EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: jrysk on 6 Aug 2008 12:30 On Jul 10, 3:41 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by > Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It > is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The > following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can > someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it > wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR > is really wrong. > > Baird said: > > "16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity > > We're told that the experimental evidence for special > relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable > doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all > this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results > reckoned to support the special theory include: > > * E=mc^2 > > * transverse redshifts > > * longitudinal Doppler relationships > > * the lightspeed limit in particle accelerators > > * the searchlight effect (shared with dragged-light > models and NM) > > * "velocity addition" behaviour (shared with dragged-light models and > NM) > > * particle tracklengths > > * muon detection > > * particle lifetimes in accelerator storage rings / > centrifuge time dilation / orbiting clocks > > * the failure of competing theories > > ... we'll be looking at all of these, along with a > couple of important background issues. > > 16.2: ... E=mc^2 > > For a long time it seemed to be received wisdom that > the E=mc^2 result was unique to special relativity, We > were told that if special relativity wasn't true then > nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons wouldn't work, and > without SR's prediction of E=mc^2, nuclear fusion > wouldn't operate as it does. Without special > relativity, the Sun wouldn't shine. > > And while this was a good story to tell credulous > schoolchildren, it was essentially pseudoscience. The > idea that E=mc^2 "belongs" to SR doesn't hold up to > basic mathematical analysis, and to Einstein's credit > he went on to argue for the wider validity of the > result by publishing further papers that derived the > relationship (or a good approximation of it) from more > general arguments outside special relativity. We also > found in section 2.5 (with working supplied in the > Appendices, Calculations 2), that E=mc^ 2 is an exact > result of NM, if we ignore standard teaching and go > directly to the core mathematics. Not only is the > NM-based derivation of E=mc2 reasonably > straightforward, it's shorter than its SR counterpart, > and it's also part of every hypothetical model in > section 13. > > Whiile it's historically understandable that the > equation wasn't widely recognised and embraced until > Einstein came along, its less clear why so many > brilliant physicists with outstanding math skills > continued to insist for so long that the equation > somehow provides cornpelling evidence for the special > theory. Since the math is so straightforward, how were > so many clever physics people caught out? We might have > expected that enough time had passed since 1905 for us > to have checked the math dependencies, not iced the > parallel compatibility with NK and (in a respectable > field of scientific study), made a high-profile > retraction so that we didn't continue to pass > misinformation onto students. But perhaps "E=mc^2 > proves special relativity" was just too convenient a > tale for people to want to give it up, regardless of > what the Mathematics really said. > > 16.3: *Classical Theory" vs. Special Relativity > > When we read about experiments that compared the > predictions of SR against those of "Classical Theory", > we can come away thinking that we've been told how SR's > Predictions stack up against most earlier theories (for > instance, Newtonian theory). > > This isn't usually the case. When we look at what's > meant by "Classical Theory', in this context, we find > that it's a sort of hybrid. It's a pairing of two sets > of incompatible assumptions and math that have the > advantage for experimenters of (a) being well known and > standardised, and (b) making optical predictions that > are so exceptionally bad that by comparison special > relativity (and almost any other theory) looks very > good indeed. > > Did "Classical Theory" ever really exist? > > In the context of SR-testing, "Classical Theory" refers > to a mixture of two sets of conflicting assumptions > that didn't work together before SR/LET: "Classical > Theory" uses Newtonian mechanics for the equations of > motion for solid bodies, but for light, CT is > equivalent to assuming an absolute, fixed, "flat" > aether stationary in the laboratory frame. The energy > and momentum relationships of these two different parts > are, of course, irreconcilable ... NM requires the > Doppler relationship to be (c-v)/c, but " Classical > Theory" gives cl(c+v). These aren't compatible. They > never were. If they were, we wouldn't have needed > special relativity. > > There doesn't seem to be any single theory that > attempted to combine these two predictions before > LET/SR, or at least, there doesn't seem to have been > anyone prepared to lend their name to one, and in a > subject where people love having things named after > themselves, this should make us suspicious. If > "Classical Theory" doesn't mean "pre-SR theory", then > where did it come from? The phrase appears in > Einstein's explanations of the basis of special > relativity, as a convenient form of words to refer to > two appa rently diverging predictions that special > relativity then reconciled by applying Lorentz effects: > to Einstein, "Classical Theory" represented > incompatible aspects of earlier theories that didn't > work together, but that could be reconciled using > special relativity. > > When we're look for a historical counterpart to > Classical Theory there doesn't seem to be anything that > would have made these optical predictions unless we go > all the way back to preGalileo, pre-Newton times, and > posit an absolute aether that permeates space and is > locked to the state of a stationary Earth. That would > give us the "Classical Theory" prediction of "no > transverse redshift" for a laboratory stationary with > respect to the Earth. But every other decrepit old > theory that we can dig up seems to pre dict at least > some sort of transverse redshift effect, sometimes > weaker than SR, sometimes stronger than SR, and > sometimes swinging wildly between the two depending on > the Earth's motion. The one idea that didn't seem to be > considered to be credible during the Eighteenth Century > was the idea that lightspeed was fixed with respect to > the observer, which is presumably why Michelson had so > much grief with his colleagues over his "failed" > aether-drift experiment. > > SO, why do we persist in carrying out these "SR vs. > Classical Theory" comparisons if they don't demonstrate > very much? Well, to a cynic, Classical Theory is an > excellent reference to test against, because its > predictions are about as bad as we can get. If we set > aside the theories that predicted time-variant effects, > no other old predictions seem to be quite as bad at to > CT when it comes to predicting real Doppler shifts, and > this makes "CT vs. Theory X" experiments very much > easier to carry out and analyse . Test theory authors > love CT because it meshes well with the chain of > arguments that Einstein used when explaining the > special theory, and experimenters design tests around > the test theories that are available legitimate process > - as long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking that > that the results represent a realistic comparison of > how special relativitys predictions really compared to > those of its predecessors. > > 16.4:- "Transverse" redshifts > > Special relativity tells us that if an object moves > through our laboratory, and we carefully point a > highly-directional detector at right angles to its path > (measured with a "laboratory" set,square), the signal > that manages to register on the detector should be > redshifted (section 6.7). > > But the popular "educational" notion that this sort of > redshift outcome is something unique to special > relativity is as best misleading, and at worst ... it's > simply wrong. The equations of newtonian mechanics (or > even the basic equations for audio, properly applied to > the case of a stationary source) don't just predict > redshifts in this situation, they'll often predict > "aberration redshifts" that are stronger than their SR > counterparts (section 6.4), so in a physical sense, the > appearance of redshifts in t his situation isn't just > not unique, it's not even particularly unusual. In > fact, the thing that would be unusual with this sort of > experimental setup would be a theory that didn't > predict some sort of redshift. > > Although we tend to regard special relativity's > transverse predictions as conceptually unique, > experimenters have to know when supposed differences > between theories generate physically unambiguous > differences in the readings taken by actual hardware, > and when the differences are more a matter of > interpretation. This distinction isn't always obvious > from the relativity literature. > > Einstein's special theory requires these sorts of > "pre-SR" redshifts to exist for its own internal > consistency. The theory must predict the same physical > outcome regardless of which inertia] reference frame we > choose to use for our calculations, so the emitter is > entitled to claim that c is globally fixed for them > (Einstein 1905, 7), and this means that they're > entitled to claim that our relative motion makes us > time-dilated, giving our view of the emitter's signal a > Lorentz blueshift ... so in order for u s to be able to > instead see a Lorentz redshift, propagation-based > effects in this situation - light moving at a constant > speed in the emitter's frame, and arriving at us at an > apparent 90 degrees - must, by default, generate a > Lorentz-squared redshift to allow the same final SR > outcome. This is the right answer (see Calculations 3). > > So to fully understand the logical consistency of SR in > this situation requires us to know that similar or > stronger redshifts would appear in the same apparatus > under other light-propagation models. Since different > SR "views" can explain the same redshift component as > the result of (a) conventional aberration effects, (b) > time dilation, or (c) a combination of the two (we're > allowed to try > > read more »... Well, I can give you a fresh perspective on the mathematics of the relativity of simultaneity, if you are interested: We are in the midst of a renaissance in the historiography of set theory. Above all, I recommend A. Garciadiego, BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE