De Sitter's experiment and the relative motion of photons with respect to the surface of the star
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 5 Feb 2010 03:25 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:42:23 -0800 (PST), artful <artful_me(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 5, 10:20�am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> > On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:58:07 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> >> > wrote: >[snip] >> > Einstein's SR is derived from the fallacy that a vertical light beam >> > becomes a diagonal light beam in a moving frame. IT DOES NO SUCH THING. > >Henri is correct that a vertical beam does NOT become a diagonal >beam .. where a 'beam' is the location of the light (emitted >previously) at a given time t. > >It is also that case that though the beam remains vertical, every part >of it follow (parallel) diagonal paths .. and so the beam itself >follows a diagonal path WHILE remaining verticla > >However, his arument is moot because Henri is INCORRECT in his claim >that SR requires/concludes that a vertical beam becomes diagona, let >alone that it is derived from it. > >So the claim is a lie (not that henry has any qualms about blatantly >lying) Why were you forced to change you name again? Were you being ignored by everyone, dear lady? Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Bruce Richmond on 5 Feb 2010 19:46 On Feb 5, 6:54 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Bruce Richmond wrote: > >On Feb 4, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 4, 6:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> > On Feb 3, 9:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Feb 3, 7:17 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The question was what is the physical basis of SR? > > >> > > > > If you are claiming there is no physical basis .. then surely it must > >> > > > > be different to LET's physical basis (which exists). > > >> > > > Someone made the statement, "SR as it *presently* exists is a physical > >> > > > theory that has a *different* physical basis than LET." > > >> > > > As I see it both are based on the speed of light being source > >> > > > independent. > > >> > > No, that is not the present form of SR. > >> > > SR today would survive the photon being found to have finite mass and > >> > > therefore traveling at v<c, and therefore whose speed would be frame- > >> > > dependent. > > >> > So you are saying that it wouldn't matter if the second postulate was > >> > wrong? Wow, SR certainly has changed. > > >> That's right. SR has been examined considerably since the days that > >> those postulates have been put forward, and it has been found to have > >> a much deeper basis than what Einstein originally built it upon. > > >> That's ok. There's plenty of material available with which to catch > >> up. > > >I have no problem with expanding a theory to take in new developments, > >but when you change the basis of a theory you no longer have the same > >theory. In his 1905 paper Einstein wrote, "that light is always > >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > >independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." IOW c is > >the speed of light by definition. So there is no way for the speed of > >light in empty space to be anything but c. If you construct a > >coordinate system as described in SR and measure the speed of light to > >be anything but c you had better look for your mistake because it > >can't happen if you did everything correctly. > > >The quote above supports my previous claim that the source > >independence of the speed of light is a basic claim of SR. The same > >can be said for LET. The claim that new developments support SR but > >not LET is pure BS. SR started as "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING > >BODIES". If that title didn't prevent it from being exteded to other > >areas then there is no reason to think that such a restriction should > >apply to LET. > > Maxwell's wave in aether theory made the following predictions: > > 1/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether the > light speed is source independent. > 2/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether an > observers speed relative to the aether would add to the speed of light. > 3/ That action at a distance force between charge is transferred via an > altered state ("stress") in the aether. > > The MMX was intended to show 2 and the null result was a puzzle. Lorentz > took up an idea from Fitzgerald of length contraction but showed why > length would contract according to Maxwell's aether. Essentially he > assumed that a solid consisted of a matrix of charged particles and that > its dimensions therefore depends upon action at a distance force between > those charges. If the action at a distance force is transferred via the > aether in accordance with 3 and the aether is in motion the equilibrium > position of the charges will be different compared to if the aether were > stationary. He showed mathematically that length contraction in the > direction of motion would result. In affect the MMX had been designed > ignoring one property of the very theory it was testing. When that was > taken into account it appears the MMX was incapable of detecting what it > was designed to detect. SR is based on the assumption that the MMX was > capable of measuring our speed w.r.t the aether and always got zero i.e. > that an observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether