Re: What is a photon

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> 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