John Kennaugh:
Bilge writes
John Kennaugh:
Bilge writes
John Kennaugh:
In message , Bilge

Special relativity isn't about light.

The thread is about the anniversary of Einstein's theory of relativity.

Then why are you arguing about the postulates in the context of the
present?

Because the present is built on the dodgy decisions of the past.

Which experiments support your assertion? If your answer is none,
then you are obviously mistaken. Are maxwell's equations wrong?
If not, then you are obviously mistaken.

If you are a scientist and not simply a mathematician then you will

I'm an experimentalist so you can skip the mathenatical strawman
argument. I can connect the math to physical measurements observed
with real measuring devices.

insist on the physical reality of the physical world and will understand
what 'no ether' means in relation to Maxwell's equations. The ether

I understand perfectly well what it means and for that reason, I
also recognize the naivete of your arguments.

[...]

If you aren't arguing about the present why are you not
posting to a newsgroup dedicated to seconf guessing the intentions
of people too dead to tell everyone what they really thought?

You keep making this totally unsubstantiated allegation. I do not
'second guess' nor 'read between' the lines. I take what Einstein said
at face value.

No, you don't. You prove that below.

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the status of a postulate, and
also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former."

That says that the second postulate of relativity is apparently
irreconcilable with the PoR and what he is doing in his paper is to show
how it can be reconciled. - I cannot think of an alternative
interpretation can you?

The logic I put with it goes as follows:

The first postulate says that any two inertial observers performing
identical experiments will get identical answers.

Any two such observers measuring the speed of light from a stationary
source in vacuum we know will get c.

Which is not what einstein wrote. Einstein wrote, ``...light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c, which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.''

It appears that I have to explain simply English to you.

Don't bother. I'm not interested in having your own personal
translation of what I can read for myself. Your own personal
translations are the basis of your difficulties. Go design
a user abusive remote control for a tv or something and leave
science to those who know something about science. I've already
demonstrated the derivation of the lorentz transforms is no different
than rotations. Buy a calculator with sinh and cosh on it and
play around with those functions until they don't seem any
stranger than sines and cosines. I hope you never encounter a
bessel function or you'll conclude that drums are just figments
of a mathenatician's imagination. sheesh...

Paul Stowe:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:05:10 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
wrote:



John Kennaugh wrote:


In Maxwell's world an electric field represented a stress in
the ether. Under the right circumstances this stress could
propagate through the ether as an em disturbance - that being
the nature of light.

An interpretation not required by Maxwell's Equations.

Yup, just plucked from yer'ass...

As Hertz said - Maxwell's Equations are Maxwell's Theory.

And Hertz was wrong! That why magnetic monopoles are hypothesized.
Maxwell's model clearly shows & specifies that these cannot exist!


Then, because maxwell's equations don't forbid monopoles, and you
claim naxwell's model does forbid monopoles, there is an obvious
decrepancy between maxwell's equations and the model from which
you claim the equations were derived.

I know you won't bother looking anything up, so I'm sure this reference
will never cross your path, but anyway see ``Classical Electrodynamics,''
Jackson, J.D., Chapter 6, 2nd ed., and prove the text is wrong. In any
case, the next time you accuse anyone of not reading a reference, he/she
can point out that you are a hypocrite, if they've seen this thread.
I'm sure that won't stop you from making the accusation, since you make
the same accusation even if someone reads the feeble references you give.

So, find a Magnetic Monopole and you have falsified Maxwell's
physical basis...

Since the ``physical basis'' of maxwell's model was abandoned by
maxwell himself for lack of support, maxwell's model died long before
maxwell. So far you have not pointed to a single experiment that
gives any physical meaning to the mathematical vector identities
you call an ether. It's amazing how you refer to physical theories
and math and refer to math as physics.

Heaviside's version of the M.E. are in use today without aether,
thank you.

I can do the same for any fluidic system, does that make fluids
non-existent???

If you could do that, you would have at least attempted to fill
in the second step in the derivation - the step between ``and then
a miracle occurs'' and the result.

Bilge writes
John Kennaugh:
Bilge writes
John Kennaugh:
Bilge writes



I'm an experimentalist so you can skip the mathenatical strawman
argument. I can connect the math to physical measurements observed
with real measuring devices.

Translation: It works as a mathematical model.

insist on the physical reality of the physical world and will understand
what 'no ether' means in relation to Maxwell's equations. The ether

I understand perfectly well what it means and for that reason, I
also recognize the naivete of your arguments.

Translation: It works as a mathematical model.

Definitions

Naive: Anyone who tries to insist on the physical reality of the
physical world, when no one in physics has done so for more than a
century.

Naive question: The sort of question no one asks these days because they
are the sort of question relativity cannot answer - 'does not attempt to
answer'.

Historical bias: Someone who insists on asking naive questions.


--
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

John Kennaugh:
Bilge writes

I'm an experimentalist so you can skip the mathenatical strawman
argument. I can connect the math to physical measurements observed
with real measuring devices.

Translation: It works as a mathematical model.

If that translation is an accurate reflection of your limitations
in understanding science, that's unfortunate, but I'm not bound by
your limitations. See: www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html,
for some insight into what causes you to beieve no one can understand
something you don't understand or don't like.

insist on the physical reality of the physical world and will understand
what 'no ether' means in relation to Maxwell's equations. The ether

I understand perfectly well what it means and for that reason, I
also recognize the naivete of your arguments.

Translation: It works as a mathematical model.


