Re: Physical interpretation in physics.

Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:K9fAHJKfGodHFwM9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Vmt3hhJVjTdHFwfN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[snip crap]

I have never claimed SR said otherwise. If you consider an infinite
number of FoR then it separates from the source at a different speed in
each i.e. at an infinite number of speeds. - It must be very confusing
for a photon.

Gees .. you just don't get it .. the photon does nothing other than travel
at c.
You keep making imprecise statements - WITH RESPECT TO WHAT?

No .. you're just slow on the uptake.

Speed 'with respect to' (or calculated in) an inertial frame in which it is
measured.

I applaud your precision. That is what SR says.

The speed of light is c in every inertial frame of reference.

When measured in that FoR - That is what SR says.

It
always travels at c in every inertial frmae of reference.

When measured in that FoR yes. That is what SR says. But a For does not
physically exist it is a mathematical abstraction. Every inertial FoR
defines the same physical space. Putting it another way any lump of
space is part of an infinite number of FoR - which don't physically
exist.

It travels at c
with respect to every object in the universe that is at rest in some
inertial frame of reference..

As inertial FoR do not physically exist, it is our mental construction
"It travels at c with respect to every inertial object in the universe"
would suffice.

A->v S
u<-B

So forget FoR they don't exist. All we have is 'space', A and B passing
each other receiving light from source S. SR/you says that it travels at
c w.r.t A and c w.r.t B despite the fact that A and B are at the same
spot in space. In order for A and B to see the relevant Doppler shift
the light A sees has to have separated from the source at c-v and the
light which reaches B must have separated from S at c+u. It is also
necessary for it to have left S at different times. What *physically*
brings this all about? Lorentz had an explanation but that was rejected.
Now (without aether) there is nothing physical in space which can help
to bring this about. So is the source super clever and knows which
photon is going to which observer? Or are photons super clever and work
out what to do for themselves, or do A and B somehow attract photons to
them each at c in which case their influence needs to stretch all the
way to S and back through time.

Or is it perhaps that I am not supposed to ask those sorts of questions
these days because Physics has outlawed them because it has no answers?


If other thing are seen as moving in other frames of refernece, that
has no bearing on the photon.
You do realise that you, yourself, are travelling at an infinite number of
speeds in other frames of reference .. maybe that is why you are so
confused?
In both inertial frames of reference, the speed of light is c .. it is
never
anything other than c.
I have never said otherwise.
Fine .. then stop implying otherwise
I have never implied otherwise.

You have .. don't lie

I try to make very precise statements. Yours are frequently sloppy and
intentionally so.

[snip]
[snip]
Because there is a difference in my frame betwee nthe speed of light
(always
c) and the speed of the source. That difference is c+v or c-v (depending
on
which way the source is moving)
Good that is all I have been saying.

Good . .then you have no objections to SR. Glad to hear it

The fact that I know what SR says is not the same as saying I have no
objection to it.

The speed of separation between the source and the light is c+v or c-v
depending on the relative motion of you and the source.

In my frame of reference .. yes.

Good. I am glad we have got that straight.

However, the speed the light is emmitted
from the source (ie with respect to the source) is always c.

Measured in the FoR of the source yes. But that is irrelevant in your
FoR unless you are stationary w.r.t the source and we are assuming your
not.

When the observer changes speed the change in frequency is
instantaneous.
Yes .. as the observer is now at rest in a different frame of reference,
where the light has had that frequency and wavelength since it was
emitted.
Do you see that as a problem?
Yes.

Then you need to think more about what it going on.

If the light in that FoR has had that frequency and wavelength since it
was emitted then that FoR was uniquely defined before the observer became
at rest w.r.t it

Yes .. so no problem. Every inertial frame of references 'exists' at once

in fact it must have been uniquely defined since the beginning of time

Yes

as some of the light that had that frequency and wavelength since it was
emitted was emitted at or near the beginning of the universe. It follows
that all FoR must be uniquely defined.

Yes

Now you and I can only define a FoR with the help of some solid object.

No

You will have to explain how? As you said yourself:
" It travels at c with respect to every *object* in the universe that is
at rest in some inertial frame of reference."


Nature is obviously better at it than we are but it does mean that space
is absolute.

You do realise that frames of reference are not physical objects. .. don't
you. There are no rods with little markers on them sticking out that nature
needs to measure things from. Nature doesn't need frames of reference .. it
just is what it is and does what it does.

You had better make up your mind whether FoR physically exist or whether
they do not. You like all relativists are somewhat confused on the
subject. How can light (real physical energy) have been travelling in a
FoR since the beginning of time if the FoR does not physically exist?

If we agree that space exists and that a FoR is a mathematical
abstraction constructed by man which maps out space relative to some
solid reference - me for example - then it may be impossible to define
my new FoR until I come to rest in it. How can light have been
travelling in my new FoR since the beginning of time if it did not exist
until I came to rest in it?

If the source is a light year away then it has taken a
year to reach me so the speed at which light separated from the source
must have changed to the new value, changing the wavelength, a year
before I changed my speed.
The light has always had that value in the frame of reference you are
changing to.
Your action hasn't done anything to the light at all. But
because you are now in another frame of reference, you will measure the
frequency and wavelength as different to how you measured it in your
previous frame of reference.
So you are saying that this is different light to the light I was
observing when I was travelling at my previous speed?