which is what the > second postulate is describing. I don't think so. SR was based on the speed of light being a natural constant shared between frames. It extended the Principle of Relativity to electromagnetic phenomena. To do so the speed of light could not be attached to just a single frame. Einstein used the observed properties of light but left the details of how those properties were achieved open. > Texts books dismiss the aether on the grounds that it is undetectable > but it is *only* our absolute speed w.r.t the aether which is > unobservable. Other predicted effects of the aether are observable. > > Prediction 1 is testable. So is 2 but not by the MMX. Motion w.r.t the > aether cannot be measured directly but if the aether does exist then > motion w.r.t the aether will result in a change of frequency. Put simply > we cannot measure our absolute speed w.r.t the aether for the reasons > stated but we can detect and calculate our change of speed w.r.t the > aether from Doppler shift. > In fact SR fails spectacularly at the most basic of levels. If I change > *my* speed then the frequency of any light I am looking at will > instantaneously change. LET explains this by saying that I have changed > my speed w.r.t the aether and thus w.r.t the light so the waves are > passing me at a different speed. My measurement of that speed, with > transformed instruments means it *seems* as if my speed hasn't changed > while the change of frequency proves conclusively that it has. > > SR cannot explain it in any rational physical way. A relativists belief > system is underpinned by insisting that we *think* in terms of "Frames > of Reference". A FoR is a mathematical abstraction and an intellectual > crutch. Relativists imbue it with magical properties. They declare that > before I change my speed there pre-exists a FoR where the light has a > different wavelength and when I change my speed I "move into it". This > is nonsense; physically there is just "space". All FoR map that same > space. > > Both LET and emission (type) theories have no problem explaining Doppler > shift. SR fails. > > -- > John Kennaugh > "Physics is not a logical deduction system, and there is no need for postulates > to be 'true'" - Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 6 Feb 2010 11:46 On Feb 6, 8:45 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Bruce Richmond wrote: > >On Feb 5, 6:54 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> Bruce Richmond wrote: > >> >On Feb 4, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 4, 6:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Feb 3, 9:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > On Feb 3, 7:17 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> [snip] > > >> >> > > > > > The question was what is the physical basis of SR? > > >> >> > > > > If you are claiming there is no physical basis .. then > >> >> > > > >surely it must > >> >> > > > > be different to LET's physical basis (which exists). > > >> >> > > > Someone made the statement, "SR as it *presently* exists is > > >> >> > > > theory that has a *different* physical basis than LET." > > >> >> > > > As I see it both are based on the speed of light being source > >> >> > > > independent. > > >> >> > > No, that is not the present form of SR. > >> >> > > SR today would survive the photon being found to have finite mass and > >> >> > > therefore traveling at v<c, and therefore whose speed would be frame- > >> >> > > dependent. > > >> >> > So you are saying that it wouldn't matter if the second postulate was > >> >> > wrong? Wow, SR certainly has changed. > > >> >> That's right. SR has been examined considerably since the days that > >> >> those postulates have been put forward, and it has been found to have > >> >> a much deeper basis than what Einstein originally built it upon. > > >> >> That's ok. There's plenty of material available with which to catch > >> >> up. > > >> >I have no problem with expanding a theory to take in new developments, > >> >but when you change the basis of a theory you no longer have the same > >> >theory. In his 1905 paper Einstein wrote, "that light is always > >> >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > >> >independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." IOW c is > >> >the speed of light by definition. So there is no way for the speed of > >> >light in empty space to be anything but c. If you construct a > >> >coordinate system as described in SR and measure the speed of light to > >> >be anything but c you had better look for your mistake because it > >> >can't happen if you did everything correctly. > > >> >The quote above supports my previous claim that the source > >> >independence of the speed of light is a basic claim of SR. The same > >> >can be said for LET. The claim that new developments support SR but > >> >not LET is pure BS. SR started as "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING > >> >BODIES". If that title didn't prevent it from being exteded to other > >> >areas then there is no reason to think that such a restriction should > >> >apply to LET. > > >> Maxwell's wave in aether theory made the following predictions: > > >> 1/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether the > >> light speed is source independent. > >> 2/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether an > >> observers speed relative to the aether would add to the speed of light.. > >> 3/ That action at a distance force between charge is transferred