I posted this elsewhere so why not here …
This thread seems familiar to several I have followed in different forums. I would like to mention two options that I think pertain to the issue of SR and this discussion. The two statements address what some might say about SR and “reality”, reality being akin to the foundational truth or the invariant laws of the universe, and some might stop short of that but say the SR is mathematically correct but does not correspond precisely to reality, :go figure:.
1) The math of SR works perfectly but then it should since it relates motion as observed in two inertial reference frames by using the speed of light as the common denominator in the Lorentz adjustment equations to calculate the variables (length and time) in each frame relative to those same variables in the other frame.
2) The math of SR works perfectly because it is a quantification of the foundational truth or “reality” of the universe. The light sphere that emanates from a single event and that is observed by different observers, one in each frame, will be observed as spherical and will expand at the speed of light in each frame, but the spheres in each frame will not be congruent in absolute space due to the relativity of simultaneity, i.e. there is no absolute space or absolute rest frame in “reality”.
What I think is that some of those who accept the mathematical soundness of SR will also say that they believe that SR is in fact reality, thus selecting both #1 and #2 from my two choices. Of course those people are not scientists since to science “reality” is a philosophical concept and under the scientific method one of the important strengths of science is
tentativeness.
I accept #1 and not #2.
The Lorentz transformations should plot out a spherically expanding light wave front in the other frame because the observers in both frames are supposed to see the light expanding at c in all directions, i.e. the spherical wave front.
I would like to say that if I were to see a spherical light wave front expanding from a point of emission in my frame, which I will consider the rest frame, then I could easily imagine that the same event that causes the emission of my light sphere, if observed from moving frame will produce an oblate spheroid light wave front in the moving frame. Obviously this would violate Special Relativity because it would require a variable speed of light in the moving frame and that violates the postulates.
So in order for SR to be "reality", and in order for there to be a light sphere expanding in both frames, the point of emission must move with the frame. So the logic and reason used to imagine that my frame’s light sphere would appear as an oblate spheroid in the other frame is in error and I must imagine instead that the universe does not care what I think is logical. The point of emission is dependent on the relative motion of the inertial frames (moves with the frame) according to the math that reconciles the two SR postulates, i.e. according to Lorentz transformation.
That is why I say that the reason that the math works perfectly is because the length and time variables are transformed using the speed of light as the common denominator. Couldn't you get perfect math by using the speed of a zephyr if we knew what speed zephyrs fly and if we could assume that all zephyrs fly at the same speed (just being facetious).