ORIGINS OF THE SET-THEORETIC 'PARADOXES,' but there's also Grattan-Guinness and Ferreiros, discussed in the paper linked below. Here is the central issue in the understanding of the relativity of simultaneity: Einstein used a mathematical approach which he called "practical geometry." He thought the formulation of this point of view was his crowning achievement, and thought very highly of the lecture in which you can read his discussion of it, "Geometry and Experience." I recommend it. Today this mathematical point of view is called constructivism or natural mathematics, and in his day it had three branches: intuitionism, logicism and formalism. So you have to understand, first, that Einstein expressed the relativity of simultaneity in practical geometry. I don't see any acknowledgment of that in this chain of remarks. If you want to understand what he said, you have to understand the issues which were important to him. From Poincare (SCIENCE AND HYPOTHESIS), but also from the long tradition of natural mathematics stretching back to Aristotle's concern over the "paradox" of Zeno, he adopted the idea that all argumentation leads inevitably to paradox. This is certainly the gist of the response to Cantorian set theory, hence the fame of the supposed set-theoretic 'paradoxes.' The most important result of this concern was the idea that there is no such thing as logical content: arguments, if expressed in a certain way, can approach logical content but can never actually contain it, because, again, argumentation necessarily leads to paradox. So, for practitioners of constructivism or practical geometry, the only way out was a compromise: construct an argument, but make it contain the constructivist idea. That idea is that mathematics is an inherent human function. For those interested in logical content, this is already so far afield that eyes glaze over. And it was never seen to be relevant to relativity, because no one was able to say how Einstein used practical geometry as a technique in constructing an argument. "Geometry and Experience" was seen to be a bunch of genial generalities with no relevance to relativity. Why were people unable to understand where Einstein used "practical geometry"? Because, I think, we share so much of constructivist mathematical thinking that we are blind to its presence in arguments. In any event, you ought to know that Einstein DID use practical geometry in developing the relativity of simultaneity. Whatever else you may now argue regarding the relativity of simultaneity, you can no longer ignore the constructivist mathematics in it--that, now, HAS to be taken into account. There is an historical sidetrack to this: Einstein's use of constructivist math is in "disguised" form in the 1905 paper. So, I think intentionally, he made it explicit in the "train experiment." If you notice, the train experiment and the clock experiments are the same experiment: they can be translated mechanically, one into the other. Thus, the constructivist term Einstein inserted into the train experiment is also present in the clock experiment. Remember, that in doing this, he intentionally deprived the argument of logical content, because he felt he had to do so. If YOU feel that one must do so, this will not bother you. If you insist on logical content in your argument, it will bother you A LOT. So it's really a matter of taste, and not one for debate. As the paper below says, at one stage of the argument, point M is said to "naturally" (fallt zwar...zusammen" in the original German) coincide with point M'. (By the way, close readers of this text--translators--have realized that this was a conceptual anomaly: they treat it differently in the French and Italian translations of RELATIVITY). The logical problem with this notion is as follows: 1. if you drop the term, and M and M' coincide in traditional Euclidean fashion, you are led to the contradiction of assuming two Cartesian coordinate systems and deducing one such system (I leave the proof of this to you). So M and M' cannot coincide in a Euclidean way: that much cannot, I think, be contested and no one has ever argued that they could so coincide and that Einstein was saying that they did so coincide. At least, I haven't seen any such contentions. 2. if you retain the term, you find that it is not part of the formulation of the relativity of simultaneity. It is not a definition, an assumption, a principle, a deduction or anything else. You will look in vain for the logical role it plays in the argument. It doesn't play any at all. It simply rattles around in the argument--a loose cannon on deck. So what is it? It is what Einstein always meant it to be: it is an arbitrary insertion into the argument, made necessary--according to his approach of "practical geometry"--in order for the argument to avoid paradox. So Einstein did exactly what he wanted to do. However, I think we have had an unconscious prejudice against the lack of logical content, so we never wanted to think that that's what he wanted to do, or did do. But that's not taking Einstein seriously. I suggest you take him seriously--at least do him that courtesy, if you are going to pay any attention to what he says. By the way, are there any paradoxes? That is, was there anything for Einstein to worry about? No. Not even Zeno's paradox has stood up to analysis. The "logical" compulsion we feel with respect to the paradoxes