Re: Lightspeed exceeded



John Kennaugh wrote:

PD wrote:

On Oct 8, 11:48 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

PD wrote:
>On Oct 8, 6:48 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


[snip] pruning


>> >The rule is very simple. The laws of electrodynamics have to have the
>> >same mathematical form, independent of choice of inertial reference
>> >frame. The choice of Galilean transforms between inertial reference
>> >frame does not do that for the laws of electrodynamics. It does no
>> >good to find some lesser criterion that springs from the PoR and ask
>> >whether the laws of electrodynamics satisfy that lesser criterion.

>> Re-statement of spin version wrapped up in mathematical jargon.

>No sir. That IS the principle of relativity, in plain language.

Wrong you are retrofitting modern ideas to history.


And to some extent, THAT DOESN'T MATTER.


If it doesn't matter then why all the spin?

There is no spin. It is just your attempt to revise history.

why attempt to make out it
is something it isn't? It suggests that you do think it matters. That it is important not to expose the less than perfect origins of the theory.

The history is there and it does not matter what the
origins were.

You are trying to determine
what FORCED Einstein to conclude what he did,


He wasn't FORCED he chose. Yes I am trying to establish why he chose the path he did.

Since he wanted to describe the real world, yes, he was
forced to make the choice he did.


and why did he not
consider some other scheme?


Happy to oblige - Of Ritz's theory he said:

"Moreover this 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,
which is intrinsically conceivable."

Einstein's words are also echoed by Robert Shankland in his
interviews with Einstein. Shankland reports the following about
his February 1950 interview.

"... he had thought of, and abandoned the (Ritz)
emission theory before 1905. He gave up this approach
because he could think of no form of differential
equation which could have solutions representing waves
whose velocity depended on the motion of the source. In
this case, the emission theory would lead to phase
relations such that the propagated light would be all
badly "mixed up' and might even 'back up on itself.' He
asked me, 'Do you understand that ?' I said no and he
carefully repeated it all. When he came again to the
'mixed up' part he waved his hands before his face and
laughed, an open hearty laugh at the idea!"

Ritz's theory was shown to be wrong nearly a century ago. Read
something done within the last century and you will find it.


It just doesn't matter.


It matters to me.

But so what?

He could have
guessed BLINDLY and come up with the same thing, and it wouldn't have
mattered, because later tests would have showed that the blind guess
was correct. Science is retro-assertive that way, and there's nothing
wrong with that.


Define retro-assertive. It sounds to me like re-writing history, adding spin and hiding the truth.

You are the one trying to rewrite history with your prejudices.

If it doesn't matter why are you so reluctant
to admit that Einstein came up with his theory for all the wrong reasons?

It is not true but it does not matter.

I accept that it is perfectly possible that someone can come up
with a theory for all the wrong reasons and still get it right. I might come up on the lottery this week. It doesn't seem likely, but I see no reason to hail him as a genius if he 'got lucky'.

He did not "get lucky". He did a lot of good work and
made many contributions.

Anyway what was wrong
with Lorentz's theory which says the same thing? He got to his version by means of a totally logical and transparent route. Oh I forgot - his is based on the idea of the aether and Einstein's is better because it "puts forward no specific hypothesis" :o)

Sorry will have to leave it there - I won't be in range of a computer for the next week probably.

Thank you for your courteous replies

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... The choice of Galilean transforms between inertial reference ... >>>frame does not do that for the laws of electrodynamics. ... And to some extent, THAT DOESN'T MATTER. ... but I see no reason to hail him as a genius if he 'got lucky'. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: BoxLayout, strunt, rigidarea
    ... spearate buttons, no matter how large is the frame, buttons are separated ... But when I use vertical and horizontal struts vertical space ... between buttons is changing along with the frame size. ... For this reason, it's recommend that you ...
    (comp.lang.java.gui)
  • Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??
    ... > what it is you dispute. ... Time is not a property of matter. ... >> viewing from a relatively moving frame of reference. ... >> of the reference frame. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??
    ... > what it is you dispute. ... Time is not a property of matter. ... >> viewing from a relatively moving frame of reference. ... >> of the reference frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: E-Matrix and Model Mechanics
    ... > If matter and the forces are interplay of the E-Matrix ... >> and the light path length of a measuring rod has the same ... >> speed of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical ... >> By definition the speed of light in the rest frame of the ether is as ...
    (sci.physics)