via an > >> altered state ("stress") in the aether. > > >> The MMX was intended to show 2 and the null result was a puzzle. Lorentz > >> took up an idea from Fitzgerald of length contraction but showed why > >> length would contract according to Maxwell's aether. Essentially he > >> assumed that a solid consisted of a matrix of charged particles and that > >> its dimensions therefore depends upon action at a distance force between > >> those charges. If the action at a distance force is transferred via the > >> aether in accordance with 3 and the aether is in motion the equilibrium > >> position of the charges will be different compared to if the aether were > >> stationary. He showed mathematically that length contraction in the > >> direction of motion would result. In affect the MMX had been designed > >> ignoring one property of the very theory it was testing. When that was > >> taken into account it appears the MMX was incapable of detecting what it > >> was designed to detect. SR is based on the assumption that the MMX was > >> capable of measuring our speed w.r.t the aether and always got zero i.e. > >> that an observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether which is what the > >> second postulate is describing. > > >I don't think so. SR was based on the speed of light being a natural > >constant shared between frames. It extended the Principle of > >Relativity to electromagnetic phenomena. To do so the speed of light > >could not be attached to just a single frame. > > You are confusing 2 things. The PoR simply states that the same laws > shall apply to all FoR this means firstly that the speed of light > measured between a stationary source and a stationary detector must be > the same constant in all FoR. Secondly that the relationship (law) > between the speed of the source and the speed of light must be the same > in all FoR. > That law need not be as in SR "the speed is always c" it could be "thed > speed is always c+v". I think the claim is that Maxwell's laws are the same in all FoR. > The latter puts light on a par with other speeds > i.e. the speed of light is relative like other speeds and naturally > accords with the PoR. In fact Einstein said that his second postulate > was "apparently irreconcilable" with the PoR and was only able to make > it so by ditching 3 long established and apparently sensible axioms of > physics relating to space, time and mass. At the time (1905) there was > no evidence that light speed was not relative and Ritz rival theory of > 1908 said that it was i.e. that the speed of light from a moving source > is c+v. There were no experiments to show that it isn't when Einstein > set down his theory and none which stand critical scrutiny until 1964. > Einstein based his postulate on the interpretation I give above. The > second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the > source will observe. This is how Einstein and his contemporaries saw the > null result of the MMX. Empirical evidence that an observer always has > zero speed w.r.t the aether. What you are likely to find in a text book > is spin. > > "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory > of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which attracted > much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the constancy of > the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in a vacuum is > the same in all systems of reference which are moving relatively to each > other, an assertion which at the time was widely accepted. In this paper > Einstein gave modifications which must now be introduced into the > formulae for aberration and for the Doppler effect." > Sir Edmund Whittaker's The History of Theories of Aether and > Electricity, 1953 > > If you look at his 1905 paper he goes to great lengths to justify the > first postulate (PoR) and none at all to justify the second as it was > considered "self evident" - "an assertion which at the time was widely > accepted." > > > > > Einstein used the > >observed properties of light but left the details of how those > >properties were achieved open. > > >> Texts books dismiss the aether on the grounds that it is undetectable > >> but it is *only* our absolute speed w.r.t the aether which is > >> unobservable. Other predicted effects of the aether are observable. > > >> Prediction 1 is testable. So is 2 but not by the MMX. Motion w.r.t the > >> aether cannot be measured directly but if the aether does exist then > >> motion w.r.t the aether will result in a change of frequency. Put simply > >> we cannot measure our absolute speed w.r.t the aether for the reasons > >> stated but we can detect and calculate our change of speed w.r.t the > >> aether from Doppler shift. > >> In fact SR fails spectacularly at the most basic of levels. If I change > >> *my* speed then the frequency of any light I am looking at will > >> instantaneously change. LET explains this by saying that I have changed > >> my speed w.r.t the aether and thus w.r.t the light so the waves are > >> passing me at a different speed. My measurement of that speed, with > >> transformed instruments means it *seems* as if my speed hasn't changed > >> while the change of frequency proves conclusively that it has. > > >> SR cannot explain it in any rational physical way. A relativists belief > >> system is underpinned by insisting that we *think* in terms of "Frames > >> of Reference". A FoR is a mathematical abstraction and an intellectual > >> crutch. Relativists imbue it with magical properties. They declare that > >> before I change my speed there pre-exists a FoR where the light has a > >> different wavelength and when I change my speed I "move into it". This > >> is nonsense; physically there is just "space". All FoR map that same > >> space. > > >> Both LET and emission (type) theories have no problem explaining Doppler > >> shift. SR fails. > > -- > John Kennaugh