so far proposed, is an artifact of their construction--it's their rhetoric--it is not a result of logical content in these arguments. They have none. Too bad, because they are very seductive. But that's the way it is. This is where the new set theory history is making all kinds of contributions. Particularly Garciadiego is devastating with his care with respect to the history and the terms, showing that Richard didn't even consider his argument a paradox, that there is no Cantor paradox, no Russell paradox, and so on. They are glib sleights of hand which do not stand up historically or logically. So you really have to do some more work understanding the history of math. Another thing which is being revealed by new work into Einstein, is how little he probed into contemporary set theory debates. He never criticized anything Poincare said about those debates, although particularly Grattan- Guinness is scathing in his discussion of Poincare. Einstein didn't really know anything about the set theory which set him off on his mathematical approach. Very remarkable, I think--very eye-opening. Einstein is not alone in the sloppiness with which he approached the mathematical foundation of his argument. The Fefermans and other commentators are amazingly critical of Godel in their remarks in the collected works, regarding his understanding of set theory debates. We tend to think of these twentieth-century mandarins as close students, as scrupulous thinkers. It turns out that they were slobs. And of course, Cantor has been subjected to recent research which is even more embarrassing for his work than the many longstanding critiques. Again, there's more to the background of constructivism than the set theory debates. And it has had an influence far beyond Einstein. You find it in Darwin, Godel, Sraffa, really everywhere. It has stood in the way of logic for a long long time. Finally, you should consider where "natural" coincidence leaves us. If we can't get to general relativity because of "natural" coincidence, then that means that once again the Pythagorean theorem is at issue (it was a resolved issue under general relativity, for reasons you know). Does the Pythagorean theorem have logical content? My feeling is, no. I think it also has a "natural" coincidence in it. But where? Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth- Century Ideas" (June 17, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085
From: Uncle Al on 6 Aug 2008 17:01 Yuancur(a)gmail.com wrote: > > On Aug 5, 7:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > Sadly, you would rather repeat your imagined knowledge of > > interferometers rather that to write one or two simple algebraic > > equations to verify, mathematically, that the TIMES of travel do not > > vary. > > But surely the times of travel do vary, because of the Earth's > rotation. http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 Know something empirical before you offer opinion. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
From: Eric Gisse on 6 Aug 2008 20:29 On Aug 5, 9:37 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 5, 8:57 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 4:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Dear Eric: I REPEAT: "All measurements require a point of reference, > > > fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL. > > > No, they don't. > > Aren't you both wrong? > > NoEinstein, in MMX isn't each beam is a point of reference for the > other? > > Isn't that comparison, the very substance of the experiment? > > Eric, how do you measure something without reference to something > else? Acceleration is absolute - no reference required. Counting fringe shifts is absolute - no reference required. > > Love, > > Jenny
From: John Kennaugh on 7 Aug 2008 12:48 Hello maxwell Thank you for your encouragement. Sorry I have not responded before but I have just got back from 2 weeks holiday. >Hello John: >I have been meaning to write to you now for some time, as you seem to >be a fellow 'old-timer' who is totally dissatisfied with the direction >of modern physics. I share this viewpoint & would guess that it >reflects our common UK education that views physics from a Newtonian/ >philosophical perspective rather than the Cartesian/Continentalist >approach that has continued for 2500 years to push the Pythagorean/ >Platonic mathematical view. A bit sophisticated for me. I simply try to be objective and refuse to be told what to think. I claim to be neither a physicist nor a mathematician and see my role as analogous to the naive little boy in the story of the "king's new cloths" - basically stating the blindingly obvious. >I have been following your recent efforts in this thread and others, >to get the current revisionist view of SR corrected: a most valiant >effort but one that cannot overcome the lack of historical or >philosophical knowledge demonstrated by your antagonists (and almost >all theoretical physicists in the last 50 years!). Including it appears Stephen Hawking who seems to have based is life's work on the belief that the MMX demonstrated that the speed of light was always constant whether the source was moving or not. >It still seems astonishing to me that students today do not realize >that SR is grounded in Maxwell's EM aether theory. The attempt to >retain his wave theory while dropping the aether could only be >acceptable to mathematicians who have no