On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:26 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, got it. > Well according to SR all motion or stillness is an illusion. > > But I think a better analogy would be calling someone by a different name > because when they are moving their face looks motion blurred. > > One important point is that if a magnetic field is created by a net > charged object in motion, if SR is correct then a magnetic field that > occurs in one reference frame does not occur in a co-moving frame. > > Magnetic fields are a useful fiction, but hardly real. > > John > > > What is real? Real can be defined as real enough for certain purposes. Since the 18th century the dominant purpose of physics has been to explain motion in a manner consistent with a mechanical philosophy of motion. The mechanical philosophy inspired Galilean relativity and Newtonian Mechanics. Subsequent developments such as EM dynamics, Special Relativity, General relativity, Quantum mechanics etc. remained true to the spirit of the mechanical philosophy through an expanding array of useful fictions. In my estimation, if there is a problem with these useful fictions, then questioning the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics or EM dynamics is not enough. Instead, it requires a careful reexamination of the ideas the mechanical philosophy excluded from the study of motion and to determine if their rejection was rooted in logic or an ideological preference for mechanical causes. Harry Harry
