Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass

Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:HFOHLBBFp6LGFw6w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xggaiOJ9cdLGFwvv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Well it appears your tune has changed

First you said nothing before 1964 to show source independance

I said that there is nothing which you now need to take seriously until
1964.

and that it
was rejected because SR was traditionlan (it wasn't) BaTh was radical (yet
it was far less radical than SR), and the Ritz died soon after his theories
were published and strong implied there was no scientific justification for
rejecting BaTh.
Then we find that it was convincingly disproved in 1913 (and so there was
VERY legitimate reaons for rejecting it).

There wasn't. DeSitter was flawed and could have been seen to be flawed
if anyone had thought about it critically. SR was already accepted and
DeSitter told everyone what they wanted to hear.

Then you say that that finding
was later shown as incorrect (actually just that is may be possible to
explain it so it is not conclusive). Then when you are presented with
experiments/observations that all show source independance (including one
sthat do not sugffer from exitnction), you dispute those.

After 1964. I said there were experiments which need to be considered.
The one I looked at in detail had more holes in it that a sieve. The
others are similar. You haven't studied them at all.

So now we've gone from a theory that was rejected on non-scientific
principles with no proof, to one for what you cliam the just is out. Hmm.

I assume BaTh must use galilaean transforms (as otherwise you couldn't have
simple vector addition of velocities)

You reject a theory which you obviously know nothing about. So much for
objectivity - but typical.

.. so that would mean no maximum
possible speed,

Correct but not infinite speed.

no non-linear increase in energy as speed increase, no time
dilation etc. Yet these things are experiementally obvserved.

How does
BaTh explain these, and still have source dependent velocity for light?

Transverse Doppler is supposed to demonstrate time dilation. BaTh gives
exactly the same results with ordinary everyday explanation. If no one
bothered to look for a simple explanation of that why should I believe
that anyone has looked to see whether the other things you mention have
only one explanation. Waldron [1] could find nothing he could not
explain by BaTh up until his death in 1990.

Certainly up until fox cast some doubt on the binary star observations,
there was VERY good scientific reasons to reject emissions theory .. your
conspiracy-theory-like explanations for why emission theory was rejected
don't really hold up to scrutiny.

I have never suggested conspiracy merely a reluctance to accept physics
had been wrong for 200 years about aether and source independence both
of which should have been abandoned when the fundamental particulate
nature of light was discovered

Classical aether theory was dismissed .. ether is not a part of SR

Careful wording noted. SR does not say there is no aether it has
absolutely nothing to say on any physical matters. No physical thing is
a part of SR. It is a mathematical model.

.. you
are making a logical fallacy by lumping aether theory with source
independence.

As did Einstein:

" Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether.
The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it
and its velocity can only be effected by the source if the movement of
the source causes movement of the medium. Aether drag experiments,
passing light close to heavy rotating flywheels has shown that they had
no effect on the light passing close to them hence the speed of light
cannot be effected by the speed of the source.

Although the speed of light might be expected to vary with the speed
of the observer Michelson and Morley had shown that not to be the case
so it is a strange but indisputable fact that the velocity of light is
constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer."
Einstein-Infeld: The Evolution of Physics. 1938.

I am not aware of any other physical explanation having been put forward
to this day.

YOU SNIPPED HERE MAKING NONSENSE OF THE CONTEXT DON'T DO THAT. YOU DO
NOT SNIP SOMETHING WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF WHAT YOU ARE COMMENTING
ON.

Put simply you can't have waves propagating at different speeds in the
same aether :o)

What aether?

My point is that it had been discovered that light was not waves but
particulate so Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics was flawed. Ritz's view
point is more reasonable:

YOU SNIPPED - NONSENSE FOLLOWS


And how does it explain the wave nature of light ?

Put simply "stuff photons, Maxwell is my God".

Einstein didn't reject photons.

He ignored them as far as SR is concerned - prove me wrong. Show me what
impact photons had on the thinking leading to SR.

====
[snip]
The two theories are
mirror images of each other.

A B

Let us assume we have two observers and that light is travelling between
them (they can be moving relative to each other). Let us suppose that
the speed is always c w.r.t A (normal English usage).
Nothing I have said so far tells you whether I am illustrating SR or
BaTh as I have not said which direction the light is travelling. If I
said it was travelling A to B then I am describing Ballistic theory. If
B to A then SR
No .. SR applies to both cases
Not at the same time. If light is going from A to B then A is the source
B is the observer. If light is going from B to A then B is the source A
is the observer.

