🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 4, 1:36 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2:34 am, 2+2=5 <two@.....> wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > I have been reading messages in this group for some time now, hoping to
> > learn about relativity. All the texts I have read are based on vague and
> > sometimes unrealistic assumptions and are very hard to follow, so I need
> > help.

OK. First there are two relativities: Special (SR) and General (GR).
The former has to do with observations between observers and objects
moving at constant velocity. The latter mostly has to do with
Gravity.  Special Relativity follows from two basic assumptions: The
first is called the "principle of relativity". It was first enunciated
in 1632 by Galileo. That states that there are no observations or
experiments that can distinguish between motion at constant velocity
and a state of rest. The other is the assumption that ALL measurements
of the speed of light no matter what the velocity of the experimenter
always give the same value. All else follows from there. Although it
is important to know that some things which are widely thought to be
relativistic effects (changes in the apparent shape of objects when
observed in motion, etc) are in fact actually electromagnetic effects
due to retardation.

> > It appears that the theory is still very controversial and that most
> > contibutors here don't think it is correct. Certainly those who support it
> > rarely even try to defend it intelligently but simply resort to ridiculing
> > anyone who doesn't accept it.

The "controversy" stems from those who have incorporated illogical
nonsense into the theory which is in fact not part of it. I refer to
such nonsense as wave traveling through "nothing at all" and objects
changing shape (not just appearances, but ACTUAL sizes!) just due to
the motion of the observer and on and on. Since these ideas are
illogical, "believers" have turned the theory of relativity into a
religion. Thus, like any cult they cannot tolerate any criticism and
feel compelled to attack anyone questioning their faith and dogma. Let
us hope their faith gives them comfort!

> > From what I have read, there are clearly more sound arguments against
> > Einstein's theory than there are for it. It seems little different from
> > Lorentz's ether theory.

The actual facts of SR are pretty well established. This is important
because virtually all of the arguments against aether theory are
usually made on the basis of pointing out the holes in the Maxwell era
aether theory. In those pre MMX days, the assumption of the constancy
of speed of light measurements was not yet established. So large
arguments ensue over whether or not the speed of light changes with
the speed of the observer doing the measuring.  Such arguments are
nothing but a bunch of wanking.  Any viable aether theory essentially
starts with the observed facts of relativity and then creates a model
(usually along the lines of Maxwell which proposes some kind of
superfluid filling all space which creates fields of all types,
explains all electromagnetics, provides a medium for waves, and gives
empty space it's properties.

> > Maybe there is a medium that carries light waves just as Maxwell predicted.

And maybe not. One can still get away with arguing that Electric and
Magentic fields might be created by some kind of wave phenomena, but
there is a problem with light. Light is observed to NOT be waves! The
photo electric effect transfers energy MUCH too fast for classical EM
waves to be involved. The tiny photon particles can actually be
observed and counted. But oddly if you collect enough of them, the
STATISTICS of where they land turns out to be solutions of the wave
equations!

So the data goes like this: You've got a machine gun spewing bullets.
You are shooting at a couple of slits in a steel plate. Behind the
plate at some distance is a target. At first you just get a couple of
holes in the target. But if you keep shooting long enough amazingly
the pattern on the target develops that is identical to a wave-
produced diffraction pattern. The bullets are not waves. So how does
this happen? It's a mystery!  And of course real machine guns don't do
this so clearly photons are not "inert" bullets. Trying to invent a
structure that does this is the fun!

But to the person in the lab with a laser, the photons are not
visible. The laser seems to clearly be spewing some kind of light
waves, that are just like radio waves only higher in frequency. And if
one applies wave theory to your observations, just like Quantum
Mechanics you find the theory gives correct results. This "success" of
course leads persons to believe that light actually is waves. But
understanding a mathematical model is not the same as understanding
reality.

However, the dogma that an "aether" does not exist, is of course just
religious nonsense. SR could give a rat's ass if there is some media
causing effects or not. Einstein didn't prove a medium does not exist,
he simply showed that the assumption of it wasn't necessary to his
model to obtain viable answers. Which then leaves the final question,
that if there is a medium for wave propagation, then what exactly is
it's nature so as to provide all the various observations of SR?  The
medium transmitting effects and creating properties isn't needed for
mathematical physics results. It's needed for philosophical logic to
be maintained. For without a sane and logical foundation, the
mathematical results must be accepted without question on "faith"
alone. And that is pretty much the current state of affairs.