physical intuition. Quite so. As Beckman and Mandics so aptly put it. "Albert Einstein was one of the few people who realised explicitly that his theory rests on the *assumption* that our present Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamic theory, experimentally verified only for low velocities of charged matter will also hold for velocities commensurate with the velocity of light. Considering that our present electrodynamics have grown out of a concept of an elastic ether, whose existence is now disproved beyond reasonable doubt, and that the Maxwell equations do not satisfy the principle of relativity in its simple form using the Galilei transformations this assumption is far from self evident." >You give >theoretical physics too much credence: it almost never makes >predictions but tries very hard to generate accurate retrodictions to >fit with numbers already derived from experiments. I have long suspected that to be true but I try to stick to what I know to be true. > The philosophical >naievety of today's physicists is repeatedly demonstrated when they >claim that any of these retrodictive agreements proves that their >theory is 'true', instead of simply accurate: multiple theories can >come up with similar results, e.g. Ptolemy. One of the problems in modern physics is a lack of quality control criteria. There is no criteria by which a 'fix' can be rejected. Having decided that nature is weird (rather than that physics has gone wrong) there is no way you can say "nature may be weird but it cannot be that weird". No one expects a modern theory to 'make sense'. Physical interpretation and causality are 'old fashioned concepts'. I thought it was only religion which as an article of faith accepted that things were 'beyond our understanding' but I have realise it is an article of faith in modern physics. >My studies of Maxwell indicate that he was opposed to Newton's inter- >particle action-at-a-distance metaphysics (as used in his theory of >gravity). Maxwell's religious views needed ALL of space filled with >God's immanence: the field was the mathematical representation of this >universal 'force', a direct update of Descartes' rival view of contact >force filling all of space. Newton was always intensely opposed to >DesCartes' aether type theories. > >L. V. Lorenz proposed an inter-charge action-at-a-distance theory of >EM in 1867 that Maxwell reluctantly acknowledged in a short note in >his 1873 Treatise as equally capable of predicting all the results >that Maxwell had achieved with his own field theory. You were quite >right: Maxwell never renounced his aether theory, even though his >Lagangian approach (in the Treatise) tried to hide the aether >connection. Those people (like PD = Peter Draper) who think experiment >confirms Maxwell's theory have it backwards, Maxwell developed a >micro theory to be compatible with all the known macroscopic >experiments (like Faraday's Law). Maxwell's equations are empirically derived from relationships produced by Faraday and can only be assumed to hold under the conditions under which Faraday derived his relationships. "..... experimentally verified only for low velocities of charged matter". The assumptions which are made, and which underpin SR come from the physical theory which those equations were assumed to describe not the equations themselves i.e. that those equations are describing waves travelling in the aether, that the permittivity and permeability of free space are the properties of the aether which determine at what speed light travels in the aether and prevent the velocity of the source affecting the speed at which light travels. Once you assume there is no aether, it all falls apart and Maxwell's equations are simply empirical relationships useful for radio engineers. Hardly a valid basis for ditching 3 long established and apparently sensible axioms of physics. To accept SR and then reject the aether is the intellectual equivalent of sawing off the branch you are sitting on. As you say "... acceptable to mathematicians who have no physical intuition." Those empirical relationships have been elevated to the status of holy writ leaving no incentive to try and formulate a theory as to how nature works, i.e. why these empirical relationships hold when light does not consist of physical waves in a physical aether. >I loved your 'Lesson in Spin'. This accurately reflects the mental >gymnastics that have beeen used to convert the classical EM theories >of circa 1900 into today's orthodoxy. I would highly recommend Harvard >science historian Stanley Goldberg's 'Understanding Relativity' as a >solid review of how Einstein's SR was initially rejected & finally >accepted over the following 40 years (as his critics died off). I think it was Planck who said that new theories are never accepted, it is simply that those opposing them eventually die. > >I have investigated Ritz's emission/ballistic theory & eventually >found it inadequate. Have you studied Waldron's Ballistic theory? Ritz had been so successfully buried by orthodoxy that Waldron was about to publish his own theory before he became aware of Ritz. He says of Ritz theory that it is inadequate because of experiments since which he himself had taken account of. Waldron would be a genius if he has all the answers but I believe he is worth studying. > The sticking point for all these 'classical' EM >theories is the electron - the experimental evidence that all >electricity is materially discrete. This blows the 'charge-density' >model out of the window and returns physics to Newton's particulate >view of the world. > >My own research indicates that an asynchronous action-at-a-distance >inter-electron model is a more powerful basis for a complete theory of >modern physics. In this theory, the only ontological entity required >is the electron; there is no need for an additional object (photon or >wave) to 'carry' the EM interaction. >Enough for now. Good luck with your rearguard defence of British >'commonsense'. >Herb Spencer ('Maxwell') PhD, DIC, BSc Cheers -- John Kennaugh
