Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jim Pennino Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math Subject: Re: What is a photon Followup-To: sci.physics Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 06:44:04 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 131 Message-ID: <2ugajl-hu551.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> References: <9af3e95b721801ec23446e0d70f081b3@www.novabbs.org> <101pe06$qdb4$1@dont-email.me> <7684219ed9fcb7ee269061c10326c92d@www.novabbs.org> <1rdrgdh.1myz65p1yygjrzN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <1rdtes0.2l7rhf1saoglhN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 15:46:04 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a747e4e2d771061f3befe40931bddb6e"; logging-data="2325458"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XHAsTxIOU8LDDvo0aHja4" User-Agent: tin/2.6.2-20220130 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.0-142-lowlatency (x86_64)) Cancel-Lock: sha1:jprxPoP2M3c+I+Fi2fXP+d5fPKw= In sci.physics Bertitaylor wrote: > True there are no inertial frames, but we can take a ruler and mark out > two points. That amounts to a distance. > > Both end points and all in between are say travelling at speed v with > respect to aether. Say marked out distance if D. > > So in time T both points will travel distance vT with respect to the > fixed solid aether. > > With respect to the end point before T the other end point will move > distance vT. > > If light started from end point before T then at other end point it will > have travelled D+vT. > > From starting at other end it will travel D-vT. > > However time T is the same for both sides as per MMI experiment. > > Which means that light speed has to be variant meaning c+v one way and > c-v the other way, just as for anything kinetic. > > QED > > Woof > > Bertietaylor > > -- AI evaluation: This latest text by Arindam, writing as Bertietaylor, continues his characteristic blend of speculative physics, misinterpretation of established science, and rhetorical flair (e.g., the recurring "Woof"). Let’s break down and evaluate the core claims: Core Argument Summary: No inertial frames are real, but measurement is still possible using a ruler. The ruler (and everything between endpoints) is moving at speed v relative to a presumed fixed aether. A light pulse from one end of the ruler to the other is said to travel a distance D ± vT, depending on direction. Since time T is the same for both directions (as per Arindam’s reading of the Michelson-Morley experiment), the speed of light must differ in the two directions: c+v and c−v. Therefore, Arindam concludes that light speed is not constant in all directions (i.e., not isotropic). 🔍 Evaluation of Reasoning: 1. "No inertial frames exist" Arindam asserts this but then reverts to Newtonian reasoning by assuming an absolute frame — the "solid aether." This contradiction undermines the entire argument. Modern physics does not require the aether, and inertial frames are well-defined in special relativity. 2. The use of a moving ruler and the aether frame Arindam imagines a ruler moving at velocity v with respect to a "solid" aether. But this assumes the very thing that the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMI) disproved: the detectability of motion relative to aether. 3. Light travel distances as D ± vT This treats light like a classical object moving through a medium (e.g., a car on a road). In relativity, light's speed is constant in all inertial frames, not additive with source velocity. The distance light travels in a moving frame must be analyzed using Lorentz transformations, not classical addition of velocities. 4. Misinterpretation of the MMI Arindam says the MMI shows equal time T for both directions of light travel, and then concludes the speed must be different. This is backwards. The MMI showed no difference in travel time, implying light speed is the same in all directions regardless of Earth's motion — thus supporting Einstein’s postulate of isotropic c, and refuting the aether. 5. "c + v and c − v, just as for anything kinetic" This classical intuition is what Einstein overturned in 1905. Photons do not obey Galilean velocity addition. Experimental confirmation (e.g., modern interferometers, GPS synchronization, Kennedy–Thorndike) further rules out direction-dependent c. Conceptual Problems: Assuming absolute motion (through "aether") contradicts both modern physics and Arindam's earlier claim of "no inertial frames." Assuming simultaneity (same T for both directions) without relativistic justification ignores the relativity of simultaneity. The argument is internally inconsistent and empirically falsified. Style and Rhetoric: The tone is assertive and dogmatic. The use of "QED" and "Woof" aims to add flair, but doesn’t bolster the scientific merit. Final Verdict: This text is a pseudo-scientific reinterpretation of relativity, dressed in classical intuition and outdated concepts like the aether. The conclusions run directly counter to both experimental evidence and the theoretical framework of modern physics. The appeal to MMI is especially ironic, as that experiment disproves the core claim being made. Scientific rating: ❌ Not valid Rhetorical style: Eccentric, confident, but ultimately incoherent -- penninojim@yahoo.com