You appear wrong again. SR applies simultaneously in both FoR and
regardless of which direction the light is travelling

You can NEVER consider two FoR at the same time in SR otherwise you get
that A's clock is going faster than B's and B's clock is going faster
than A's which is nonsense. You can apply SR to one FoR or the other but
not both simultaneously. Essentially SR is the mathematical equivalent
of assuming that every observer is stationary w.r.t the source (although
relativists claim there is no actual aether) while BaTh is the
mathematical equivalent of assuming every source is stationary w.r.t the
aether (although no actual aether is necessary). If you have one source
and one observer what I said is correct.


Likewise although SR is complex you can always transform everything into
the FoR of the source and in the FoR of the source both theories say the
same thing.
Yes .. but the problem is with other FoR, where the theories say very
different things
You keep making these unsubstantiated statements.

No .. that is not unsubstantiated at all.

They are very different when considering non-source FoR .. as one predicts
the speed will be c and the other than it will be different (in FoR other
than the source.

Light travels every which way at c.
But not in BaTh .. it is source independant.
No BaTh is source dependent.

That's what I meant .. typo. Yes .. BaTh is source dependant so light does
not always travel at c in BaTh (only in the FoR of the source)

Correct If relativists had not hijacked the English language I would say
that in BaTh the speed of light in all FoR is c w.r.t the source not c
w.r.t the FoR in which it is observed.

In BaTh light only travels at c in the sources FoR while in SR light
only travels at c in the observers FoR. Of course if the observer is in
the FoR of the source they both say that light travels at c.

====
[snip]
The argument goes that if you assume it is A,B,C then if ballistic
theory is correct it would look like X,Y,Z and it doesn't therefore SR
is correct.
What ballistic theory says is that if it is M,N,O then it won't look
like M,N,O it might look like A,B,C so the fact that it looks like A,B,C
does not disprove ballistic theory.

WTF are you on about here?

OK if your not willing to think It through I will spell it out to you
idiot fashion.

Good .. because it was just gobbldeygook with a bunch of meaningless
letters.

[snip]

So you're saying they aren't binary stars at all, we only think they are
because of SR.

NO! NO! NO!. Are you being deliberately thick to wind me up or
something? A binary system with different parameters to those observed.
Try Henri - he is around here somewhere. He will explain the technique
although he is a little over enthusiastic about the successes he has
had.


====
[snip]
In LET everything is transformed from the aether FoR except that
you don't know which frame is the aether FoR. No
matter you can choose any frame as your aether frame and get the same
answer.
Of course, that makes no sense as a physical model (which is where LET
differs from SR) .. how can the aether be stationary in every FoR ??
That is what Einstein assumed.

SR does not assume an aether. LET does

I said "Assumed" - past tense. SR now is a principle theory and
therefore NOW has nothing to say about anything physical so SR does not
assume anything about whether there is an aether or not but BEFORE SR
was declared a principle theory (by Einstein) its origins were from
aether theory. In his 1920 lecture Einstein retained some sort of aether
but rejected the idea that a unique FoR had to be associated with it. In
1938 he still had no other justification for source independence other
than "Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the
Aether".

LET is a physical theory. SR is a mathematical model mathematically
identical to LET. When someone puts a physical model to SR then and only
then can one objectively judge which is the better theory.

That is what his second postulate is
describing.

No .. it is not.

The second postulate is describing exactly what an observer stationary
w.r.t the aether would experience. Maybe you can explain in what way
what it describes differs from what an observer stationary w.r.t the
aether would experience.
It is the equivalent of saying "lets assume every observer is
stationary w.r.t the aether as shown by the MMX." You can say "no it is
not" as many times as you like but unless you have an alternative
explanation then mine stands.

As you are free to chose any FoR as your aether frame you can
chose the observers FoR as the aether frame. If you do what you get is
indistinguishable from SR

But one that makes no sense if the aether is something physical

So! SR makes no sense - you have got it at last.

I was not talking about SR .. SR does not have an aether frame

Agreed! That is the whole point. Einstein was an aether man through and
through but he wanted an aether which did not have associated with it a
unique FoR. Essentially the MMX was telling him that every observer is
stationary w.r.t the aether. He rejected LET because of the asymmetry in
the theoretical structure caused by the undetectable aether FoR and
argued for an aether which did not imply such a FoR. An aether "without
the immobility of Lorentz's aether". He believed is symmetry, he
believed in the aether so nature must provide a suitable aether which
every observer can have an equally valid relationship with.



