Re: Does SR transform to Ballistic theory1

Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
Authors trying to sell Relativity to a student have a problem.

Boy, you sure display your bias up front. This isn't "selling", this is _teaching_. It's sad that you cannot tell the difference, and that reflects on you far more than anyone else.

You are the one who is confused. If you go to theological collage you are *taught* the teachings and rituals of the church. If you go to university you go to study science or as it is described "Read" science. It is not a process of indoctrination. Any student studying science at university who accepts what he is taught without question has no right to be there. That is the birthright of the student. The hope is that some of the students will go on to change the way we view nature.

They
cannot go through a logical sequence of historical events - the history
of relativity is quite frankly embarrassing.

History is not "logical".

At least we agree on that. Historical decisions on which modern physics is based fly in the face of logic. It is a comedy of errors.

Nor is it "embarrassing" except possibly to those who participated.

Historically SR is based on the idea that despite Maxwell's waves in aether theory having been disproved by the MMX, black body radiation and the fact that light isn't really waves but particulate - that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is nevertheless impeccable.

If it is impeccable the MMX is a valid measure of the observer's speed relative to Maxwell's aether = always zero and therefore for some mysterious reason every observer *is* stationary w.r.t the aether. That is the true basis of the second postulate and it describes exactly what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe.

In order to save Maxwell's wave in aether theory from the damming evidence of experiment, 3 long standing and apparently sensible axioms of physics were ditched. No one in his right mind would accept the ditching of three long standing and apparently sensible axioms of physics unless they thought that the theory requiring that sacrifice was impeccable.

There was no logical reason for doing so. There was a much simpler alternative not ruled out by experiment - simply ignored. While you will no doubt claim it has been ruled out since there is no experiment in the following 60 years which one would now seriously consider to challenge it. An accepted theory would not be rejected if some experimental data challenged it. Look at the big bang theory and how that was fixed. Can you point to a single instance of someone who's intellect you respect having made a serious attempt to make the ballistic theory work? Perhaps in your prejudiced mind anyone who attempted to make it work would lose your respect anyway. Religious fanatics hate heretics undermining their beliefs.

Having paid such a high price to save Maxwell's wave in aether theory physics decided to ditch the aether without reviewing the decisions taken to retain it. Contrary to myth 'getting rid of the aether' was not Einstein's doing but an arbitrary decision that physics no longer needed to make physical sense, no longer needed a physical basis, so no longer needed a physical means of getting light wave energy from A to B. The reason that arbitrary decision was taken was because a theory had been accepted which does not make physical sense with or without the aether.

You need to be a religious fundamentalist not to find that an embarrassing historical justification for your belief. You may believe that sound science can nevertheless result from such a provenance - I do not. I prefer to accept what experiment told us that Maxwell's wave in aether is fatally flawed so SR has no justification. Light is particulate and requires no aether. If there is no aether the 2 prediction of Maxwell are not true. The speed of an observer relative to the aether will not result in a different measured speed of light and the aether will not prevent the physical processes generating light being responsible for the speed at which it leaves the source.

If it had not been for unshakeable and totally unjustified BELIEF physics would have gone in a different direction.


Neither can they appeal to
common sense, relativity is of course counter intuitive.

Yes. "Common sense" is JUST THAT -- rules of thumb we use based on our common, everyday experience. Nobody grows up with experience of speeds approaching c, and sensible people realize that there's no reason why phenomena at the scale of our lives should be valid in domains far removed from our lives.

Ultimately all our knowledge of the world is gathered through our senses enhanced by instrumentation we have constructed to extend those senses. The oak desk I am seated at appears solid but I accept that at a level beyond 'everyday experience' that it is mainly made up of empty space and is held together by action at a distance force. Although not 'common sense' if by that you imply 'everyday experience' it nevertheless 'makes sense'. What you are trying to do is equate 'making sense' with 'everyday experience' which is wrong.

If there was an aether then one would expect strange effects to occur if some object was travelling close to the speed at which light propagates in that medium just as strange things happen when an object travels at near the speed of sound in air but without an aether and with speed being considered purely relative there is no causality. It is not a question of 'everyday experience'. It does not 'make sense' in that there is nothing to cause the effects the maths describe.

[... HIGHLY biased claims, bordering on just plain wrong]

What are?


If you are a follower of Occam then the MMX shows that the speed of
light is not constant w.r.t the aether as had been supposed and so must
therefore be constant w.r.t the source

NONSENSE! There is no "so must therefore" here. Your attempt to argue from exhaustive enumeration is JUST PLAIN WRONG. There are other possibilities, such as SR being correct.

Q - In purely physical terms what does SR say that the speed of light is constant w.r.t and what, in terms of physical causality makes it so?

A - SR is a principle theory which does not attempt to answer those sorts of question.

A principle theory is another name for a mathematical model. Your statement therefore amounts to a statement that the maths called SR give the right answer and my posting has shown why that is the case. SR is not 'another possibility' because it does not represent a physical alternative. There are other *physical* alternatives consistent with SR maths. One is Lorentz's aether, the other is Einstein's "aether without the immobility of Lorentz's" an aether which mysteriously allows every observer to be stationary w.r.t it. I agree that if I was arguing from 'exhaustive enumeration' I should have included those two possibilities and maybe add "or something no one has thought of" but I do not see how that helps your argument.

I do not accept the view that physics does not require a physical interpretation to compliment the maths. Having maths which give the right answer is not enough. It is like saying that if we can accurately formulate tide time there is no need to understand why the tide goes in and out.

Suppose our planet had permanent cloud cover and we did not know of the moons existence. An argument might arise and the debate may be expressed thus:
"Something makes the tides go in and out so either something is rotating around the earth or there is something going around inside the earth." Then someone like you comes along and says:

NONSENSE! There is no "so either" here. Your attempt to argue from exhaustive enumeration is JUST PLAIN WRONG. There are other possibilities, such as - the tide table algorithm is correct.

You cannot answer a physical question with a mathematical answer [shrug]

[... further nonsense based on his ignorance of modern physics, most
especially SR.]

I stated some time back that I was convinced that all the Lorentz transforms do is transform a wrongly based theory to give the right answer as per ballistic theory. You challenged me to prove it. In response to your challenge I have presented you with my case and you have simply snipped it.

You're doing your usual trick of ignoring the arguments you cannot deal with.
--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why relativists dont understand Einsteins 1905 mathematics.
    ... speeds we are used to. ... It cannot mutate into waves for part of the journey because by their very nature waves spread out and their energy density reduces. ... The waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist. ... Essentially what Einstein assumed was that EM theory is correct and that therefore the laws of mechanics had to change resulting in having to ditch 3 long standing and apparently sensible axioms of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS
    ... Even before physics turned into metaphysics no theory was rejected - ... was rejected and the wave in aether theory accepted. ... particle properties of light. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Second Postulate Violates His First.
    ... special relativity the laws of physics are the same in all ... Maxwell's equations, which have a constant c, is a law of physics. ... 1/ that because the speed of light is c w.r.t the aether the speed of ... all speeds are frame dependent EXCEPT that of light. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... you accept "no aether" the decision to go with Einstein makes absolutely ... Physics ... impression that the evidence for relativity is stronger than it actually ... Relativity - light leaves the source at different speeds relative to the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... science and technology. ... It is whatever physics wants it to be. ... >>>aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test ... >> physicists to explain it to them. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)