No .. and if you had any sense you would know that .. you are being
deliberately obtuse .. or are simply ignorant

Perfectly simple question. The light in my old FoR had been travelling
at c, with a specific wavelength since it was emitted - say a year ago.
It still is because my brother is still there and says it didn't change
when I left. The light in my new FoR has been travelling at c with a
different wavelength since it was emitted a year ago so it cannot be the
same light. In order for it to have its specific wavelength then when it
was emitted it must have had a specific speed of separation from the
source - that is what determines the wavelength. The light in my old FoR
had a different wavelength so it must have had a different speed of
separation from the source so cannot be the same light.

You are saying that when I change to a different FoR I can now see the
light which has had been travelling in that FoR with its specific
frequency and wavelength since it was emitted and I can no longer see the
light which I saw in the previous FoR with the frequency and wavelength it
had had since it was emitted?

No

What do you mean 'No'. You were the one who said the light had been
travelling in my new FoR at c with its specific frequency/wavelength
since it was emitted.

You don't see a problem with that?

Yes .. there is a proble mwith it .. it is your little fanatsy. It is not
what I said, nor what physcis says

[snip further nonsense]

Stumped are you.

What you are attempting to do is describe the maths in physical terms
and it doesn't work. The maths represent physical nonsense. Physics
wished to retain relativity and the only way it could do that is to
decide that physical interpretation is not necessary - and (hint) best
avoided. You haven't avoided it.

The correct response - for future reference so that you don't tie
yourself in knots - is to adopt a superior tone and state that
"relativity is a *principle* theory and as such makes no attempt to deal
with the sort of questions you are asking" - You then go on to imply my
status as an idiot "if you knew *anything* about modern physics you
wouldn't ask daft questions".

They are not daft questions, they are perfectly reasonable questions
relating to causality - once the main cornerstone of physics and another
causality of the new mysticism. Modern physics is totally incapable of
answering such questions. It is easier to develop a dogma which says
that it is wrong to ask the questions than to try and put Physics' house
in order.

In general, if an observer is stationary w.r.t the medium in which waves
propagate, waves travel every which way at the same speed - the speed of
propagation in the medium. In SR the observer's FoR has the physical
properties of an aether stationary w.r.t the observer light travels
every which way at the speed of propagation c. OTOH the observer's FoR
is a mathematical abstraction which does not physically exist and can
therefore have no such physical properties. Unfortunately the physical
space the observer's FoR maps out doesn't have the necessary properties
either.

If you look into the history of where this nonsense came from then
Albert E refused to accept that Maxwell's wave's in aether theory was in
any way compromised by the discovery that light isn't actually waves but
particles and continued the quest to explain why the MMX showed that an
observer's speed relative to the aether is always zero i.e. why an
observer always appears stationary w.r.t the aether. Lorentz had an
explanation which Einstein thought too complicated. Einstein simply
accepted that every observer *is* stationary w.r.t the aether as shown
by the MMX and assumed that nature supplied a suitable aether. The
second postulate of relativity simply describes what an observer
stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. That is why an observer's FoR
has the properties of a stationary aether.

The fact that later physics turned its back on the whole idea of the
aether (at a time when Einstein himself was trying to re-invent it) left
SR with no physical basis whatsoever. It also retrospectively undermined
the whole rationale behind SR. Maxwell's theory is based on continuous
fields - a field being a stress pattern in the aether. With no aether
and light being particulate (therefore incompatible with continuous
fields) it makes no sense to hold Maxwell's theory in such regard that
it is worth abandoning apparently sensible axioms of physics regarding
space and time in order to continue believing it to be tablets of stone.

"Physics started to go wrong in 1905 when Einstein published his
relativity theory. Accepting the theory, physicists abandoned the
attempt to understand nature, and asserted that the business of science
is not to understand but merely to learn how to manipulate....
Sacrificing logic, mumbo-jumbo was substituted for reasoning and the
faithful* were forbidden to seek to understand; they were to accept the
cant handed out by the high priests and not ask awkward questions"
Waldron 1975

*[that's you ]

Or as Murray put it even more succinctly

"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world."
--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
    ... Your frame of reference cna be WRT a location in space and time. ... No wonder you have problems with physics ... same source at two different speeds and at two different times? ... I am accurately describing the nonsense which SR implies. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... Physics, Volume 33, #1, Jan. 1965 states: ... "Thus it cannot be argued that the data on binary stars provides support ... BaTh as I have not said which direction the light is travelling. ... number of different speeds resulting in an infinite number of different ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
    ... Speed 'with respect to' an inertial frame in which it ... always travels at c in every inertial frmae of reference. ... but without one you don't really have much physics to talk about. ... It is travelling in the physical universe .. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... thrown by bigger force in various directions and speeds. ... Relativity is a principle theory ... This is essential to the difference between physics and mathematics. ... with mass travelling at c w.r.t you would have infinite mass, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... thrown by bigger force in various directions and speeds. ... Relativity is a principle theory ... " We can distinguish various kinds of theories in physics. ... Suppose a source is travelling away from you at v. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)