====
[snip]
Unfortunately the physical space it defines is equally devoid of any
physical entity which could take part in a physical process to do the
job either.
There is no job to be done .. there is not variation in the speed of
light.
It isn't speeding up or slowing down .. it just travels.
In an infinite number of FoR it separates from the source at an infinite
number of different speeds resulting in an infinite number of different
measured frequencies. It doesn't "just travel".
Yes .. it does in SR.
define 'travel'

Don't you know what travel means?

I would assume "it gets from A to B". "just" implies that is all it
does. That is hardly specific enough. They knew that in ancient Greece.
You hardly need Einstein for that.

Surely things travel through space and
time in BaTh.

It appears that, as you cannot argue with my point, you try to divert into
arguing about definitions.

I'd say travelling is moving from one point is space and time to another.

"it gets from A to B" - How!

Light does that in a way that is always measured as speed c in all intertial
frames of reference.

That is simply a restatement of the second postulate which in affect
says every observer is stationary with the propagating medium so will
always measure the speed as c.

It has to separate from the source at whatever speed makes it c w.r.t
the FoR
Light cares nothing about the source or the FoR .. it just travels.
That
the source moves after it is emitted makes no difference. There is no
mecahnisam that is make light trabel at different speeds it is ALWAYS
travelling with speed c.
w.r.t any matrix of imaginary measuring rods.
If you like to call it that .. yes .. Always travelling at c .. it doesn't
matter where you are (as long as you're not accelerating or spinning etc)
the light will be travelling at c.
You can't see anything wrong with the idea that a whole load of FoR
which are mathematical imaginings

Everything is a mathematical imagining .. but many have physical
correspondence. FoR has phyical meaning .. its how things appear from a
particular viewpoint .. how long things are and how fast clocks tick when
measured.

You ceratinly seem to have no trouble in referring to different frames of
reference .. indeed BaTh relies heavily on FoR, as the speed that light is
measured depends completely on the frame of reference.

That is the normal state of affairs is it not. You measure a cars speed
from the roadside. A policemen measures it differently from a moving car
as you overtake it etc. Nothing unusual about BaTh.


define the same physical space and yet
the speed of the same light in each is c without anything physical
making it so?

None at all .. do you?

Yes. It is physically nonsense.

Do you find that implication somehow embarrassing?
No. Do you find it emabarrassing that the theory you support doesn't fit
observational data?
When someone has shown me a convincing experiment ruling it out I will
happily drop the subject.
Good. Same here. So far, there is absolutely nothing that supports BaTh
over SR.

Henri would disagree as would Wallace.

That's nice for them .. shame they are not here to give an anwert. Do you
have any evidence you can cite that supports BaTh over SR

It is more logical. It gives the same answers as Waldron showed. Are you
familiar with Wallace?

" I would like to challenge two statements made by Allen D.Allen
(November, page 90) in his reply to Kantor on the question of
experimental relativity. Allen states "But Kantor is incorrect in
claiming that there is a reliable experiment that refutes special
relativity." With regard to this statement the 1961 interplanetary
radar contact with Venus presented the first opportunity to overcome
technological limitations and perform direct experiments of Einstein's
second postulate of a constant light speed of c in space. When the
radar calculations were based on the postulate, the observed-computed
residuals ranged to over 3 milliseconds of the expected error of 10
microseconds from the best fit the Lincoln Lab could generate, a
variation range of over 30,000%. An analysis of the data showed a
component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean sense."

Probably because no one has seriously looked apart from Waldron and a
couple of others. Where would anyone wanting to try get funding? No one
wants SR to be shown to be wrong anymore than Einstein and the
physicists of his day wanted to accept that light wasn't waves. The just
ignored it and carried on. Any evidence of source dependency will be
treated the same.


So there is a conpsiracy theory against source dependance ?

One doesn't need to assume anything of the kind. Basically if you don't
accept relativity you are as likely to get a job as a physicist as you
are to get a job of a priest if you don't believe in god - therefore all
physicist believe in relativity.

If one assumes relativity is correct then why tell students about BaTh.
It will only confuse them and make life more difficult for the lecturer
especially as the evidence against it is not as clear cut as one would
wish. You churn out students who have been taught nothing else other
than relativity for what seem to those concerned to be for the best of
reasons.