From: Matthew Johnson on 7 Aug 2008 14:51
In article <pfrsdoIkdymIFwva(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk>, John Kennaugh says... [snip] >A bit sophisticated for me. I simply try to be objective and refuse to >be told what to think. I claim to be neither a physicist nor a >mathematician and see my role as analogous to the naive little boy in >the story of the "king's new cloths" - basically stating the blindingly >obvious. Perhaps if your understanding of your potential role in the intellectual life of the world would progress past the point of following the examples in fairy tales, you could find a better role for yourself. >>I have been following your recent efforts in this thread and others, >>to get the current revisionist view of SR corrected: a most valiant >>effort but one that cannot overcome the lack of historical or >>philosophical knowledge demonstrated by your antagonists (and almost >>all theoretical physicists in the last 50 years!). >Including it appears Stephen Hawking who seems to have based is life's >work on the belief that the MMX demonstrated that the speed of light was >always constant whether the source was moving or not. How much of his work have you read? I very much doubt his understanding of MMX is that simplistic. Besides: there have been MOUNTAINS of evidence accumulated since then that Special Relativity, _within its domain of application_ really is astoundingly accurate. See http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html for a comprehensive and uptodate list. When you have an alternate explanation for ALL those results, one that correctly predicts something relativity does not, THEN you can dream of being the "naive little boy" who "states the blindingly obvious". Until then, your role is more likely to be that of the fox in the Phaedrus fable, who confused the actor's mask with the actor, showing himself unable to understand all of drama. [snip] >"Albert Einstein was one of the few people who realised explicitly that >his theory rests on the *assumption* that our present Maxwell-Lorentz >electrodynamic theory, experimentally verified only for low velocities >of charged matter will also hold for velocities commensurate with the >velocity of light. Considering that our present electrodynamics have >grown out of a concept of an elastic ether, whose existence is now >disproved beyond reasonable doubt, and that the Maxwell equations do not >satisfy the principle of relativity in its simple form using the Galilei >transformations this assumption is far from self evident." You miss the point. Sure, back then, his basis was that slender. But his physical intuition guided him well: since then, much more evidence has come forth, much of it as very high velocities, e.g. 99.99999% the vacuum speed of light. Yet his theory has held up very well even at those speeds. [snip] >I have long suspected that to be true but I try to stick to what I know >to be true. If you really did that, you would not have written this post. [snip] >Maxwell's equations are empirically derived from relationships produced >by Faraday and can only be assumed to hold under the conditions under >which Faraday derived his relationships. "..... experimentally verified >only for low velocities of charged matter". What? Haven't you heard of the work of Biot-Savart? Of Ampere? Or of Oersted? They all made their own vital and unique contributions. Faraday was not alone. >The assumptions which are made, and which underpin SR come from the >physical theory which those equations were assumed to describe not the >equations themselves i.e. that those equations are describing waves >travelling in the aether, that the permittivity and permeability of free >space are the properties of the aether which determine at what speed >light travels in the aether and prevent the velocity of the source >affecting the speed at which light travels. You call this "assumptions", yet they have been confirmed to a high degree of accuracy by many experiments. See that link I gave above for a partial list. >Once you assume there is no aether, it all falls apart and Maxwell's >equations are simply empirical relationships useful for radio engineers. Not true. They become the equations for describing the E-M field, which needs no 'aether' to support it. >Hardly a valid basis for ditching 3 long established and apparently >sensible axioms of physics. They were not 'ditched'. They were modified based on experimental evidence, clarified by theoretical considerations, which made the modifications imperative. [snip] >>My own research indicates that an asynchronous action-at-a-distance What? You didn't notice that the philosophical underpinning of "action-at-a-distance" are just as problematic? Newton's theory was criticized for this, too. [snip] |