From: Bruce Richmond on 6 Feb 2010 15:31 On Feb 6, 9:45 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Bruce Richmond wrote: > >On Feb 5, 6:54 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> Bruce Richmond wrote: > >> >On Feb 4, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 4, 6:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Feb 3, 9:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > On Feb 3, 7:17 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> [snip] > > >> >> > > > > > The question was what is the physical basis of SR? > > >> >> > > > > If you are claiming there is no physical basis .. then > >> >> > > > >surely it must > >> >> > > > > be different to LET's physical basis (which exists). > > >> >> > > > Someone made the statement, "SR as it *presently* exists is > > >> >> > > > theory that has a *different* physical basis than LET." > > >> >> > > > As I see it both are based on the speed of light being source > >> >> > > > independent. > > >> >> > > No, that is not the present form of SR. > >> >> > > SR today would survive the photon being found to have finite mass and > >> >> > > therefore traveling at v<c, and therefore whose speed would be frame- > >> >> > > dependent. > > >> >> > So you are saying that it wouldn't matter if the second postulate was > >> >> > wrong? Wow, SR certainly has changed. > > >> >> That's right. SR has been examined considerably since the days that > >> >> those postulates have been put forward, and it has been found to have > >> >> a much deeper basis than what Einstein originally built it upon. > > >> >> That's ok. There's plenty of material available with which to catch > >> >> up. > > >> >I have no problem with expanding a theory to take in new developments, > >> >but when you change the basis of a theory you no longer have the same > >> >theory. In his 1905 paper Einstein wrote, "that light is always > >> >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > >> >independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." IOW c is > >> >the speed of light by definition. So there is no way for the speed of > >> >light in empty space to be anything but c. If you construct a > >> >coordinate system as described in SR and measure the speed of light to > >> >be anything but c you had better look for your mistake because it > >> >can't happen if you did everything correctly. > > >> >The quote above supports my previous claim that the source > >> >independence of the speed of light is a basic claim of SR. The same > >> >can be said for LET. The claim that new developments support SR but > >> >not LET is pure BS. SR started as "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING > >> >BODIES". If that title didn't prevent it from being exteded to other > >> >areas then there is no reason to think that such a restriction should > >> >apply to LET. > > >> Maxwell's wave in aether theory made the following predictions: > > >> 1/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether the > >> light speed is source independent. > >> 2/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether an > >> observers speed relative to the aether would add to the speed of light.. > >> 3/ That action at a distance force between charge is transferred via an > >> altered state ("stress") in the aether. > > >> The MMX was intended to show 2 and the null result was a puzzle. Lorentz > >> took up an idea from Fitzgerald of length contraction but showed why > >> length would contract according to Maxwell's aether. Essentially he > >> assumed that a solid consisted of a matrix of charged particles and that > >> its dimensions therefore depends upon action at a distance force between > >> those charges. If the action at a distance force is transferred via the > >> aether in accordance with 3 and the aether is in motion the equilibrium > >> position of the charges will be different compared to if the aether were > >> stationary. He showed mathematically that length contraction in the > >> direction of motion would result. In affect the MMX had been designed > >> ignoring one property of the very theory it was testing. When that was > >> taken into account it appears the MMX was incapable of detecting what it > >> was designed to detect. SR is based on the assumption that the MMX was > >> capable of measuring our speed w.r.t the aether and always got zero i.e. > >> that an observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether which is what the > >> second postulate is describing. > > >I don't think so. SR was based on the speed of light being a natural > >constant shared between frames. It extended the Principle of > >Relativity to electromagnetic phenomena. To do so the speed of light > >could not be attached to just a single frame. > > You are confusing 2 things. The PoR simply states that the same laws > shall apply to all FoR this means firstly that the speed of light > measured between a stationary source and a stationary detector must be > the same constant in all FoR. You don't need to include the source in there. You can time how long it takes to get from one detector to another. The law says it doesn't matter if the source is