0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GoC: First there has to be a medium. Call it what you want but that medium is the cause of relativity and not in spite of relativity. All views are meta data of the physical and not necessary accurately portrayed.
GoC: When you convert the motion to Euclidean geometry with light being independent of the source it explains both contraction of view and clocks tick rate change. Galilean is the physical position and relativity is the view. So when you test relativity with the view you get relativity. No test has failed the relativity view.
Quote GoC: First there has to be a medium. Call it what you want but that medium is the cause of relativity and not in spite of relativity. All views are meta data of the physical and not necessary accurately portrayed. One of the predictions of Maxwells theory was that light was an electromagnetic wave that travelled with a speed c ≈ 3 × 108 ms−1. But relative to what? Maxwells theory did not specify any particular frame of reference for which light would have this speed. A convenient resolution to this problem was provided by an already existing assumption concerning the way light propagated through space. That light was a form of wave motion was well known Youngs interference experiments had shown this but the Newtonian world view required that a wave could not propagate through empty space: there must be present a medium of some sort that vibrated as the waves passed, much as a tub of jelly vibrates as a wave travels through it. The proposal was therefore made that space was filled with a substance known as the ether whose purpose was to be the medium that vibrated as the light waves propagated through it. It was but a small step to then propose that this ether was stationary with respect to Newtons absolute space, thereby solving the problem of what the frame of reference was in which light had the speed c. Therefore if a medium exists it would invalidate much of special relativity and by association General relativity also. Why ? The answer is that waves, whether longitudinal or transverse, simply do not follow Galilean transformations, their motion is independent of any external force and dependent solely on the properties of the medium through which they are travelling and also independent of the velocity of the source. Thus if a wave (take light) is travelling on a vehicle, the velocity of the light will be independent of the velocity of the vehicle. Therefore the velocity with which waves propagate is independent of the relative motion or non-motion of the observer ! This is such a fundamental fact and one that was well known in Einstein's time but less well known today after the speed of light in a vacuum was established by Einstein as a postulate. Both General Relativity and Special Relativity are absolutely tied to the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Obviously if there is no medium through which light travels to account for the fact that the speed of light is constant, then all kinds of theories might apply, including time dilation and space curvature. QuoteGoC: When you convert the motion to Euclidean geometry with light being independent of the source it explains both contraction of view and clocks tick rate change. Galilean is the physical position and relativity is the view. So when you test relativity with the view you get relativity. No test has failed the relativity view. Right, here we are faced with a fundamental problem, there appear to be two reasons for the speed of light being constant and independent of the relative motion of the observer. The first is extremely basic and it states that light is travelling as a wave through a medium and is therefore travelling at a constant velocity whose velocity is solely dependent on the properties of the medium through which it is travelling and independent of the relative motion of any observer. The second reason for the speed of light being constant does not exist! Einstein was never able to state why the speed of light is constant he just established it as a postulate!
One of the truly amazing facts about modern science is that even though the technology is now available to verify some of the simpler facts that are assumed about special relativity and general relativity, no-one seems to want to do so.
PhyBang: That is just a lie. Either you are so fantastically ignorant of modern science that you are lying in presenting yourself as having the information relevant to this statement or you know enough to know specific examples that show your statement to be false and you did it anyway. It is the willingness to be honest that is the foundation of science and you fail miserably at this.
GoC: It has been proven that atomic clocks measure the same travel distance as the light distance. So we can interchange atomic clocks and measure the distance light travels as a function of time.