Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: maxwell <spsi@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:15:01 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 8, 9:55 am, John Kennaugh
<J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZWn0NLNTlCWHFwV9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Metaphysical - things like uncertainty, probability, prediction,
knowledge, an equation (although the ink and paper may be physical),
mathematics, wishful thinking, a field of influence, hope. None of which
can have a measurable effect on physical things in the natural world.
Liek the ether .. it cannot be detected. Its in the realms of metaphysics
as you cannot conduct an experiemnt that determines wheterh or not it
exists.
The aether can be detected. SR is based upon the assumption that our
speed w.r.t the aether is always zero so we cannot detect *motion* w.r.t
the aether but the aether was assumed to have another property which
*can* be detected.
In physical terms source independence comes from the idea that the speed
of light is controlled by the aether (Maxwell) and therefore cannot be
affected by the speed of the source. Therefore if an experiment could be
devised to prove source independence it would show the existence of the
aether so it can indeed be detected if a suitable experiment can be
devised.
People around here assure me that experiments have been devised which
show source independence.
In physical terms if the speed of light is not a function of the
physical processes which generate it, it must be the result of some
other physical process. By definition a physical process requires
something physical. If there is no aether then there is nothing physical
in the vicinity of a source so there can be no other physical process -
so the speed of light must be the result of the only remaining physical
process - that taking place in the source = source dependence.
Take your pick. Either light speed is source dependent or there is some
other physical process involved which requires something physical.
Traditionally that 'something physical' is called the aether.
--
John Kennaugh
There is another possibilty, as Maxwell readily acknowledged. This is
the Action-at-a-Distance type of theories that were developed by his
German rivals, like Weber. Maxwell acknowledged they got all the right
answers but he did not LIKE this type of interaction, he preferred the
metaphysics of DesCartes and not those of Newton, which viewed space
as purely passive & not contributing to the process; IOW Newton's
'space' is not a medium or aether.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: harry
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: oriel36
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- References:
- Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- From: John Kennaugh
- Physical interpretation in physics.
- Prev by Date: Re: GR1916, available online.
- Next by Date: Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- Previous by thread: Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- Next by thread: Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading