give a fringe shift
with a rotating table as per Sagnac.

I look forward to seeing this.

My maths ability/time available
means I have not worked out the relationship but my assumption is that
it would be identical to that predicted by relativity because in my
experience that is the way it usually works.

As I said 'relativity' (SR) does not make a prediction in this case as we
do NOT have an inertial FoR.


The mistake is one of oversimplification.

S -->v x y

Imagine a source is travelling as shown at v and suppose light is
emitted when it reaches point x. Ballistic theory says that the light
will expand in a circle the centre of the circle always remaining at S
i.e. constant w.r.t S. The centre of the circle continues to travels
with S at v.
Now suppose we take the same scenario but this time having emitted light
at x we cause S to stop at y. Will that effect the light given off at x?
Of course not. How could it. In fact whatever happens to the source
after the light has been emitted the centre of the circle will still
continue to travel at v along the original path.
This is the key to explaining both transverse Doppler and the Sagnac
effect.

Suppose the table rotates such that light leaving A reaches B when the
table has rotated such that B is at B' and A is at A'.

B
B'

X A'


A o C




D'
D


When light reaches B' the centre of the circle of light emitted by A
will be neither A nor A' But the point X where A would have been had it
continued to travel in the direction and speed it was travelling in at
A.

You are going to have to throw in corriolus effects too for ballistic
photons.

no


While A'B' = A'C' is true

XB' does not equal XD' so light cannot reach D' and B'
simultaniously = fringe shift.

Once the photons leave A, it doesn't matter if A moves (or even
disappears), so if AB'*(c+v) = AD'*(c-v) then no saganac.

When the photons leave A they have a component of speed in the AX
direction. In order to reach B they have to aim at a point below B'.
Ultimately c = XB'/t.

You seem to be having difficulties so let us look at it from the PoV of
the FoR in which light is emitted at c in all directions.


| B
|
|
|
|
|
--------X------------ o ----------- C -----------
|
|
|
| light emitted from X
|
| D
|


|
|
|
|
|
| B'
|
--------X-A'--------------------------------------
|
| Light reaches B'
| o
|
|
| C'
|
| D'
|

No corriolus force, no complications, works for both photons or waves so
long as their speed is c in the FoR they are emitted in.

You said
I look forward to seeing this.

OK now you have seen it. It would be polite to acknowledge the fact.
Is there anything else you would like help with :o)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you accept my point that there must be a link between charge and
photons because of the success of Maxwell's equations?

Unfortunately maxwells equations do not address photons.

Why not answer the question rather than side stepping it.

Maxwell's equations can hardly point to a link between charge and
photons because they don't address photons.

The common factor is they both model light. It is bad enough settling
for 'light is both waves and particles' you are now adding 'light is
intimately related to charge, and has nothing whatever to do with
charge'.

I never said that.
I said that Maxwells equations don't address photons.
You can't say that Maxwells EQNs imply a link between photons and charge when
Maxwells equations don't say ANYTHING about photons.

YOU may deduce a link. I might deduce a link. Maxwell's equations do not
imply a link.

The link would be on the basis of
1) light seems to consist of photons.
2) Maxwell's equations apply to light
3) Maxwell's equations say that light waves consist of related magnetic
and electric fields traveling together.

WE may deduce, but I do NOT accept your statement that there MUST be a
link "because of the success of Maxwell's Equations" because that implies
that Maxwell's equations say something about photons.

One must be careful with one's implications.

Splitting hairs. I don't believe that I said that Maxwell's equations
imply a link or that Maxwell's equations implied the existence of
photons. I said that the *success* of Maxwell's equations imply a link.
You clearly understood what I meant so why play with semantics.


[snip]

I have suggested a model for a photon.

To make it a serious model, you need to support it with math AND show it
to be as good, or better, than the models currently 'accepted'.
At least as good or BETTER.

Good or better than what? Where is the accepted model of a photon mine
has to be better than?

The model that you have been objecting to all this time. The wavicle
model.

You will have to explain that to me. I have spent a lot of time
explaining myself to you I think it is your turn.



I
don't claim it is right but where is the 'official' one. All you can
come up with is "I'm sure someone has thought of your idea and
rejected it for good reason".

....
and "Unfortunately Maxwell's equations do not address photons."

I agree. So we have three choices:
No four probably more.


1) throw out all partial theories. Insist we will do nothing until the
theory is pefect.

2) use what we can and try to improve our theories.

3) insist on using old, outdated theories and that anyone who does
otherwise is part of a vast conspiracy.

4/ Assume that neither current theory nor previously rejected
alternative theory are perfect. Try and develop the alternative theory
to bring it up to speed and then run them in parallel and have them
compete with each other on equal terms. Competition is the greatest
motivator.


your 4/ Sounds like the choice I called number 2).

