Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ian Parker
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
 |
|
I think we ought to gave a file that gets used on every occaision. We
ought to expand ourselves with aliases. We ought to inlude in our fle
not only articles on Relativity and experimental proof (it will never
be enough), but also articles on the Black Sun cult, on Aldebaran, on
ODESSA and Simon Weisental, on the holocaust as well as on McCarthy
and the ideology of the "good follower". A bit on WMD and the Iraq
would sometimes come in handy too.
Also the supreme anticommunism of Ludendorff, Hitler and McCarthy and
the agreement to split Poland up with the USSR.
- Ian Parker |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BURT
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 2:41 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.
Baird said:
"16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity
We're told that the experimental evidence for special
relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable
doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all
this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results
reckoned to support the special theory include:
* E=mc^2
* transverse redshifts
* longitudinal Doppler relationships
* the lightspeed limit in particle accelerators
* the searchlight effect (shared with dragged-light
models and NM)
* "velocity addition" behaviour (shared with dragged-light models and
NM)
* particle tracklengths
* muon detection
* particle lifetimes in accelerator storage rings /
centrifuge time dilation / orbiting clocks
* the failure of competing theories
... we'll be looking at all of these, along with a
couple of important background issues.
16.2: ... E=mc^2
For a long time it seemed to be received wisdom that
the E=mc^2 result was unique to special relativity, We
were told that if special relativity wasn't true then
nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons wouldn't work, and
without SR's prediction of E=mc^2, nuclear fusion
wouldn't operate as it does. Without special
relativity, the Sun wouldn't shine.
And while this was a good story to tell credulous
schoolchildren, it was essentially pseudoscience. The
idea that E=mc^2 "belongs" to SR doesn't hold up to
basic mathematical analysis, and to Einstein's credit
he went on to argue for the wider validity of the
result by publishing further papers that derived the
relationship (or a good approximation of it) from more
general arguments outside special relativity. We also
found in section 2.5 (with working supplied in the
Appendices, Calculations 2), that E=mc^ 2 is an exact
result of NM, if we ignore standard teaching and go
directly to the core mathematics. Not only is the
NM-based derivation of E=mc2 reasonably
straightforward, it's shorter than its SR counterpart,
and it's also part of every hypothetical model in
section 13.
Whiile it's historically understandable that the
equation wasn't widely recognised and embraced until
Einstein came along, its less clear why so many
brilliant physicists with outstanding math skills
continued to insist for so long that the equation
somehow provides cornpelling evidence for the special
theory. Since the math is so straightforward, how were
so many clever physics people caught out? We might have
expected that enough time had passed since 1905 for us
to have checked the math dependencies, not iced the
parallel compatibility with NK and (in a respectable
field of scientific study), made a high-profile
retraction so that we didn't continue to pass
misinformation onto students. But perhaps "E=mc^2
proves special relativity" was just too convenient a
tale for people to want to give it up, regardless of
what the Mathematics really said.
16.3: *Classical Theory" vs. Special Relativity
When we read about experiments that compared the
predictions of SR against those of "Classical Theory",
we can come away thinking that we've been told how SR's
Predictions stack up against most earlier theories (for
instance, Newtonian theory).
This isn't usually the case. When we look at what's
meant by "Classical Theory', in this context, we find
that it's a sort of hybrid. It's a pairing of two sets
of incompatible assumptions and math that have the
advantage for experimenters of (a) being well known and
standardised, and (b) making optical predictions that
are so exceptionally bad that by comparison special
relativity (and almost any other theory) looks very
good indeed.
Did "Classical Theory" ever really exist?
In the context of SR-testing, "Classical Theory" refers
to a mixture of two sets of conflicting assumptions
that didn't work together before SR/LET: "Classical
Theory" uses Newtonian mechanics for the equations of
motion for solid bodies, but for light, CT is
equivalent to assuming an absolute, fixed, "flat"
aether stationary in the laboratory frame. The energy
and momentum relationships of these two different parts
are, of course, irreconcilable ... NM requires the
Doppler relationship to be (c-v)/c, but " Classical
Theory" gives cl(c+v). These aren't compatible. They
never were. If they were, we wouldn't have needed
special relativity.
There doesn't seem to be any single theory that
attempted to combine these two predictions before
LET/SR, or at least, there doesn't seem to have been
anyone prepared to lend their name to one, and in a
subject where people love having things named after
themselves, this should make us suspicious. If
"Classical Theory" doesn't mean "pre-SR theory", then
where did it come from? The phrase appears in
Einstein's explanations of the basis of special
relativity, as a convenient form of words to refer to
two appa rently diverging predictions that special
relativity then reconciled by applying Lorentz effects:
to Einstein, "Classical Theory" represented
incompatible aspects of earlier theories that didn't
work together, but that could be reconciled using
special relativity.
When we're look for a historical counterpart to
Classical Theory there doesn't seem to be anything that
would have made these optical predictions unless we go
all the way back to preGalileo, pre-Newton times, and
posit an absolute aether that permeates space and is
locked to the state of a stationary Earth. That would
give us the "Classical Theory" prediction of "no
transverse redshift" for a laboratory stationary with
respect to the Earth. But every other decrepit old
theory that we can dig up seems to pre dict at least
some sort of transverse redshift effect, sometimes
weaker than SR, sometimes stronger than SR, and
sometimes swinging wildly between the two depending on
the Earth's motion. The one idea that didn't seem to be
considered to be credible during the Eighteenth Century
was the idea that lightspeed was fixed with respect to
the observer, which is presumably why Michelson had so
much grief with his colleagues over his "failed"
aether-drift experiment.
SO, why do we persist in carrying out these "SR vs.
Classical Theory" comparisons if they don't demonstrate
very much? Well, to a cynic, Classical Theory is an
excellent reference to test against, because its
predictions are about as bad as we can get. If we set
aside the theories that predicted time-variant effects,
no other old predictions seem to be quite as bad at to
CT when it comes to predicting real Doppler shifts, and
this makes "CT vs. Theory X" experiments very much
easier to carry out and analyse . Test theory authors
love CT because it meshes well with the chain of
arguments that Einstein used when explaining the
special theory, and experimenters design tests around
the test theories that are available legitimate process
- as long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking that
that the results represent a realistic comparison of
how special relativitys predictions really compared to
those of its predecessors.
16.4:- "Transverse" redshifts
Special relativity tells us that if an object moves
through our laboratory, and we carefully point a
highly-directional detector at right angles to its path
(measured with a "laboratory" set,square), the signal
that manages to register on the detector should be
redshifted (section 6.7).
But the popular "educational" notion that this sort of
redshift outcome is something unique to special
relativity is as best misleading, and at worst ... it's
simply wrong. The equations of newtonian mechanics (or
even the basic equations for audio, properly applied to
the case of a stationary source) don't just predict
redshifts in this situation, they'll often predict
"aberration redshifts" that are stronger than their SR
counterparts (section 6.4), so in a physical sense, the
appearance of redshifts in t his situation isn't just
not unique, it's not even particularly unusual. In
fact, the thing that would be unusual with this sort of
experimental setup would be a theory that didn't
predict some sort of redshift.