moving or not. > Secondly that the relationship (law) > between the speed of the source and the speed of light must be the same > in all FoR. In your theory maybe but not in SR or LET. In Einstein's 1905 paper he even uses the words, "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > That law need not be as in SR "the speed is always c" it could be "the > speed is always c+v". Each frame considers itself to be at rest, so v is 0 and c+v=c. > The latter puts light on a par with other speeds > i.e. the speed of light is relative like other speeds and naturally > accords with the PoR. It was never intended to have light speed on par with other speeds. It is special and was declared a natural constant. > In fact Einstein said that his second postulate > was "apparently irreconcilable" with the PoR and was only able to make > it so by ditching 3 long established and apparently sensible axioms of > physics relating to space, time and mass. At the time (1905) there was > no evidence that light speed was not relative and Ritz rival theory of > 1908 said that it was i.e. that the speed of light from a moving source > is c+v. Well it had to be one or the other ;) If Einstein guessed wrong it would probably show up. How is Ritz's theory doing these days? > There were no experiments to show that it isn't when Einstein > set down his theory and none which stand critical scrutiny until 1964. > Einstein based his postulate on the interpretation I give above. The > second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the > source will observe. It made it clear that the source had no effect on the speed. > This is how Einstein and his contemporaries saw the > null result of the MMX. Empirical evidence that an observer always has > zero speed w.r.t the aether. What you are likely to find in a text book > is spin. Einstein was very careful to not invoke an ether. And few of his contemporaries thought the MMX was at rest w.r.t the aether. Just look at Lorentz's 1904 paper for proof of that. > "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory > of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which attracted > much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the constancy of > the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in a vacuum is > the same in all systems of reference which are moving relatively to each > other, an assertion which at the time was widely accepted. In this paper > Einstein gave modifications which must now be introduced into the > formulae for aberration and for the Doppler effect." > Sir Edmund Whittaker's The History of Theories of Aether and > Electricity, 1953 > > If you look at his 1905 paper he goes to great lengths to justify the > first postulate (PoR) and none at all to justify the second as it was > considered "self evident" - "an assertion which at the time was widely > accepted." > > > > > > > Einstein used the > >observed properties of light but left the details of how those > >properties were achieved open. > > >> Texts books dismiss the aether on the grounds that it is undetectable > >> but it is *only* our absolute speed w.r.t the aether which is > >> unobservable. Other predicted effects of the aether are observable. > > >> Prediction 1 is testable. So is 2 but not by the MMX. Motion w.r.t the > >> aether cannot be measured directly but if the aether does exist then > >> motion w.r.t the aether will result in a change of frequency. Put simply > >> we cannot measure our absolute speed w.r.t the aether for the reasons > >> stated but we can detect and calculate our change of speed w.r.t the > >> aether from Doppler shift. > >> In fact SR fails spectacularly at the most basic of levels. If I change > >> *my* speed then the frequency of any light I am looking at will > >> instantaneously change. LET explains this by saying that I have changed > >> my speed w.r.t the aether and thus w.r.t the light so the waves are > >> passing me at a different speed. My measurement of that speed, with > >> transformed instruments means it *seems* as if my speed hasn't changed > >> while the change of frequency proves conclusively that it has. > > >> SR cannot explain it in any rational physical way. A relativists belief > >> system is underpinned by insisting that we *think* in terms of "Frames > >> of Reference". A FoR is a mathematical abstraction and an intellectual > >> crutch. Relativists imbue it with magical properties. They declare that > >> before I change my speed there pre-exists a FoR where the light has a > >> different wavelength and when I change my speed I "move into it". This > >> is nonsense; physically there is just "space". All FoR map that same > >> space. > > >> Both LET and emission (type) theories have no problem explaining Doppler > >> shift. SR fails. > > -- > John Kennaugh- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Bruce Richmond on 7 Feb 2010 21:19
