and Constancy of Light Speed (in Vacuum)</font>
AAF: Thank you, Roger, for informing us that Boscovich theory leads to special relativity.
Roger J Anderton: Boscovich and constancy of light speed (in vacuum).
AAF: Great article; Roger!
Roger J Anderton: Karl Svozil [1: Conventions in relativity theory and quantum mechanics, Karl Svozil, Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, University of Technology Vienna 9 Oct 2001 arXiv:quant-ph/0110054v1] after pointing out that the speed of light (in vacuum) is a convention and that there are those who deal with special relativity falsely thinking it to be an empirical fact, points out that the basis of special relativity comes from Boscovich's theory.
AAF: I still remember, Roger, when I was very much of a novice full of enthusiasm, in this field of theoretical physics, I thought that 'Length Contraction & Time Dilation' would always keep the speed of light (in vacuum) conventional and equal to [c] just as Einstein wanted it to be; but, now, I can see quite clearly that I was half-right!
Roger J Anderton: Instruments that are test to light-speed (in vacuum) constancy are affected by time dilation and length contraction, so they are unable to detect change in light-speed (in vacuum).
AAF: Actually, Roger, no instrument of this sort has so far been invented yet. Otherwise, Einstein's Postulate of Constancy would have been destroyed at once. Up to this day, all measurements on the speed of light (in vacuum, air, water, . . . etc) are done indirectly and by using very few indirect methods such as the radar-ranging method, the Doppler-shift method, the stellar-aberration method, the fringe-shift method, and the toothed-wheel method.
Roger J Anderton: As Karl Svozil puts it: "If the very instruments which should indicate a change in the velocity of light are themselves dilated, then any dilation effect will be effectively nullified."
AAF: Not exactly, Roger; this Karl is partially wrong! And the main reason, of course, is that changes in the speed of light due to the motion of the observer, the light source, or both, are always of first-order magnitudes. By comparison, changes due to 'Length Contraction & Time Dilation' are always of second-order magnitudes. Subtract the latter changes from the former changes; and you still have big remainders of those first-order changes.
Roger J Anderton: He then points out this was considered by Boscovich: " This possibility has already been imagined in the 18th century by Boskovich and was later put forward by FitzGerald."
AAF: It seems to me, Roger, that Mr Boscovich was quite active and talented in his time. Unfortunately, his name does not sound very catchy and musical; right? We have to remember; catchy names are important, when it comes to fame and glory! Could you imagine where Marilyn Monroe would have been on the scale of fame, if she kept going around in Hollywood with her old & non-poetic name: Norma Jeane Mortenson?
That is enough for now;
the rest next time; and
as Colleague Rebis
used to say 'BLESSINGS'!