Although we tend to regard special relativity's
transverse predictions as conceptually unique,
experimenters have to know when supposed differences
between theories generate physically unambiguous
differences in the readings taken by actual hardware,
and when the differences are more a matter of
interpretation. This distinction isn't always obvious
from the relativity literature.
Einstein's special theory requires these sorts of
"pre-SR" redshifts to exist for its own internal
consistency. The theory must predict the same physical
outcome regardless of which inertia] reference frame we
choose to use for our calculations, so the emitter is
entitled to claim that c is globally fixed for them
(Einstein 1905, 7), and this means that they're
entitled to claim that our relative motion makes us
time-dilated, giving our view of the emitter's signal a
Lorentz blueshift ... so in order for u s to be able to
instead see a Lorentz redshift, propagation-based
effects in this situation - light moving at a constant
speed in the emitter's frame, and arriving at us at an
apparent 90 degrees - must, by default, generate a
Lorentz-squared redshift to allow the same final SR
outcome. This is the right answer (see Calculations 3).
So to fully understand the logical consistency of SR in
this situation requires us to know that similar or
stronger redshifts would appear in the same apparatus
under other light-propagation models. Since different
SR "views" can explain the same redshift component as
the result of (a) conventional aberration effects, (b)
time dilation, or (c) a combination of the two (we're
allowed to try an infinite number of alternative views
from intermediate reference frames), SR requires these
two explanations to be q ualitatively
indistinguishable. Although expert sources may tell us
that "transverse redshifts" are unique to SR, the
theory itse~f tells us otherwise. We can distinguish
SR's "transverse" predictions from those of other
theories by their strength, but a redshift outcome in
this situation doesn't automatically need SR.
The Hasselkamp test
We only seem to have one experiment that set out to
measure the amount of redshift actually seen at 90
degrees to moving material (Hasselkamp et. al., 1979),
and it reported about twice the redshift predicted by
SR, as we'd expect if the older NM equations were
right. This result was nevertheless presented as
supporting SR: the experimenters used a test theory
that compared SR with "Classical Theory" (which
predicted no redshift), and reasoned that the
inexplicable excess redshift must have been due to an a
ccidental detector misalignment. They were then able to
use statistics to argue that, taking into account
possible alignment efforts, the "SR" prediction still
made a significantly better match to the data than "CT"
did.
But subsequent papers verifying that the presumed
misalignment was real, or repeating the experiment
(Perhaps with the help of clever cancellation methods
to eliminate the effects of these sorts of detector
misalignments from further results), don't seem to have
appeared. This Makes it difficult to tell whether the
result really supported the special theory, or
invalidated it.
16.5: ... "Longitudinal" Doppler shifts
The Hasselkamp experiment was unusual - in practice, we
don't normally . try to measure SR's transverse
redshift effect by really aiming a detector at the side
of a moving particle bearn - we find it easier to
measure the forward and rearward Doppler-shifts, and
then calculate the strength of the transverse effect by
comparing them against each other.
This is a nice method ... because it compares two
shifts, the technique makes it easier to cancel out
various types of systemic error, known and unknown, and
these "end-on" readings are less sensitive to the
effect of small angular errors. By comparing the
resulting three sign.("recession-redshifted",
"approach-blueshifted", and an "unshifted" reference
signal), we can derive a characteristic "signature"
that lets us rule out certain relationships without
having to commit to a theory-specific value for the
exact velocity of the particle beam. We can select ,
theory, use one of the shift ratios to calculate what
the velocity would have to have bee. according to that
theory, use this hypothetical velocity value to
"predict" the second shift ratio, and then compare this
against the second set of figures to see how close we
got to the real data.
Ives-stilwell
The best-known of these "non-transverse" transverse
tests is the early 1938 test by Herbert Ives and G. R.
Stilwell, which set out to compare tile predictions of
Lorentz Ether Theory (and SR) against those of
"Classical Theory". Ives and Stilwell's approach was
simple: "Classical Theory" says that the two shifted
signals (red and blue) should change in wavelength by
precisely the same amount, so with all three wavelength
values marked on a linear scale, we'd find perfectly
even spacing between them. If the shift relationships
obeyed the "redder" relationships of SR (or NM) there'd
be an asymmetry.
Ives and Stilwell found a definite offset in the
wavelength values. The simplicity of this experiment
makes it tempting to reanalyse the data for a possible
agreement or disagreement with NM, and when we do this
we find that the stronger offset predicted by N1M
appears to lie outside the data range, by more than the
experimenter's quoted experimental error. This seems to
indicate that the SR predictions are significantly more
accurate than NM.
Further experiments
There've been several more experiments of this type
published since Ives-Stilwell, using more advanced
equipment, more complex optics and higher relative
velocities, and these have supported the predictions of
SR over "Classical Theory" with increasing confidence.
However, when we try to use them to cheek how well they
support SR over NM, we run into difficulties: with
several of these tests, the more complex setup and
calibration techniques make it dangerous to attempt a
safe reanalysis for possibilities t hat weren't
considered in the experimenters' setup procedures ...
in others the quoted error margins seem rather similar
to the margins that wed need to be able to interpret an
'NM" result as a "SR" result ... or extreme accuracy
when making the comparison between SR and CT is
achieved by 1 technique that makes it difficult to
differentiate between SR and NM ... or "excess"
redshifts are explained away as the result of mirror
recoil .
It seems that even with this additional technological
sophistication, our primary evidence for SR's
superiority over NM is still that early Ives-Stilwell
experiment. And since ]at . er experimenters have had
trouble understanding how the test's accuracy could
have been quite as good as the paper said (estimating
accuracy can be difficult when using an experimental
configuration for the first time), we don't yet seem to
have a solid core of experimental results claiming that
that the newer SR Doppler relatio nships really are
more accurate than the NNI set. Perhaps if our
experiments had been devised with this comparison in
mind from the beginning, we might by now have
significant amounts of evidence to point us one way or
the other ... but they weren't, and we don't.
16.6: ... The lightspeed upper limit in particle
accelerators
Another of the results often trotted out as unambiguous
evidence for the validity of special relativity is the
fact that even our best particle accelerators can't
persuade electrically charged particies to move faster
than the background speed of light. As the speed of the
particles approaches background lightspeed, it becomes
progressively more difficult for the fixed accelerator
coils to force them to move any faster. As the speed of
a particle approaches accelerator lightspeed, the
energy that we have to pump through our coils to get an
additional background increase in speed seems to tend
towards infinity. some commentators attach great
significance to this result and argue that the
outlandish scale ,,d sheer brute force required by
modem particle accelerators is an obvious indication
that tile special theory is correct. If we believed in
the equations for light used by "Classical Theory"
(section 16.3), we'd expect these machines to be able
to accelerate particles to far higher speeds, but, in
real life ... this quite clearly isn't the way that
things work. Special relativity wins!
