> the above argument asserts that light should also have a preferred frame, since the mathematics is the same. But that line of reasoning is obviously wrong, as we know now.
Even while we know that it is wrong, the mathematical similarities between sound and light allow for the exploration or derivation of phenomena in one from the other.
For example, we are all familiar with lasers. The first laser was developed in 1960. Well people took the mathematics involved and constructed sound equivalents, for example the sound equivalent of the photon is the phonon.
It was then possible to construct and research the SASER - the sound equivalent of lasers and based on much the same mathematical principles.
So even though at a fundamental level sound and light are entirely different, it is possible to study the mathematics and behaviour of one and have it be directly applicable to the other.
Even while we know that it is wrong, the mathematical similarities between sound and light allow for the exploration or derivation of phenomena in one from the other.
For example, we are all familiar with lasers. The first laser was developed in 1960. Well people took the mathematics involved and constructed sound equivalents, for example the sound equivalent of the photon is the phonon.
It was then possible to construct and research the SASER - the sound equivalent of lasers and based on much the same mathematical principles.
So even though at a fundamental level sound and light are entirely different, it is possible to study the mathematics and behaviour of one and have it be directly applicable to the other.