The tangled SRT.
Dr. Kanda wrote: The whole SR is complete nonsense.
The Einstein’s SRT is right but its interpretation isn’t correct.
Why I say so ?
Dr. Kanda wrote: ‘ The question is asked
What is v in the Lorentz transformation? ‘
The Lorentz transformation uses two kinds of speed:
classical Galilean / Newtonian relative speed (v = dx /dt )
and Michelson/ Morley constant speed ( c=1). The interrelation
between them brings to introduce relativistic time, length and
another relativistic physical parameters.
Can we take classical Galilean / Newtonian body / object / particle
that moves with relative speed (v = dx /dt ) and add it to SRT ?
I think, not. Why ? Because Einstein wrote in his paper about
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” And we know that
only an electrodynamics body produces electromagnetic waves in its
movement but about classical Galilean / Newtonian body / object /
particle we cannot say it. The classical Galilean / Newtonian body
cannot produce electromagnetic waves. So, on which right we pull
Galilean / Newtonian particle into SRT ? We don’t have such right.
On which right we compare them? We don’t have right to compare
them. Maybe therefore Dr. Kanda wrote:
‘The whole SR is complete nonsense.’
In the other words, the SRT says only about the electrodynamics
of moving body and we must forget about classical Galilean /
Newtonian body / object / particle into SRT.
What is the situation now ?
Now we have two electrodynamics bodies in SRT.
And one of them, which moves with constant speed ( c=1)
sees that other electrodynamics body changes its movement/
speed according to the Lorentz transformation.
Theoretically two scenarios are possible now:
The changed electrodynamics body’s speed is less than constant
speed, it means c< 1 ( for example in another mediums).
The changed speed of electrodynamics body is more than constant
speed, it means c > 1 ( for example in tachyon theory the constant
speed c=1 is minimal ).
Theoretically and practically these both events are possible
( in my opinion).
Most of the curious things in the theory of relativity are
connected with the velocity of light.
/ ABC of Relativity. Chapter 3. page 26. B. Russell. /
(Why is it ‘curious things’?
Because Maxwell gave grounds for thinking that quantum
of light is an electromagnetic wave.
But simultaneous quantum of light must be corpuscular too.
It is hard to understand this ‘curious thing ‘ when wave and
particle are connected as something unit . Socratus.)
The paradoxes of the SRT are only paradoxes because we are
unaccustomed to the points of view, and in the habit of taking
things granted when we have no right to do so.
/ ABC of Relativity. Chapter 5. page 48. B. Russell. /
The SRT arose as a way of accounting for the facts
/ ABC of Relativity. Chapter 6. page 53. B. Russell. /
( Not the facts of classical Galilean / Newtonian mechanic.
The general formula in question is the ‘Lorentz transformation’,
which tells, when one body is moving in a given manner
relatively to another, . . . .
/ ABC of Relativity. Chapter 6. page 63. B. Russell. /
( One electrical body is moving, not a mechanical object
like a rocket moves. It is impossible to compare them. Socratus.)
One thing which emerges is that physics tells us much less
about the physical world than we thought it did.
/ ABC of Relativity. Chapter 15. page 148. B. Russell. /
( And H. Hertz said that formulas cleverer us.
In my opinion, when Hertz and Russell said that the reason is
we cannot understand the nature of photon and electron. Socratus.)
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.