And certainly, special relativity wins when compared to
CT. It just doesn't necessarily win when compared to
other models. From the point of view of the coils, we
can argue that the particle's resistance to
acceleration (and its apparent inertial mass), goes to
infinity as its speed through the accelerator
approaches lightspeed, and we might blame this on the
particle's additional relativistic mass at higher
speeds. But the idea of relativistic mass isn't always
fashionable amongst physicists, so it's handy to have
another way of describing the situation, and we can do
this y describing the experi ment from the point of
view of the particle.
Coupling efficiency
Suppose that our "SR particle" is coasting through a
straight section of accelerator tube at close to
background lightspeed, and we throw more EM energy at
it ... the particle sees the receding accelerator coils
to be redshifted, reducing the frequency, energy, and
radiation pressure of their signals. With the coils
moving away at lightspeed, SR's Doppler relationships
describe this energy and momentum of their fields
disappearing altogether. So the coupling efficiency
between the accelerator coils and the particle drops
toward zero as their relative recession velocity
approaches lightspeed, and with SR we therefore expect
to be able to accelerate the particle towards the speed
of light, but not to it or beyond it. This is what we
see happening in our accelerators. SR wins!
.. Except that, when we try a similar exercise with
the Doppler relationships for other theories, similar
things have a habit of happening. If we try the
"Newtonian" Doppler relationships we find that with fIf
= (c-v)lc, setting the recession velocity to lightspeed
once again gives a frequency (and energy, and coupling
efficiency) of zero. When we directly accelerate a
particle, the lightspeed limit that we usually think of
as a validation of SR also shows up under Nemonian
mechanics, and presumably also under a range of other
theories.
Indirect acceleration
This "direct acceleration" lightspeed barrier can have
different characteristics under different Models: in
the NM version of the story, an unstable particle
travelling at close to background lightspeed can
fragment and throw off daughter particles, some of
which might travel at more than background c. This
effect is related to NM's support for classical
indirect radiation effects ("semi classical Hawking
radiation), and wouldn't seem to be possible under
SR-based Models. Unfortunately, when we start to deal
with the more "particle-y" aspects of particle physics,
quantum effects become relevant, allowing the
appearance of particles in "impossible" situations to
be explained away by ideas such as quantum tunnelling:
even if we found something that looked like evidence of
superluminal daughter particles, by classifying this as
a quantum effect we could probably still get away with
arguing that the result didn't threaten SR.
16.7: The "searchlight" effect
We met the searchlight effect in section 8.2: it's the
tendency of moving bodies to throw more of their signal
forwards rather than trailing it behind them. Special
relativity and NM both apply the same "relativistic
aberration" formula, and the effect also exists (to
various degrees) in different dragged-light models.
This behaviour doesn't happen in the "Classical Theory"
of section 16.3.
16.8: Velocity-addition
Special characteristics for "velocity addition" appear
in a variety of models, including NM (section 14. ,
and usually suggest that the propagation of signals is
being affected by the motion of intermediate objects in
the signal path. Although we usually choose to
interpret th
Fizeau and Zeeman results as supporting SR's
velocity-addition formula, the special theorye match to
the data isn't supposed to be any better than Fresnel's
ancient dragged-light theory. Again, this behaviour
doesn't appear in the "Classical Theory" of section
16.3.
16.9: Particle tracklengths
Since we've brought up the subject of daughter
particles, how do we test how fast they really go?
Let's suppose that we have a particle that's only
supposed to survive for a nanosecond, and we measure
the length of straight-line distance that it covers
between being created and blowing itself to bits. If we
know the particle's "official" decay time, then surely
We can measure the length of its track, and divide that
by the time to get the speed? If this track length was
longer than the distance that particl e would travel at
the background speed of light, wouldn't this mean that
we'd shown that its velocity was superiuminal,
disproving SR? And if the particle tracks were always
shorter than this, wouldn't this support special
relativity?
But things aren't that easy. We're used to thinking of
velocity as an unambiguous property, but since we can't
be in two places at once, the properly often has to be
interpreted. Since special relativity redefines all of
the properties associated with velocity - energy,
momentum, distance and time - fair comparisons between
SR and other theories can become quite convoluted, and
this can make it difficult to tell, when we're using
these agreed, uninterpreted quantities, whether there's
really a physical diff erence between the SR and NM
tracklength predictions.
Special relativity assigns greater energies and momenta
to particles and signals than NM does, by a Lorentz
factor:
NM SR
Momentum p= mv p=mv x gamma
Doppler effect E'/E=(c-v)/c E'/E=(c-v)/c x gamma
, so ... for a high-energy particle moving along a
straight line with constant speed, with a known energy
and/or momentum, Newtonian theory and special
relativity will be assigning consistently different
velocity values to the same particle. The nominal "SR
velocity" value ("vSR") will always be less than
lightspeed, while the nominal 'NM velocity" value
("vNM") will be larger than its SR counterpart by a
Lorentz factor (calculated from vSR)'
When we migrate from NM to special relativity, a
particle's nominal velocity gets reduced by a Lorentz
factor, shortening the distance that the particle would
be expected to travel before decaying. But SR's "time
dilation" effect then predicts an extension of the
particle's lifetime by the same Lorentz factor thanks
to time dilation, lengthening the particle's track by
that same ratio. Because these two corrections exactly
cancel, the particle's decay Position as 3 function of
its energy and momentum is precisely the same for both
theories. The results of both sets of calculations are
necessarily identical.
16:10 Muon Showers
Similar arguments apply when we try to assess evidence
from "cosmic ray" detectors. High energy cosmic rays
hitting the upper parts of the Earth's atmosphere
create showers of short-lived "daughter particles" that
survive for an incredibly short amount of time before
decaying - their lifetimes are so short that even if
they were travelling at the speed of light, we might
think that they still shouldn't be able to reach the
Earth's surface before decaying.
But ground-based detectors do report the detection of
muon showers, and there are two main ways that we can
interpret this result:
SR-based interpretation
According to special relativity, we should explain the
detectors' result by saying that since we "know" that
nothing can travel faster than background lightspeed,
the rations' ability to reach the ground shows that
their decay-times must have been extended, and we
interpret this as demonstrating that the special
theory's time-dilation effects are physically real. We
say that the muons move at a very high proportion of
the speed of light and are time-dilated, and if it
wasn't It for this time-dilation effect , they wouldn't
be able to reach the detectors.
Or ... we could adopt the muon's point of view, and
suggest that the muon is stationary and the Earth is
moving towards it at nearly the speed of light. In this
second SR description, all of the approaching Earth's
atmosphere is able to pass by the muon in time even
though its speed is less than c, because the moving
atmosphere's depth is Lorentz-contracted. These two
different SR explanations (length-contraction and time
dilation) are interchangeable.