No the obvious alternative has been ignored for a century and is widely
misunderstood as you clearly demonstrate. Your ref on Sagnac is a
perfect example. Ballistic theory dismissed by a relativist. I, with no
Physics training and only A-level maths from 50 years ago have shown
with a simple thought process that ballistic theory would predict fringe
shift. The author of that paper knows a damn sight more physics than I
do and has better Maths skills. Those who did a peer review of that
article let it through without querying his unsubstantiated statement.
The whole of modern physics is based on the assumption that relativity
is correct and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a crackpot.

That is what I want to change.

The problem is that to have a competition you need rules as to what is
acceptable and what isn't. At present we have intellectual anarchy.

I thought you were complaining that the 'accepted theory' was suppressing
all contenders. That is the opposite of anarchy.

Someone can state that their theory is right because of the existence of
parallel universes (Hawking) and no one can say 'don't be daft'.

In order to become accepted, the theory must explain all known data as
well or better than the 'currently accepted' theory.

If you can invent what you like of course you can explain all known
data.


Many
may think it but if they tried to define 'daft' someone might apply it
to their own branch of physics.

It seems daft to complain that some wild theories are given too much
consideration while complaining that other (less wild) theories are NOT
given enough consideration. Could some kind of emotional involvement with
specific theories be biasing your viewpoint?

Not in the least. I am torn between Lorentz's aether theory and
ballistic theory. Einstein's so called 'theory' is simply Lorentz's
maths without any theory. On the whole ballistic theory should have been
accepted on logical grounds as it was by far the simplest way of
explaining the data. It wasn't and I am uncomfortable about that. It
should have been accepted and if it had to been later rejected fair
enough. That is the way Science is supposed to work.

I don't much care for the aether idea and ballistic theory seems far
more likely. Waldron never gave up on ballistic theory so I do not
believe it has been convincingly disproved but I don't suppose you have
heard of Waldron. If it is convincingly disproved I will reluctantly
accept Lorentz's aether theory as that is the only physical theory
consistent with Einstein's maths and my formal PoV is that we must get
back to insisting on the physical reality of the physical world. Magic
has no place in science. At the moment the only way of explaining the
maths consistent with modern beliefs is magic.


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

I would start by chucking out the absurd assumption that the speed at
which photons leave the source is in some mystical way determined by
an observer who at some future date may observe them

Since you are basing your arguments on assuming 'light leaves the source
at speeds different than c wrt the source' is part of Einsteins theory,
you are destined to fail because there is no such assumption being made.

See comments above or take Einstein's word for it.

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v,...." 1905 paper

'when measure in the stationary system' is NOT wrt the source. The 'source'
(in this case the mirror the ray was just reflected from) is in motion. The
ray, at this point in time, is moving at c wrt the mirror from which it was
just reflected and wrt k', rather than k.


What perhaps is confusing you

Not confusing me. I am not the one assuming 'light leave the source at
speeds different than c wrt the source'.

In any observers FoR which is moving relative to the source light leaves
the source at c relative to that observers FoR and at whatever speed
that is relative to the source. That is the whole basis of relativity.

You select a FoR and you assume that light travels every which way at
speed c in that FoR. If when considering your chosen FoR light leaves a
moving source it cannot leave the source at c relative to the source
because that is not c in your chosen FoR.

An observer's FoR as per SR and an aether stationary w.r.t the observer
have identical mathematical properties. The second postulate is
describing exactly what an observer would observe if he is stationary
w.r.t the aether. If a source is moving relative to a propagating medium
the speed of the waves relative to the source are c+v in one direction
and c-v in the other.

It is incredibly simple. It makes no sense but it is incredibly simple.
That is what the second postulate describes.


is a bad convention adopted by many text
books of always describing light leaving the source from the PoV of the
sources FoR i.e. an observer stationary w.r.t the source. This is
absurd.

On the contrary. It makes perfect sense to confirm that the photons always
travel a c wrt any observer, be they in the source FoR or the target FoR.

When doing the maths of relativity everything must be described
from your chosen FoR.

And in SR, photons travel at c when measure from ANY inertial FoR.

Nothing I have said disagrees with that. I know what SR says. You are
the one having problems.

O S-->v

In O's FoR light cannot leave S at c relative to S because that isn't c
in O's FoR. It leaves S at c+v relative to S in O's FoR *Because* that
IS c in O's FoR and SR says it has to be c and nothing else in B's FoR.

If you are describing what is happening from the PoV of O in O's FoR it
does not matter a damn what would be observed by a different observer in
an entirely different FoR. What an observer stationary w.r.t the source
may observe is no more relevant than what a flea on my left boot might
observe. In SR you observe strictly from one FoR.


--
John Kennaugh

.

Quantcast