If an experiment seems to show source dependence then the editor of any
reputable magazine is going to assume there is a flaw in that evidence
because he knows that relativity is correct doesn't he? He gives it to a
peer reviewer who will, by definition, be a convinced relativist to try
and spot the flaw he is absolutely certain is there. The last thing the
editor wants to do is to publish something which is wrong and have
someone point this out as that will reduce the prestige of the
publication. A paper confirming relativity is not a problem. The editor
can publish that with confidence thus Alvaeger et al got their paper
published when it didn't even explain what a lump of the apparatus was
for, while Wallace, having persuaded one reviewer that his paper should
be published had the editor send it to a different reviewer who "saw no
merit in it". As I say you don't need conspiracy. All you have to assume
is that all concerned are convinced relativists doing the right thing as
they see it.

If an experiment of yours appeared to show c+v would you be in a rush to
publish it? Of course not. You think that is wrong and you don't want to
end up with egg on your face. Would you really want to face ridicule and
scorn if it turns out you are wrong? Would you be willing to spend days
revising it to suite some nit-picking peer reviewer. If you are right do
you want to be the most unpopular physicist on the planet?

What would physics reaction be? Probably another duality fudge. "light
always travels at c in the observer's FoR except in some specific
circumstances where it can exceptionally travel at c+v. If light can be
shown to be particles not waves and carry on with the wave model as if
nothing had happened I am sure light being shown to occasionally travel
at c+v wouldn't have much of an impact. You only have to look at the
sort of thing physics gets away with:

"The group SU(2) has three generators of gauge symmetry, and that would
give three MASSLESS gauge bosons to mediate the weak nuclear force.
But that's WRONG.
The weak nuclear force is a short range force, behaving as if the
gauge bosons are VERY HEAVY.
The method they came up with is called spontaneous symmetry breaking,
where MASSLESS gauge bosons acquire MASS by interacting with a scalar
field called the Higgs field. The resulting theory has MASSIVE gauge
bosons but still retains the nice properties of a fully gauge invariant
theory where the gauge bosons would normally be MASSLESS."

It is you and your like who have this
unshakeable belief that it has been disproved and in your case the best
you have come up with is something no one has taken seriously for 40
years.
See above .. there is more evidence than just that. You have your blinkers
on again :)
Further there are other predictions from SR like time dilation, transverse
doppler, twins 'paradox', 'relativistic mass' increase, which are
experiemntally observed.
Do BaTh predict them as well?

Lets take transverse Doppler. That according to SR is due to time
dilation. It is cited as proof of time dilation.
BaTh doesn't do time dilation

So there you go .. it does not explain experimental evidence (other then
transverse dopler) that DOES show time dilation.

So we reject it.

so transverse Doppler disproves BaTh right?

Please acknowledge when you snip.


Not if it explains it, no. But does it explain (other) experiemental
evidence of time dilation.

As I say from my experience SR and BaTh give the same answers on
everything I have analysed within my capability. I assume that all
experimental evidence of time dilation can be explained in terms of BaTh
until someone shows otherwise. I an amateur. I don't claim to be a
physicist nor a mathematician what do you expect from me? - that I can
take on the entire physics establishment and produce an alternative
complete theory of everything? No it is people like you who should be
checking the alternatives. Asking the questions. Checking the evidence.
All I can hope to do is try and shake people like you out of your
arrogant complacency and try and persuade you to show just a little of
the natural curiosity which should be a natural part of every true
scientist nature.


Imagine a bow and arrow.
Q -What speed will the arrow fly at?
A - It depends on its weight.

Q - if you had a weightless arrow would that fly at infinite speed?
A - No there is a maximum speed which is the speed which the bow string
will move without an arrow which is also the speed that it would impart
to a massless arrow - let us call that c.

If you have a heavy arrow that will fly at much less than c. If you
couple up several bows so that they act together you can increase the
speed of the heavy arrow. The more bows you couple together the nearer
you can get the heavy arrow to c but you can never reach it.

If as per ballistic theory photons are ejected at c then as they are
massless, c is the maximum speed at which the force ejecting them can
act. If you are trying to accelerate a charged particle with mass then
one would expect that the nearer you got to c the less would be the
effect because the force itself cannot act any faster than c and becomes
progressively less effective.

I can think of no similar explanation in terms of natural philosophy as
to how making an object go faster makes its mass increase.

BaTH would then predict you can get any speed you like. eg attach a smaller
bow and arroow mechanism to your arrow, Show the big arrow and then shoot
the smaller arrow after that .. then the velocities add .. if you keep doing
that you can get as fast as you want. Eg a rocket could simply keep on
accelerating with no limit.