NM-based interpretation
But is the success of the SR mtion calculations
significant? Is it significantly different to the
calculations weld have made using earlier theory? When
we compare the tracklengths predicted by SR and NM,
starting from theory-neutral properties, the final
results seem to be identical (section 16.9): for a
given agreed momentum, the mtion's decay point
according to SR would seem to be precisely the same as
the NM prediction - the two models don't disagree on
where the muon decays, they disagree as to whether it
achieves that penetration by travelling at more or less
than background lightspeed, which is more difficult to
establish.
Fast or ultrafast?
Muon bursts seem to be associated with Cerenkov
radiation - the optical equivalent of a supersonic
shockwave - but since lightspeed is slower in air than
in a vacuum, using the Cerenkov effect to show that the
innuons are moving faster than lightspeed in air
doesn't show that they're also moving faster than the
official background speed of light, in a vacuum.
So how do we find the real speed of the muons, given
that we don't have advance warning of when a cosmic ray
is going to strike? With additional airborne muion
detectors we can try to cornpare the detection times in
the air and on the ground, but interpreting this data
neutrally could be difficult: one such experiment
seemed to indicate that the muons were travelling at
more than than Cvacuum (Clay/Crouch 1974), but
subsequent experiments seem to have supported the
opposite position.
Frorn here on, things get muddy. Given that we know
that the record of SR-trained theorists trying to
interpret non-SR theory isn't exactly faultless, it's
difficult to know exactly how to treat this situation
... but there's one thing here that we can be sure of.
When SR textbooks tell us that ground-level muon
detection gives us unambiguous evidence for special
relativity, and tell us that these muons couldn't reach
the ground unless SR was correct, and couldn't bay,
been predicted by earlier theories ... those statements
are wrong.
snip rest
16.14: Conclusions Although we're told that the
evidence for special relativity is beyond dispute, much
of the supporting evidence and argument is individually
so patchy that it wouldn't be taken seriously in other
branches of physical science. Or at least, we should
hope that this lack of sceptical scrutiny is unusual,
because otherwise science in general would seem to be
in a great deal of trouble. Almost every general
argument for SR seems to have been missold in some way.
The E=mc^2 relationship wasn't unique to SR after all,
neither were transverse redshifts, and the centrifuge
redshifts that we'd been told had no other explanation
had been predicted from more general gravitational
arguments independently of SR. Although the
experimenters may well have been scrupulously honest,
some of the special theory's more active proponents
seemed to be badly misrepresenting the available
evidence and the mathematics, and their colleagues
seemed to be allowing them to get away with it.
Since most of these mistakes can be found with a little
basic critical analysis, this leaves us wondering
whether the theory's proponents genuinely didn't
realise that what they were saying was wrong or
misleading (in which case the standard of cross-theory
expertise 'S low), or whether they knew that evidence
was being misrepresented, but chose not to raise the
issue. Perhaps people thought that it wasn't so
important if a few of these experiments were over-sold,
because of the sheer breadth of other suppo rting
evidence ... and that even if the SR. dependency of a
few results had been hyped, that the exaggeration was
harmless because mathematics told us that the theory
was right ... but once a "casual" approach to
scientific evidence is allowed to become widespread in
a research subject, and once everybody starts to rely
on the idea that the standards of evidence in
individual cases don't matter so much, it allows the
awful possibility that perhaps every piece of e vidence
used to support the theory might be similarly flawed.
Mistakes will tend to cancel each other out in a
diverse population, but in a monoculture they'll tend
to reinforce one another. If evervone believes that the
number of experiments provides a solid safety margin
for their own work, and if everyone depends on the
existence of that assumed safety margin, then it might
be that the margin doesn't exist.
The experimental record may make a decent case for the
principle of relativity being correct and also gives us
strong evidence against a number of nonrelativistic
models and against simple emission theory ... but when
it comes to establishing whether SR is the correct
implementation of the principle of relativity, things
are less straightforward. If we believe that any
relativistic model must reduce to SR by definition,
we'll tend not to bother testing SR against other
potential relativistic solutions, beca use we won't
believe that they can exist.
The misrepresentation of the evidence for SR means that
we're entitled to be suspicious, but it doesn't mean
that special relativity's relationships are necessarily
wrong. Definitive tests of "SR vs. NM" would seem to
require direct tests of the Doppler relationships
themselves, and in this case we seem to have two basic
experiments, both slightly problematic - One apparently
favouring SR against NM (Ives-Stilwell) and one
apparently favouring NM against SR (Hasselkamp etal.).
If the "NM" Doppler relationsh ips are correct, it
seems incredible that we wouldn't have already noticed
it, but if the SR set are really better, it also seems
incredible that after a century of testing, we wouldn't
yet have a body of results claiming to demonstrate it.
It's hard to find an ' v SR tests where experimenters
claim to have compared the NM Doppler relationships
against the SR set, and found the SR version better -
it's just not something that people tend to do. If the
SR set really is better, then the community really
ought to have been able to find people able to verify
it by now. A century should have been sufficient time.
Which of these relationships is better than the other
at describing the universe we live in?
The honest answer seems to be: we still don't know.
Flip a coin.
|
Velocity additions remain linear. Closing velocity applies when two
objects are considered. Each has an absolute motion of its own
through space in a particular direction.
No flat Atoms
No Contracted space
No relativistic velocities because everything has its own motion
through space. But objects can move together.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 13, 7:50 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Danny Milano wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
On Jul 13, 9:54 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
James,
When you can fly at say 95% the speed of light. Does
your time dilate or your length contract? It never does
in your own first person view or reference frame.
Relativity didn't say it does.
But the problem is it saying it does at all.
The other observer is simply not measuring
correctly because he is using "mutilple standards for time
and distance if he uses relativity at all and including
a limited speed that is actually "relative" even though
all relativists say it can't be, then they are also ignoring
the relative motion of the lightwaves just to support
a relative motion theory.
It is a nice little trick they pull and have pulled it far too
long.
What do you mean "multilple standards for time
and distance"? Pls. explain.
Two clocks will be compared, one clock will fly away
and come back to the same spot, it will have less time
shown on it.
A typicle relativist will say that both clocks functioned
properly.
But yet, they do not show the same times.
That means they have accepted a multiple standard
"second" just to ignore the clock in motions malfunction.
And length contraction is also done the same
way sorta except the meter comes back and
it is the same as it ever was and they
simply say the moving meter is shorter than the
"at rest" meter. and that make the multiple
standards for thier "meter".
The meter problem is usually combined with
the clock problem so they can remove
the paradox occurance if you used
absolute measurement systems that had
no single "standard" for a second and a meter.
Clear enough?
Another stupid thing about the typicle relativist
that has been brainwashed is the fact that they must
ignore the "relative speed of light" in order to
support the relative motion theories.