On Feb 7, 11:25 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Bruce Richmond wrote: > >On Feb 6, 9:45 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> Bruce Richmond wrote: > >> >On Feb 5, 6:54 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >> >wrote: > >> >> Bruce Richmond wrote: > >> >> >On Feb 4, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Feb 4, 6:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Feb 3, 9:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > On Feb 3, 7:17 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> > > > > > The question was what is the physical basis of SR? > > >> >> >> > > > > If you are claiming there is no physical basis .. then > >> >> >> > > > >surely it must > >> >> >> > > > > be different to LET's physical basis (which exists). > > >> >> >> > > > Someone made the statement, "SR as it *presently* exists is > > >> >> >> > > > theory that has a *different* physical basis than LET." > > >> >> >> > > > As I see it both are based on the speed of light being source > >> >> >> > > > independent. > > >> >> >> > > No, that is not the present form of SR. > >> >> >> > > SR today would survive the photon being found to have > >> >> >> > >finite mass and > >> >> >> > > therefore traveling at v<c, and therefore whose speed would > >> >> >> > >be frame- > >> >> >> > > dependent. > > >> >> >> > So you are saying that it wouldn't matter if the second postulate was > >> >> >> > wrong? Wow, SR certainly has changed. > > >> >> >> That's right. SR has been examined considerably since the days that > >> >> >> those postulates have been put forward, and it has been found to have > >> >> >> a much deeper basis than what Einstein originally built it upon. > > >> >> >> That's ok. There's plenty of material available with which to catch > >> >> >> up. > > >> >> >I have no problem with expanding a theory to take in new developments, > >> >> >but when you change the basis of a theory you no longer have the same > >> >> >theory. In his 1905 paper Einstein wrote, "that light is always > >> >> >propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > >> >> >independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." IOW c is > >> >> >the speed of light by definition. So there is no way for the speed of > >> >> >light in empty space to be anything but c. If you construct a > >> >> >coordinate system as described in SR and measure the speed of light to > >> >> >be anything but c you had better look for your mistake because it > >> >> >can't happen if you did everything correctly. > > >> >> >The quote above supports my previous claim that the source > >> >> >independence of the speed of light is a basic claim of SR. The same > >> >> >can be said for LET. The claim that new developments support SR but > >> >> >not LET is pure BS. SR started as "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING > >> >> >BODIES". If that title didn't prevent it from being exteded to other > >> >> >areas then there is no reason to think that such a restriction should > >> >> >apply to LET. > > >> >> Maxwell's wave in aether theory made the following predictions: > > >> >> 1/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether the > >> >> light speed is source independent. > >> >> 2/ That because the speed of light is a constant w.r.t the aether an > >> >> observers speed relative to the aether would add to the speed of light. > >> >> 3/ That action at a distance force between charge is transferred via an > >> >> altered state ("stress") in the aether. > > >> >> The MMX was intended to show 2 and the null result was a puzzle. Lorentz > >> >> took up an idea from Fitzgerald of length contraction but showed why > >> >> length would contract according to Maxwell's aether. Essentially he > >> >> assumed that a solid consisted of a matrix of charged particles and that > >> >> its dimensions therefore depends upon action at a distance force between > >> >> those charges. If the action at a distance force is transferred via the > >> >> aether in accordance with 3 and the aether is in motion the equilibrium > >> >> position of the charges will be different compared to if the aether were > >> >> stationary. He showed mathematically that length contraction in the > >> >> direction of motion would result. In affect the MMX had been designed > >> >> ignoring one property of the very theory it was testing. When that was > >> >> taken into account it appears the MMX was incapable of detecting what it > >> >> was designed to detect. SR is based on the assumption that the MMX was > >> >> capable of measuring our speed w.r.t the aether and always got zero i.e. > >> >> that an observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether which is what the > >> >> second postulate is describing. > > >> >I don't think so. SR was based on the speed of light being a natural > >> >constant shared between frames. It extended the Principle of > >> >Relativity to electromagnetic phenomena. To do so the speed of light > >> >could not be attached to just a single frame. > > >> You are confusing 2 things. The PoR simply states that the same laws > >> shall apply to all FoR this means firstly that the speed of light > >> measured between a stationary source and a stationary detector must be > >> the same constant in all FoR. > > >You don't need to include the source in there. You can time how long > >it takes to get from one detector to another. > > The law says it doesn't > >matter if the source is moving or not. > > The PoR does not. That is my point. > Which is why Einstein added the second postulate. > > >> Secondly that the relationship (law) > >> between the speed of the source and the speed of light must be the same > >> in all FoR. > > >In your theory maybe but not in SR or LET. > > Your statement related to the PoR - the first postulate. I am correcting > your statement relating to the PoR which has nothing to say as to what > the law is. That is the second postulate. I said that SR extended the PoR to include the second postulate. You are correct, the PoR said nothing about source independence, or dependence either. > > In Einstein's 1905 paper > >he even uses the words, "independent