Why not? Note that that does not make the limit infinite. It is a law of
diminishing returns. A single stage rocket will reach a certain speed.
To go faster you need more stages, not only more stages but each stage
has to be much bigger than the last to get the same percentage
improvement. As I say a law of diminishing returns in a finite universe.

Of course if there were things in the universe going away from us at
greater than c their light would never reach us. The visible universe
would be bounded by objects going at just a little less than c - guess
what? That is what we see :o).

Another case of SR and BaTh I checked out goes like this. If you
interpret the Doppler shift of a distant object as the speed it is going
away from us then by taking the latest estimate of the age of the
universe you can, using SR work out the age of what you are looking at
assuming light is coming from it at c w.r.t us and working out the time
dilation. If you assume BaTh then for the same Doppler (the only thing
you have to work on) the age works out the same as SR. There is no time
dilation. Simply that the light is going at c-v and so the image is out
of date when it reaches us. Two theories - identical predictions.

Point out anywhere in anything Einstein wrote on
relativity where he considers the impact of the photon on his thinking.
A major discovery which should have caused a major rethink totally
ignored. Einstein's starting points are Maxwell and Lorentz.

Einstein introduced the photon theory of light, in 1905, an extension of
planck's work. He predicted the photon energy would be proportional to
frequency, and that was later confriemd experimentally.

Planck predicted the photon energy would be proportional to
frequency not Einstein. Planck showed that light was generated in
quantized lumps but believed that it then became waves. Einstein showed
that Planck's maths explained the photo electric effect which showed
that light remained quantized. He then ignored his own findings and went
back to assuming the universal truth of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics.
I fail to understand this.

What is there in SR that say light cannot be composed of photons ?

SR is a principle theory and therefore has nothing to say on anything
physical - aether, photons or anything else. Maxwell/Lorentz
electrodynamics are based on continuous fields. SR is based on the
assumed correctness of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics.


I think that would he would have considered it :)
Apparently not. Having discovered photons why should he still rule out
Ritz's theory:


You don't need Ritz theory to have photons.

Maybe not but If you look at Einstein's reason for rejecting Ritz theory

" [Ritz} theory requires that everywhere and in each fixed direction
light waves of a different velocity of propagation should be possible.
It may well be impossible to set up an electromagnetic theory that is
in any way reasonable and accomplishes such a feat. This is the
principle reason why, even before the special theory of relativity, I
rejected this way out" AE

His objection to Ritz theory evaporates if you assume light is photons.
There is no reason why they should not travel at different speeds
through the same space.

===
[snip]
There does not need to be aprocess that makes it faster or slower ..
because it is always the same

A S
B->v

A flash of light from S reaches A and B as they meet. According to SR
light separates from the source at different speeds in A's FoR
and in B's

Yes .. because S moves after the light is emitted in B's FoR .. that only
says something about the movment of S in B's FoR, not about the light ..
it
has speed c

and the event they view takes place at different times

No .. it happens at only one point in spacetime

I do not accept that spacetime is anything other than a mathematical
convenience. It has no place in the real world. Space and time are
separate.

I am talking about the real world .. there is space and time in the "real
world"

Agreed

.. when you're doing physics you need to talk about where an object
was and when it was there.

Yes and a standard part of any relativity course is a heading "ascribing
time to distant events". This says that A and B will ascribe different
times to the distant event they witness.


You can have a given location in space and time .. do you not believe that?

That is what I'm referring to.

The location is S for both A and B but A says it occurred at a time d/c
before the flash reaches him while according to B he was at the point
shown when the event occurred.


A< -------------- d ---------------------> S
B->v
|<--x-->|

x = vt
c = (d'+x)/t = (d' + vt)/t
ct = d' + vt
t = d'/(c-v)

Where d' = d/Sqr(1-vv/cc).



The event you are talking about happens at one location in space

yes

and in
time. it is not happening twice.

and at different times for the two FoR. One important role of the Aether
in LET is that it allows A and B's measuring equipment to be distorted
by their speed w.r.t the aether, This means when they use their
measurements to calculate the time of the event their results differ. In
other words the aether allows A and B to see different distortions of
the same reality.

If you subscribe to the "no aether" doctrine then with SR there is
nothing which can distort reality. The speed of light is measured by
both A and B as being c because it is c and the event is calculated to
take place at different times because it really does. i.e. without
Lorentz's aether to distort a single reality to give two distortions of
the same reality you need two different genuine realities.