And even one more stupid relativity trick is
the old "limited speed math" that makes all of
other math basically prove that 186,00 mps (c)
+ 186,000 mps (c) does not equal 2c.
So they use basic math/algebra, to prove basic
math/algebra is wrong when they limit objects
to wave speeds for observational bullshit,
instead of actually finding true relative speeds.
How silly is that?
If we go into outerspace and keep relativity
and the malfunctioning clocks as a "reality"
we will be crashign into planets that are not there yet
according to our malfunctioning clocks.
because those planets do not care what "your" clock
is doing. but they do care about what that clock on Earth
said.. and seem to follow it wonderfully and that is why
we know what time to see things in the sky.
:)
So,
The clock malfunctioned,
and the meter did not shrink physically,
and if you think such at all, you will be stardust
or planet dust all over again.
That is "reality", not this silly time travel,wormhole
point particle, singularity zero point energy complete
utter bullshit based upon malfunctioning clocks and
rubber rulers.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I was reading a material by supreme anti-relativist Pentcho
about Harvey Brown and got me into thinking.
Brown says that relativists believe the geometrical structure of
Minkowski spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving
rods shrink and why moving clocks run slow while Brown believes
that spacetime has a Minkowski geometry because the dynamical
laws are Lorentz invariant. The geometry, in some sense, depends
on the structure of the laws. Yet we don't have causal laws at
present on how the particles and atoms behave during time
dilation and length contraction and no laws how these particles
are coupled to spacetime. This I think is why there are so
many anti-relativists because the dynamic laws were not
given in details. So does Minkowski geometry determines
the dynamic laws of the atoms or do the dynamic laws of
the atoms recreate the Minkowski geometry?? We don't seem
to know the definite case. Hope PD can assist here.
The laws are only there when you find "physical" causes.
|
Be sure to ask spaceman what he thinks a "physical cause" is.
Spaceman is a rare breed of goon. He believes that the only real
physical causes are material things acting on material things. Keep in
mind he's an auto mechanic, used to metal touching metal to make
things go. He does not believe in fields, he does not believe in
structure of space and time other that what he learned in 7th grade
math about length, area, volume, and duration. He has no explanation,
really, for gravitational effects reaching across empty space, so he's
sure we should be looking for material stuff that carries that
attraction. The same goes for electromagnetic waves -- he is sure, for
example, that radio signals must come across a material medium, since
only a medium can carry waves. He's not sure what the medium is that
is carrying the electromagnetic waves from distant galaxies here, but
he is sure that until we find it, then we haven't found the physical
cause. Spaceman isn't happy until the accounting for how the universe
works fits into his idea of how such a model should look. He doesn't
have anything to offer to us, however, except his unhappiness with the
state of everything.
If it isn't all material acting on material in visualizable process
consistent with his common sense, then Spaceman is positive it is
wrong.
Also keep in mind, though, that Spaceman is a lazy, good-for-nothing
that would not remove his ass from his chair to do the first lick of
research in a library if his life depended on it. He's one of those
fortunate blessings to society that do nothing but bitch about how bad
things suck in his view.
| Quote: |
Until such is found, it will remain a theory.
To find the laws of physics in motion, one must find
the causes of such effects like the clock slowing down.
Find the physical cause of the "frequency rate change" and you find
the real reason it changed rate.. just saying it actually changed
rate because it "changes rate" is all that relativity has done so
far.
The circular cause bullshit is why the "anti-relativists: are growing.
The simple lack of "physical" cause..
IF you wish to look for the physical cause and find it..
You will first have to admit.. the clock screwed up. and
then find out "why" and your answer can not be because
"time slowed down" because that is like saying.
The clock slowed, because the clock slowed.
Relativity is a circular cause theory based upon a multiple
standard as the cause.
It is a joke to anyone that knows anything about "timing" things
for real.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:50 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
Danny Milano wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 11:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
On Jul 13, 9:54 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
James,
When you can fly at say 95% the speed of light. Does
your time dilate or your length contract? It never does
in your own first person view or reference frame.
Relativity didn't say it does.
But the problem is it saying it does at all.
The other observer is simply not measuring
correctly because he is using "mutilple standards for time
and distance if he uses relativity at all and including
a limited speed that is actually "relative" even though
all relativists say it can't be, then they are also ignoring
the relative motion of the lightwaves just to support
a relative motion theory.
It is a nice little trick they pull and have pulled it far too
long.
What do you mean "multilple standards for time
and distance"? Pls. explain.
Two clocks will be compared, one clock will fly away
and come back to the same spot, it will have less time
shown on it.
A typicle relativist will say that both clocks functioned
properly.
But yet, they do not show the same times.
That means they have accepted a multiple standard
"second" just to ignore the clock in motions malfunction.
And length contraction is also done the same
way sorta except the meter comes back and
it is the same as it ever was and they
simply say the moving meter is shorter than the
"at rest" meter. and that make the multiple
standards for thier "meter".
The meter problem is usually combined with
the clock problem so they can remove
the paradox occurance if you used
absolute measurement systems that had
no single "standard" for a second and a meter.
Clear enough?
Another stupid thing about the typicle relativist
that has been brainwashed is the fact that they must
ignore the "relative speed of light" in order to
support the relative motion theories.
And even one more stupid relativity trick is
the old "limited speed math" that makes all of
other math basically prove that 186,00 mps (c)
+ 186,000 mps (c) does not equal 2c.
So they use basic math/algebra, to prove basic
math/algebra is wrong when they limit objects
to wave speeds for observational bullshit,
instead of actually finding true relative speeds.
How silly is that?
If we go into outerspace and keep relativity
and the malfunctioning clocks as a "reality"
we will be crashign into planets that are not there yet
according to our malfunctioning clocks.
because those planets do not care what "your" clock
is doing. but they do care about what that clock on Earth
said.. and seem to follow it wonderfully and that is why
we know what time to see things in the sky.
:)
So,
The clock malfunctioned,
and the meter did not shrink physically,
and if you think such at all, you will be stardust
or planet dust all over again.
That is "reality", not this silly time travel,wormhole
point particle, singularity zero point energy complete
utter bullshit based upon malfunctioning clocks and
rubber rulers.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I was reading a material by supreme anti-relativist Pentcho
about Harvey Brown and got me into thinking.
Brown says that relativists believe the geometrical structure of
Minkowski spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving
rods shrink and why moving clocks run slow while Brown believes
that spacetime has a Minkowski geometry because the dynamical
laws are Lorentz invariant. The geometry, in some sense, depends
on the structure of the laws. Yet we don't have causal laws at
present on how the particles and atoms behave during time
dilation and length contraction and no laws how these particles
are coupled to spacetime. This I think is why there are so
many anti-relativists because the dynamic laws were not
given in details. So does Minkowski geometry determines
the dynamic laws of the atoms or do the dynamic laws of
the atoms recreate the Minkowski geometry?? We don't seem
to know the definite case. Hope PD can assist here.
|
The laws are only there when you find "physical" causes.