Here's a more detailed translation: (1) You don't know any math.
(2) You don't know any physics, classical, relativistic, quantum,
whatever. (3) You are unaware of 99% (and that is generous) of what
physicists observe in laboratories, (4) You've never performed
any real experiments.

It's no surprise that you think relativity is just mathenatics. What
seperates you as a pompous, ineducable crackpot from others who might
also claim any or all of numbers 1-4 as impediments to understanding
relativity, is that you are proud of having chosen to be stupid and
seem to get a sense of fulfillment in rejecting even the most obvious
facts. There is nothing shameful about lacking knowledge outside
one's area of expertise, but since you have made a concerted effort
to be stupid, don't complain about being recognized for your accom-
plishment.

Definitions

Naive: Anyone who tries to insist on the physical reality of the
physical world, when no one in physics has done so for more than a
century.

Since you don't know anything at all about any physics that was
done in the last century, your statement is just plain dishonest
and just another example of your over-inflated self-assessment of
your abilities: www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Naive question: The sort of question no one asks these days because they
are the sort of question relativity cannot answer - 'does not attempt to
answer'.

You have to be dumber than a post. No matter how many times you
try to conflate ``does not attempt to answer'' with ``does not
attempt to answer in such a way that satisfies every crackpot's
idea of physical,'' I'm simply not going to buy into your bull****.

If you choose to believe that the only theory that qualifies as
``physical'' is one which is not amenable to logic and self-consistency,
because you think your concepts about reality override any requirement
that a theory predict something correctly, that's your problem. I just
hope no one is stupid enough to trust you around anything that could
result in you endangering anyone but yourself, since logic doesn't
seem to be your thing.

Historical bias: Someone who insists on asking naive questions.

Logical fallacy: A statement designed to create a false impression
based upon a false association between two or more concepts. Your
problem runs deeper than that. You want to be an armchair rebel at
the expense of even knowing what you are rebelling against. Maybe
you should seek counselling to learn how to deal with your inadequacy
in the rest of your life. If you spent half as much time and effort
trying to learn something as you do trying to concoct bull**** excuses
just be contrary, you'd have gained something useful from the time
you've otherwise wasted.

In message , robert j. kolker
writes


John Kennaugh wrote:

Essentially if you reject the ether then a field is no longer
something real and physical it is something which occurs in the
theorist's notebook, not in the experimentalist's laboratory.

Be that as it may, the electromagnetic field, real or not, explains all
observed phenomena at the macroscopic level. Go figure. We don't need
no steeenking aether.

As light is, or carries with it, real physical energy then if that
energy is stored in a field then it must be a *real* field. If the field
is real then space cannot be filled with 'nothing' because 'nothing' is
incapable of storing energy. The alternative is that light, in the forms
of particles can pass though space which, in their absence consists of
nothing. If you have a third alternative I would be interested in it.
Maxwell's equations were recognised to be 'wave equations' because their
form was similar to waves in fluid dynamics. The equivalent in the case
of light requires an ether. Without an ether we have not the faintest
idea what it is they are describing.

A non real field, a metaphysical field, may be perfectly adequate for
accurate predictions but it 'explains' nothing. Light does not get from
A to B because of the calculations in your notebook. It is real physical
energy requiring a real physical process. You might judge that the
success of the maths in prediction indicates that the field in your
notebook has a real counterpart in the physical world, that as there is
a real physical field there must be a real physical ether for it to
exists in. OTOH you may say that the idea of the ether is not acceptable
and although you have a mathematical model which works that it does not
have a 1:1 relationship with reality i.e. that A field does not have a
physical existence so we really don't have an explanation.

"[One approach] is that light does not in fact consist of
electromagnetic waves but behaves like a system of electromagnetic
waves. The distinction here between "is" and "behaves like" is not
merely tautological or semantic, but fundamental. It tells us to treat
the great electromagnetic theory as an analogy or mathematical model of
nature, which probably reflects some features of physical reality but
not necessarily all features." Scott Murray.

Essentially if there is no ether then we should look for something more
fundamental than Maxwell's equations. An obvious starting point is where
Maxwell's em theory failed - black body radiation - and Planck's maths
succeeded. This would suggest that the particulate model of light is
more fundamental than the wave theory. As particles don't need 'no
steeenking aether' it would seem a promising approach. However there is
absolutely no conceivable reason to assume source independence if light
is particulate at a more fundamental level. If space is empty then a
photon is a particle produced by a physical process taking place in the
source and being shot out into *empty* space. How can it not be relative
to what is producing it?

Maxwell's equations were accepted because they agreed with what everyone
believed - that light is a wave in the ether. They seemed at the time to
be mathematical confirmation that that was so. Relativity does not
follow from a rejection of the ether (Ritz theory does) but is an
evolution of Lorentz's theory, the whole point of which was to save the
ether from the implication of MMX. SR follows on from that tradition.
What Einstein does in his 1905 paper is to mathematically reconcile
'source independence' - a property of the ether - with the PoR - and
ends up with the same maths as LET, Lorentz transforms - but without any
alternative physical interpretation. If you now say there is no ether
then you should review whether Maxwell's equations should still be
treated as 'a law of nature' or just an analogy of nature. Likewise you
should ask whether belief in relativity is sensible being as how it was
based on a property of the ether.

--
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

Bilge writes

I'm simply not going to buy into your bull****.

You don't have to it's Free!

There is no need to get upset. You do not have to read my postings. You
do not need to reply to my postings. It really is that simple.

--
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