Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Relativity and the nature of light. Waves or particles?
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:32:16 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <vet6eg$37ljs$1@dont-email.me>
References: <729c6c816b598ea72c5e917156b4e9b9@www.novabbs.com> <venvck$261sh$1@dont-email.me> <1249ee71ba7a90fd6b46234945f47385@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 10:32:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c1c75c1f074da3b7bd2e0d6b876e577";
	logging-data="3397244"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CkjFYygP23s3Kw8dLNxE7"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2T6dZIYcjvNAqR3PFSMmCOrHoe4=
Bytes: 3209

On 2024-10-17 01:29:26 +0000, rhertz said:

> On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 9:01:08 +0000, Mikko wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> 
>> Special Relativity means the theory presented in the first part of
>> Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". That theory
>> says nothing about the nature of light. The only property of light
>> is its speed.
> 
> WRONG!

No, your "WRONG" is wrong.

> Read this part of "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times":
> 
> "Let a ray of light depart from A at the time4 tA, let it be reflected
> at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t'A. Taking into
> consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we
> find that ...."

That is perfectly compatible with what I said. Nothing is said about
the nature of light.

> Definition of RAY OF LIGHT (used for 300  years):
> The light traveling in any one direction in a straight line is called a
> ray of light. A group of light rays given out from a source is called a
> beam of light.

That is simply a definition. A definition does not say anything
about the nature of anything, only about the meaning of a term.

> In 1817, English physicist Thomas Young (1773 to 1829) calculated
> light's wavelength from an interference pattern, thereby not only
> figuring out that the wavelength is 1 μm or less, but also having a
> handle on the truth that light is a transverse wave.

True (except that an interference pattern does not tell whether the
wave is longitudinal or transverse) but not relevant. There is no
reference to that result in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
so that result is not incorporated in Speial Relativity.

>> The second part of the article shows that the theory presented in the
>> first part is compatible with Maxwell's equations so that the two
>> theories can be used together, which is demomstrated by solving some
>> problems that way.
> 
> The second part is A BLATANT PLAGIARISM OF 1904 LORENTZ PAPER!. Even the
> addition of velocities was plagiarized from Poincaré (1905).

Irrelevant. Special relativity is the theory presented in the first part.

-- 
Mikko