Until such is found, it will remain a theory.
To find the laws of physics in motion, one must find
the causes of such effects like the clock slowing down.
Find the physical cause of the "frequency rate change" and you find
the real reason it changed rate.. just saying it actually changed
rate because it "changes rate" is all that relativity has done so
far.
The circular cause bullshit is why the "anti-relativists: are growing.
The simple lack of "physical" cause..
IF you wish to look for the physical cause and find it..
You will first have to admit.. the clock screwed up. and
then find out "why" and your answer can not be because
"time slowed down" because that is like saying.
The clock slowed, because the clock slowed.
Relativity is a circular cause theory based upon a multiple
standard as the cause.
It is a joke to anyone that knows anything about "timing" things
for real.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:37 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 5:16 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Photons don't "arrive". They are undefined
until absorbed.
No they are simply particles with mass and some sort of dynamic
structure which gives rise to wavelike phenomena.
They are not a model of light
propagation and don't even know how to move in
a straight line.
Of course they do. Otherwise my digital camera wouldn't give a nice
sharp picture the right photon having found its way with unerring
accuracy to the pixel on the chip.
You might try removing the lens and
see if your logic still holds.
It would work perfectly well as a pin hole camera illustrating that
photons travel in straight lines.
|
It shows that only the adjecent paths are constructive
if a pinhole is necessary.
You don't need a pinhole to shoot a bird.
....Unless the bird is shooting back at you.
| Quote: |
Are photons divisible?
I don't know. Provided the energy equations balance I see no theoretical
reason why a photon should not be split into two lower energy photons.
Is there some point to your question? If you are asking whether you can
detect the same photon twice then no not without violating the
conservation laws. Detecting a photon involves the transfer of energy
and you cannot get two lots of energy from the same photon.
If I am trying to make a point I explain it in sufficient detail that
you, and anyone else understands the point I am making. If my argument
requires supporting text I provided it. You appear to be playing some
sort of game where you point me to URL's expect me to flog through them
and try and guess what point it is you are making. I won't play that
game if you have a point you wish to make then make it.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory
http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/
The VLTI does not help you decide if photons are divisible?
And if thay are, is there a little fairy
out in space that knows the VLTI needs
four pieces so the fairy quarters them
on the fly?
| Quote: |
Isn't that a pion experiment ?
Yes but it is one of the photons which is expected to navigate the
collimator.
|
If it did the experiment may be a candidate for a Nobel prize/
I will stay tuned.
| Quote: |
There is also some probabilityy an atomic oscillator will
change energy states. It can be much more predictable
than lightning strikes with a path integral.
If you could use QED for lightning, the probability will kill you.
This, because the classical path is a part of the probability
amplitude.
Probability never killed anyone, neither did a mathematical equation.
They are both essentially metaphysical.
|
You were grasping for the term "probability amplitude"
so you can interpret as you please. It is not vadid
argument for the abandon of statistical analysis.
| Quote: |
There must be a physical reason why a photon heads off in a particular
direction we don't know what it is and even if we did we have not got
enough information about a particular photon to predict the result.
We certainly do know. We could not build lasers if we didn't.
http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html
If you have a point you wish to make then make it. I was talking about
the direction taken by a photon from the direction of the double slits.
|
As many slits as you like:
http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/jpgpics/slotted-x-band-waveguide-antenna-040304.jpg
http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
The same rules apply.
| Quote: |
If you think classical paths illogical then remove all the lenses on
your optics and sell whatever you have that could be an antenna
for scrap metal.
I haven't a clue what you mean. If I throw a dice it has an equal
probability of coming up with one of 6 numbers. If you could devise a
machine which always starts with the dice in the same orientation and
imparts to the dice exactly the same motion every time then in theory
you should end up with the same number every time. Although the causal
sequence is highly complex the result is never the less a result of that
causal sequence. The fact that that causal sequence is too difficult to
analyse does not mean that we have to enter the realm of mysticism and
ascribe to the process weirdness and haziness.
|
Whether you call it mysticism or something else we DO have
to enter the realm of classical EM if we want correct
probabilities for atomic absorbtion.
http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html
| Quote: |
The assumption that photons move on any particular
path usually accompanies a faulty assumption they have some
coupling to the gravito-inertial field. They do not.
What on earth does that mean. If it means that I assume a photon has
mass then yes I do. It could not be plainer.
Since you can't figure how it knows which way to go
perhaps need to rethink that a bit.
If you have a point you wish to make then make it.
|
No...Your third self delusion convinced me you are
a self mutilator. I want no part of it. :-)
| Quote: |
A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It
does and it is.
It is only the *light-particles* that make SR ~wrong~.
i<<in reality there is not the least incompatibility between
the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light,
See equation 511
"Retarded potentials"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
"We are now in a position to understand electromagnetism at its most
fundamental level. A charge distribution $\rho({\bf r}, t)$ can thought
of as built up out of a collection, or series, of charges which
instantaneously come into existence, at some point ${\bf r}'$ and some
time $t'$, and then disappear again."- like magic how can a sane person
possibly believe in this stuff.
|
Indeed... many blame their insanity on the rigours of
studying Maxwell but none offer anything better.
| Quote: |
Try Google "retarded potentials Walter Ritz"
e.g.
|
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908e.htm
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/rtzein2.htm
The VLTI at paranal ?
The need to polish mirrors to nanometer accuracy ?
The Ritz dog don't hunt.
| Quote: |
So in the subatomic realm, SR is ~right~ .
I have accepted that SR is accurate from a predictive PoV. Just as the
geocentric theory was accurate from a predictive PoV. Both are based
upon a false premise but get the right answer by transformation.
|
I can give a list of psychics that have very good
records if that is how you operate.
| Quote: |
Exploring all classical paths with a clock is
how photons get their claim to fame. Feynman's QED
The minimum in the
low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever
reason, photons have a very low probability of taking.
"Probabily amplitude" is the term you seek. It is a
mathmatical abstraction, not a physical process.
Well I am glad we agree about that.
Light is not a physical wave it is made up of photons. The wave model is
a statistical model. The waves are not waves in the aether they are
metaphysical statistical waves. Being metaphysical they cannot transport
energy. Light is, or carries with it, real physical energy and does not
physically consist of waves but of particles which have energy or are
energy. They have mass and travel in straight
|
You can make a gravito-inertial background with
electrodynamic fields so mass will move in ~straight~ lines.
You can not make light with gravio-inertial fields.
and it doesn't move in straight lines.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended
Most will choose 3 years of study over 10 years
of floundering. But self mutilators actually
enjoy deceiving themselves.
Sue...
> John Kennaugh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Kennaugh
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 12:28 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase
have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the
sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a
point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent
photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays.
The maximum has
the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically
conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and
cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with
the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some
physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the
normal intensity pattern.
Photons don't "arrive". They are undefined
until absorbed.
