"How Does Light 'Know' How Fast to Travel?"

On 15 Sept, 11:59, John Kennaugh
wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
o.uk...
I am not an advocate of aether theory

Yes .. you are

No I am not. I am an advocate of consistency. Einstein ignored the
discovery of the particulate nature of light and treated Maxwell's wave
in aether theory as if it remained totally uncompromised by the
discovery. According to Maxwell's theory the MMX measured the speed of
an observer relative to the aether and always got zero. Einstein took
that at face value. Empirically the observer is always stationary w.r.t
the aether. His second postulate describes what an observer stationary
w.r.t the aether would experience. Einstein wrestled with what that
meant in physical terms, rejecting Lorentz's aether idea with
theoretically a FoR stationary w.r.t the aether which is undetectable
but coming out firmly in favour of an aether of some kind (1920
lecture). Physics then adopted the 'no aether doctrine' which makes a
nonsense of the entire basis of Einstein's thinking.

Essentially there were two basic choices - either ignore the particulate
nature of light and stick with Maxwell's aether - as per Einstein - or
accept physics had been wrong for 200 years and run with the particulate
nature of light. If light is particulate an aether would only get in the
way and the reason that the MMX was unable to detect an aether is
because there isn't one. Without an aether light must logically be
source dependent - there is nothing else its speed can be dependent on.
I think that LOGICALLY that is the way Physics should have gone. It
ticked all the boxes but trod on an awful lot of egos. Physics went the
other way, the 'stick with the aether' route and then sawed off the
branch it was supported on.

My natural curiosity asks where physics would now be if it had taken the
alternative no aether, source dependent route. As I see it the logical
route.
--
John Kennaugh

The problem is whether science will be able to take this route now, by
abandoning all breathtaking idiocies like the twin paradox, the
warping of space-time, the long trains trapped inside short tunnels,
the long poles trapped inside short barns etc. etc. Imagine a world
where, for 100 years, mainstream science has been teaching that the
greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length and bold heretics have
been developing alternative theories according to which it is the
length of the crocodile that exceeds its greenness. What is the future
of science in this world?

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 15 Sept, 11:59, John Kennaugh
wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
o.uk...
I am not an advocate of aether theory

Yes .. you are

No I am not. I am an advocate of consistency. Einstein ignored the
discovery of the particulate nature of light and treated Maxwell's wave
in aether theory as if it remained totally uncompromised by the
discovery. According to Maxwell's theory the MMX measured the speed of
an observer relative to the aether and always got zero. Einstein took
that at face value. Empirically the observer is always stationary w.r.t
the aether. His second postulate describes what an observer stationary
w.r.t the aether would experience. Einstein wrestled with what that
meant in physical terms, rejecting Lorentz's aether idea with
theoretically a FoR stationary w.r.t the aether which is undetectable
but coming out firmly in favour of an aether of some kind (1920
lecture). Physics then adopted the 'no aether doctrine' which makes a
nonsense of the entire basis of Einstein's thinking.

Essentially there were two basic choices - either ignore the particulate
nature of light and stick with Maxwell's aether - as per Einstein - or
accept physics had been wrong for 200 years and run with the particulate
nature of light. If light is particulate an aether would only get in the
way and the reason that the MMX was unable to detect an aether is
because there isn't one. Without an aether light must logically be
source dependent - there is nothing else its speed can be dependent on.
I think that LOGICALLY that is the way Physics should have gone. It
ticked all the boxes but trod on an awful lot of egos. Physics went the
other way, the 'stick with the aether' route and then sawed off the
branch it was supported on.

My natural curiosity asks where physics would now be if it had taken the
alternative no aether, source dependent route. As I see it the logical
route.
--
John Kennaugh

The problem is whether science will be able to take this route now, by
abandoning all breathtaking idiocies like the twin paradox, the
warping of space-time, the long trains trapped inside short tunnels,
the long poles trapped inside short barns etc. etc. Imagine a world
where, for 100 years, mainstream science has been teaching that the
greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length and bold heretics have
been developing alternative theories according to which it is the
length of the crocodile that exceeds its greenness. What is the future
of science in this world?

To get good answers you need debate and to get debate you need
opposition. Unfortunately the main opposition to Einstein - Ritz - died
in 1909 and has been written out of history giving the impression that
there never was an alternative to relativity not to say a more logical
one. Today modern physics is so complex and diverse (an indication
perhaps that it has got it wrong) that no one man, no matter how clever
could understand enough of it to overthrow it. Even if such a man could
be found he wouldn't get funding nor any help from established physics.
On the contrary anyone associating with him would risk professional
ridicule. What is needed is funded opposition. It may happen but it is
unlikely to be in one of the Western nations and the motivation is more
likely to be to overthrow western science than the advancement of
knowledge.
--
John Kennaugh

John Kennaugh writes:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 15 Sept, 11:59, John Kennaugh
wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
o.uk...
I am not an advocate of aether theory

Yes .. you are

No I am not. [Blather elided]

I think that LOGICALLY that is the way Physics should have gone. It
ticked all the boxes but trod on an awful lot of egos. Physics went the
other way, the 'stick with the aether' route and then sawed off the
branch it was supported on.

My natural curiosity asks where physics would now be if it had taken the
alternative no aether, source dependent route. As I see it the logical
route.
--
John Kennaugh

The problem is whether science will be able to take this route now, by
abandoning all breathtaking idiocies like the twin paradox, the
warping of space-time, the long trains trapped inside short tunnels,
the long poles trapped inside short barns etc. etc. Imagine a world
where, for 100 years, mainstream science has been teaching that the
greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length and bold heretics have
been developing alternative theories according to which it is the
length of the crocodile that exceeds its greenness. What is the future
of science in this world?

To get good answers you need debate and to get debate you need
opposition.

To get good answers in science you need theories that make testable
predictions, and carefully crafted experiments that test them.
Debate between amateurs who rely on their brilliant intuitive grasp
of the subject and truly pathetic analogies and analyses produces
nothing but ****e, as usenet makes so abundantly clear.

Unfortunately the main opposition to Einstein - Ritz - died
in 1909 and has been written out of history giving the impression that
there never was an alternative to relativity not to say a more logical
one. Today modern physics is so complex and diverse (an indication
perhaps that it has got it wrong) that no one man, no matter how clever
could understand enough of it to overthrow it.

The complexity and diversity reflects that of the universe itself.
Your infantile desire to see modern physics "overthrown" reflects
your manifest ignorance about how scientific knowledge evolves.

Even if such a man could
be found he wouldn't get funding nor any help from established physics.
On the contrary anyone associating with him would risk professional
ridicule. What is needed is funded opposition. It may happen but it is
unlikely to be in one of the Western nations and the motivation is more
likely to be to overthrow western science than the advancement of
knowledge.

Yes, I can just see it: bible-based science, feng-shui science, and
postmodern science are poised to deliver revolutionary insights, yawn.

--
John Kennaugh

The world is going through a period of retreat into stupidity, and
usenet leads the charge, as the average online IQ tumbles to new lows.
Your contribution to the decline has been noted.