===
[snip]
Q1/ Are photons affected by gravity?
A/ Apparently so in that light is bent by massive objects i.e. the sun
and
they gain energy if they fall from the top of a tower to the bottom.
You're getting into General relativity now.. in that case the light is
bent
because space-time is bent.
Whatever that means.
Read up on GR then

I am aware what GR says. I always assumed that "bending of space-time"
was a figure of speech intended to illustrate the mathematical model
rather than anything having meaning in the real physical world.

GR is a model of the real world, so if the bending in the model has
implication in things that we can observe (as you cannot directly observe
the math), then that is what we should see.

===
[snip]
In many of these cases that answer is of the form 'mass is'.. and we
just
give a name to it. what is it .. it is mass. If something is truly a
primitve property of the universe, then it is what it is, it is not made
up
of something else.

I agree. What makes the moon go around the earth - Gravity. What is
gravity - it is what we call whatever it is which makes the moon go
around the earth. I appreciate that point. I think photons are
different. Charge and mass may well be beyond further explanation but I
think one day a model of a photon will emerge which better explains the
nature of the energy it contains and how that is related to frequency.
Spin may come into it.

Quite possibly .. physics advances.

I'm not sure what doubt you think you're introducing .. the doubts seem
to
be only in your mind.

As I say why don't you check out the actual evidence against source
independence

Why don't you?

I hope from what I have written above that you will now appreciate the
fact that I have spent a great deal of time doing so.

Yes .. I don't doubt it .. and it seem you've given much LESS time to the Sr
that you want ot replace.

You OTOH have read
the summary of an experiment and accepted that it proves what it set out
to prove.

Ah .. so its not about fact ..tis about who does the most reading?

I was given an experiment said to be the most convincing evidence of
source dependence - so were you. You accepted that it was evidence of
source dependence I spent hours looking into it to see if it was
convincing. All I am doing is suggesting that if you are basing your
life following a theory it might be a good idea to check up on its
credentials.

Remember there was no evidence against source dependence
when SR was formulated so that is not what it was based upon.
From einsteins papare on relativity: Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
===
By means of similar considerations based on observations of double stars,
the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of
propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body
emitting the light. The assumption that this velocity of propagation is
dependent on the direction "in space" is in itself improbable.
===
I said SR which was 1905.

So .. Einstien started used a model with source independence before the
evidence which back that up.

Yes based upon hang-ups from the aether model.


It was based upon a belief which
stems from belief in the aether (which no one believes in anymore).
There is no mention of ether in relativity that I can see. Relativity was
based on the postulate
* The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. In
other words, there are no privileged inertial frames of reference.
that is contrary to classical ether theory that says there IS a priveleged
interital FoR.
Precisely why Einstein described his second postulate - the one which
describes exactly what an observer stationary with the aether would
experience

There is no aether required in SR in either postulate

Of course not. The second postulate incorporates all the properties of
the aether he requires. I could make a mathematical model as to how long
it would take me to drive to London which did not require anywhere that
I specify that there is a road but you might assume that as I am driving
there that there is one. Likewise SR assumes source independence. It
does not specify an aether but as light speed is not dependent upon the
source one can assume that there is one.

[1] Professor Richard A. Waldron, M.A., Sc.D.,F.Inst. P., F.I.M.A.,
C.Eng., F.I.E.R.E.,
--
John Kennaugh
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is Proper Time?
    ... There is no aether, therefore it's wrong. ... In BaTh the whole MM apparatus may be considered 'at rest'. ... reflecting mirror and is always moving at speed c. ... if the observers are moving at different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... And it appears there have been none that actually confirm BaTh .. ... Classical aether theory was dismissed .. ... I said they should have abandoned aether and SOURCE INDEPENDENCE which is a part of aether theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... rejecting BaTh. ... Classical aether theory was dismissed .. ... BaTh as I have not said which direction the light is travelling. ... mecahnisam that is make light trabel at different speeds it is ALWAYS ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is Proper Time?
    ... There is no aether, therefore it's wrong. ... In BaTh the whole MM apparatus may be considered 'at rest'. ... A little more complicated than that, as the MMX measures ... reflecting mirror and is always moving at speed c. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... And it appears there have been none that actually confirm BaTh .. ... Classical aether theory was dismissed .. ... and that other experiemnts have also found source independence. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)