No they are simply particles with mass and some sort of dynamic
structure which gives rise to wavelike phenomena.
They are not a model of light
propagation and don't even know how to move in
a straight line.
Of course they do. Otherwise my digital camera wouldn't give a nice
sharp picture the right photon having found its way with unerring
accuracy to the pixel on the chip.
You might try removing the lens and
see if your logic still holds.
|
It would work perfectly well as a pin hole camera illustrating that
photons travel in straight lines.
| Quote: |
Are photons divisible?
|
I don't know. Provided the energy equations balance I see no theoretical
reason why a photon should not be split into two lower energy photons.
Is there some point to your question? If you are asking whether you can
detect the same photon twice then no not without violating the
conservation laws. Detecting a photon involves the transfer of energy
and you cannot get two lots of energy from the same photon.
If I am trying to make a point I explain it in sufficient detail that
you, and anyone else understands the point I am making. If my argument
requires supporting text I provided it. You appear to be playing some
sort of game where you point me to URL's expect me to flog through them
and try and guess what point it is you are making. I won't play that
game if you have a point you wish to make then make it.
| Quote: |
http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/
BTW in one of the experiments which supposedly shows source independence
the Alvager et al experiment the photons were expected to find their way
down a leaden collimator with diameter of 5 mm approx 2m long which the
authors show in their diagram but fail to explain in their text. Even
relativists seem confused about what they do believe.
Isn't that a pion experiment ?
|
Yes but it is one of the photons which is expected to navigate the
collimator.
| Quote: |
The problem with physics is it mixes the physical and the metaphysical.
If I sit under an isolated tree in a thunderstorm there is a chance I
might be hit by lightening. It is possible that the probability could be
worked out. If I am killed however it will not be because of the
probability. It will be the lightening which kills me.
There is also some probabilityy an atomic oscillator will
change energy states. It can be much more predictable
than lightning strikes with a path integral.
Unfortunately Physics today has limited its remit to prediction. It does
not attempt to try and 'understand' nature, to understand what is
happening. It ascribes things to metaphysical parameters such as
probability. In the double slit experiment the wave model is a
statistical model. Just as I am killed by the lightening not the
probability that I would be, so the fringe distribution is not caused by
the wave model which simply provides a statistical distribution of where
the photons end up and nothing at all about which direction a particular
photon will go or why.
If you could use QED for lightning, the probability will kill you.
This, because the classical path is a part of the probability
amplitude.
|
Probability never killed anyone, neither did a mathematical equation.
They are both essentially metaphysical.
| Quote: |
There must be a physical reason why a photon heads off in a particular
direction we don't know what it is and even if we did we have not got
enough information about a particular photon to predict the result.
We certainly do know. We could not build lasers if we didn't.
http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html
|
If you have a point you wish to make then make it. I was talking about
the direction taken by a photon from the direction of the double slits.
| Quote: |
Modern physics gets this all mixed up. Instead of admitting our
ignorance, our uncertainty it has decided that it is nature which is
uncertain. It describes the uncertainty reflected in the maths as an
uncertainty of nature. Instead of saying that we do not know the exact
starting parameters so we don't know where it will end up until it gets
there they say the maths says it could end up anywhere (same thing) so
it travels in all possible paths (illogical) and the act of detecting it
determines its history (silly).
If you think classical paths illogical then remove all the lenses on
your optics and sell whatever you have that could be an antenna
for scrap metal.
|
I haven't a clue what you mean. If I throw a dice it has an equal
probability of coming up with one of 6 numbers. If you could devise a
machine which always starts with the dice in the same orientation and
imparts to the dice exactly the same motion every time then in theory
you should end up with the same number every time. Although the causal
sequence is highly complex the result is never the less a result of that
causal sequence. The fact that that causal sequence is too difficult to
analyse does not mean that we have to enter the realm of mysticism and
ascribe to the process weirdness and haziness.
| Quote: |
This is the Schrodinger's cat thingy
where the cat is both dead and alive until the box is opened. No it
isn't it is either dead or alive and the only thing which changes when
you open the box is the metaphysical quantity = our knowledge and the
smell in the room which will tell you how long it has been dead showing
that it wasn't alive and dead before the box is opened.
if you can do a path integral, the cat's fate will become more
certain.
|
If you have a point you wish to make then make it. Neither mathematical
procedure nor observation can in any way affect the fate of the cat. The
physical world is not affected by metaphysical quantities. They may
predict the outcome very accurately but they do not affect it. The tide
tables do not make the sea go up and down.
| Quote: |
(you have nearly clarified that later in your
posting. Call me overly critial but don't take
it personally )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html
The assumption that photons move on any particular
path usually accompanies a faulty assumption they have some
coupling to the gravito-inertial field. They do not.
What on earth does that mean. If it means that I assume a photon has
mass then yes I do. It could not be plainer.
Since you can't figure how it knows which way to go
perhaps need to rethink that a bit.
|
If you have a point you wish to make then make it.
| Quote: |
A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It
does and it is.
It is only the *light-particles* that make SR ~wrong~.
i<<in reality there is not the least incompatibility between
the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light,
See equation 511
"Retarded potentials"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
|
"We are now in a position to understand electromagnetism at its most
fundamental level. A charge distribution $\rho({\bf r}, t)$ can thought
of as built up out of a collection, or series, of charges which
instantaneously come into existence, at some point ${\bf r}'$ and some
time $t'$, and then disappear again."- like magic how can a sane person
possibly believe in this stuff.
Try Google "retarded potentials Walter Ritz"
e.g.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908e.htm
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/rtzein2.htm
| Quote: |
So in the subatomic realm, SR is ~right~ .
|
I have accepted that SR is accurate from a predictive PoV. Just as the
geocentric theory was accurate from a predictive PoV. Both are based
upon a false premise but get the right answer by transformation.
| Quote: |
Exploring all classical paths with a clock is
how photons get their claim to fame. Feynman's QED
The minimum in the
low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever
reason, photons have a very low probability of taking.
"Probabily amplitude" is the term you seek. It is a
mathmatical abstraction, not a physical process.
Well I am glad we agree about that.
Light is not a physical wave it is made up of photons. The wave model is
a statistical model. The waves are not waves in the aether they are
metaphysical statistical waves. Being metaphysical they cannot transport
energy. Light is, or carries with it, real physical energy and does not
physically consist of waves but of particles which have energy or are
energy. They have mass and travel in straight lines unless their
trajectory is altered by gravity acting on the mass. They gain energy as
they fall, they lose energy if they are projected from a massive object.
When they hit something they have momentum.
Aether carries Newton's gravito-inertial properties.
You still assume it if you think photons have mass
and know how to follow a kinetic trajectory.
|
Not at all. Physics is hung up on action at a distance force. That was
why the aether concept was originally envisaged. It seemed to those at
the time that force requires some sort of "connecting rod" so it seemed
obvious that between a magnet and a pin there must be some invisible
fluid (aether) which pushed (or sucked?) the pin towards the magnet. A
charged rod picking up a pith ball required another aether. When they
wanted something for light waves to propagate in they proposed a
luminiferous aether.