of the state of motion of the > >emitting body." > > In respect of the second postulate. Your statement was about the PoR - > the first postulate. > My statement was about the law of the propagation of light. I suppose you could say that was still in dispute, but as far as SR is concerned the second postulate spells out the law of the propagation of light. > > >> That law need not be as in SR "the speed is always c" it could be "the > >> speed is always c+v". > > >Each frame considers itself to be at rest, so v is 0 and c+v=c. > > >> The latter puts light on a par with other speeds > >> i.e. the speed of light is relative like other speeds and naturally > >> accords with the PoR. > > >It was never intended to have light speed on par with other speeds. > >It is special and was declared a natural constant. > > SR yes. LET yes. The PoR No. I was writing with respect to SR. > >> In fact Einstein said that his second postulate > >> was "apparently irreconcilable" with the PoR and was only able to make > >> it so by ditching 3 long established and apparently sensible axioms of > >> physics relating to space, time and mass. At the time (1905) there was > >> no evidence that light speed was not relative and Ritz rival theory of > >> 1908 said that it was i.e. that the speed of light from a moving source > >> is c+v. > > >Well it had to be one or the other ;) If Einstein guessed wrong it > >would probably show up. How is Ritz's theory doing these days? > > >> There were no experiments to show that it isn't when Einstein > >> set down his theory and none which stand critical scrutiny until 1964. > >> Einstein based his postulate on the interpretation I give above. The > >> second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the > >> source will observe. > > >It made it clear that the source had no effect on the speed. > > What did? That came from Maxwell and the fact that the speed of light is > constant w.r.t the aether so cannot be affected by the speed of the > source. > The second postulate. Look at your sentence right above my sentence, the one that you started with "The second postulate simply...". > > >> This is how Einstein and his contemporaries saw the > >> null result of the MMX. Empirical evidence that an observer always has > >> zero speed w.r.t the aether. What you are likely to find in a text book > >> is spin. > > >Einstein was very careful to not invoke an ether. And few of his > >contemporaries thought the MMX was at rest w.r.t the aether. Just > >look at Lorentz's 1904 paper for proof of that. > > >> "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory > >> of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which attracted > >> much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the constancy of > >> the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in a vacuum is > >> the same in all systems of reference which are moving relatively to each > >> other, an assertion which at the time was widely accepted. In this paper > >> Einstein gave modifications which must now be introduced into the > >> formulae for aberration and for the Doppler effect." > >> Sir Edmund Whittaker's The History of Theories of Aether and > >> Electricity, 1953 > > >> If you look at his 1905 paper he goes to great lengths to justify the > >> first postulate (PoR) and none at all to justify the second as it was > >> considered "self evident" - "an assertion which at the time was widely > >> accepted." > > >> > Einstein used the > >> >observed properties of light but left the details of how those > >> >properties were achieved open. > > >> >> Texts books dismiss the aether on the grounds that it is undetectable > >> >> but it is *only* our absolute speed w.r.t the aether which is > >> >> unobservable. Other predicted effects of the aether are observable. > > >> >> Prediction 1 is testable. So is 2 but not by the MMX. Motion w.r.t the > >> >> aether cannot be measured directly but if the aether does exist then > >> >> motion w.r.t the aether will result in a change of frequency. Put simply > >> >> we cannot measure our absolute speed w.r.t the aether for the reasons > >> >> stated but we can detect and calculate our change of speed w.r.t the > >> >> aether from Doppler shift. > >> >> In fact SR fails spectacularly at the most basic of levels. If I change > >> >> *my* speed then the frequency of any light I am looking at will > >> >> instantaneously change. LET explains this by saying that I have changed > >> >> my speed w.r.t the aether and thus w.r.t the light so the waves are > >> >> passing me at a different speed. My measurement of that speed, with > >> >> transformed instruments means it *seems* as if my speed hasn't changed > >> >> while the change of frequency proves conclusively that it has. > > >> >> SR cannot explain it in any rational physical way. A relativists belief > >> >> system is underpinned by insisting that we *think* in terms of "Frames > >> >> of Reference". A FoR is a mathematical abstraction and an intellectual > >> >> crutch. Relativists imbue it with magical properties. They declare that > >> >> before I change my speed there pre-exists a FoR where the light has a > >> >> different wavelength and when I change my speed I "move into it". This > >> >> is nonsense; physically there is just "space". All FoR map that same > >> >> space. > > >> >> Both LET and emission (type) theories have no problem explaining Doppler > >> >> shift. SR fails. > > >> -- > >> John Kennaugh- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > John Kennaugh |