While a magnet picking up a pin seemed magical, an apple falling to the
ground did not. If prior to Newton you had asked why an apple falls to
the ground you would have been regarded as daft. An apple falls to the
ground because there is nothing to stop it falling! It was the genius of
Newton who saw it as action at a distance force too. I was not aware
that Newton had proposed an aether but with the thinking at the time it
comes as no surprise.
If we fast forward to Maxwell then one of the reasons his theory had so
much appeal is that it only required one aether to explain magnetic and
electrostatic action at a distance force and the same aether was
suitable as a medium in which light waves travel. Thus:
1/ a field is a 'stress' (altered state) pattern in the aether.
2/ action at a distance is caused by the interaction of 'stress'
patterns.
3/ the 'stress' can propagate through the aether in the form of light
waves the speed of which is a property of the aether and cannot be
affected by motion of the source.
Physics "got rid" of the aether by deciding that physical explanations
(theoretical structure) was no longer necessary to compliment maths.
They did this for all the wrong reasons and fudged the issue by
retaining the idea of independent fields when they no longer had
anything to exist as a 'stress' (altered state) in. 'Space in which
independent fields can exist' is simply a description of the aether.
The proper way to 'get rid of the aether' is to accept that light is
particulate and doesn't need an aether. It still leaves the question of
action at a distance force but do we need to explain action at a
distance force? When it was first suggested action at a distance seemed
magical because it did not fit with everyday experience. However an
apple falling to the ground seemed perfectly natural because that was
'everyday experience'. Now we know that all force acts at a distance why
not consider that as perfectly natural, axiomatic? Action at a distance
is the way force acts. No need for aether or for magic particles which
pop in and out of existence to transfer the force (a digital aether).
One has now got rid of not just the aether but its accompanying baggage
but there are now consequences. A 'field' is now a metaphysical 'field
of influence' It cannot exist without a source of influence. There can
be no independent fields, independent of a source of influence.
Axiom 1 Action at a distance is the way force acts.
Axiom 2 Some particles contain or have a property we call mass.
Mass attracts other mass.
Axiom 3 Some particles contain or have a property we call charge and two
types exist. Charge attracts opposite charge and repels like charge.
A photon contains mass and therefore is attracted by other mass.
If photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge in
order to provide a source of influence. This is born out by the link
established between light and charge by the predictive success of
Maxwell's equations which are based upon relationships relating to
charge and nothing else.
| Quote: |
An electrodmagnetic dielectric does not make
such assumptions.
|
If you want to make a point make it.
| Quote: |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
And it agrees with our observations. ;-)
Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It
does and it is. That is the way science works. If something has mass and
a theory says it can't have the theory is wrong. You don't perform
metaphysical intellectual somersaults to redefine mass so that you can
continue to believe in a theory which is based on a false premise and is
physically absurd.
If you want a photon's mass to give it directivity then
you are claiming Newton's aether.
|
--
John Kennaugh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danny Milano
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 8:50 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Danny Milano wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
On Jul 13, 9:54 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
James,
When you can fly at say 95% the speed of light. Does
your time dilate or your length contract? It never does
in your own first person view or reference frame.
Relativity didn't say it does.
But the problem is it saying it does at all.
The other observer is simply not measuring
correctly because he is using "mutilple standards for time
and distance if he uses relativity at all and including
a limited speed that is actually "relative" even though
all relativists say it can't be, then they are also ignoring
the relative motion of the lightwaves just to support
a relative motion theory.
It is a nice little trick they pull and have pulled it far too
long.
What do you mean "multilple standards for time
and distance"? Pls. explain.
Two clocks will be compared, one clock will fly away
and come back to the same spot, it will have less time
shown on it.
A typicle relativist will say that both clocks functioned
properly.
But yet, they do not show the same times.
That means they have accepted a multiple standard
"second" just to ignore the clock in motions malfunction.
And length contraction is also done the same
way sorta except the meter comes back and
it is the same as it ever was and they
simply say the moving meter is shorter than the
"at rest" meter. and that make the multiple
standards for thier "meter".
The meter problem is usually combined with
the clock problem so they can remove
the paradox occurance if you used
absolute measurement systems that had
no single "standard" for a second and a meter.
Clear enough?
Another stupid thing about the typicle relativist
that has been brainwashed is the fact that they must
ignore the "relative speed of light" in order to
support the relative motion theories.
And even one more stupid relativity trick is
the old "limited speed math" that makes all of
other math basically prove that 186,00 mps (c)
+ 186,000 mps (c) does not equal 2c.
So they use basic math/algebra, to prove basic
math/algebra is wrong when they limit objects
to wave speeds for observational bullshit,
instead of actually finding true relative speeds.
How silly is that?
If we go into outerspace and keep relativity
and the malfunctioning clocks as a "reality"
we will be crashign into planets that are not there yet
according to our malfunctioning clocks.
because those planets do not care what "your" clock
is doing. but they do care about what that clock on Earth
said.. and seem to follow it wonderfully and that is why
we know what time to see things in the sky.
:)
So,
The clock malfunctioned,
and the meter did not shrink physically,
and if you think such at all, you will be stardust
or planet dust all over again.
That is "reality", not this silly time travel,wormhole
point particle, singularity zero point energy complete
utter bullshit based upon malfunctioning clocks and
rubber rulers.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I was reading a material by supreme anti-relativist Pentcho
about Harvey Brown and got me into thinking.
Brown says that relativists believe the geometrical structure of
Minkowski spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving
rods shrink and why moving clocks run slow while Brown believes
that spacetime has a Minkowski geometry because the dynamical
laws are Lorentz invariant. The geometry, in some sense, depends
on the structure of the laws. Yet we don't have causal laws at
present on how the particles and atoms behave during time
dilation and length contraction and no laws how these particles
are coupled to spacetime. This I think is why there are so
many anti-relativists because the dynamic laws were not
given in details. So does Minkowski geometry determines
the dynamic laws of the atoms or do the dynamic laws of
the atoms recreate the Minkowski geometry?? We don't seem
to know the definite case. Hope PD can assist here.
The laws are only there when you find "physical" causes.
Until such is found, it will remain a theory.
To find the laws of physics in motion, one must find
the causes of such effects like the clock slowing down.
Find the physical cause of the "frequency rate change" and you find
the real reason it changed rate.. just saying it actually changed
rate because it "changes rate" is all that relativity has done so
far.
The circular cause bullshit is why the "anti-relativists: are growing.
The simple lack of "physical" cause..
IF you wish to look for the physical cause and find it..
You will first have to admit.. the clock screwed up. and
then find out "why" and your answer can not be because
"time slowed down" because that is like saying.
The clock slowed, because the clock slowed.
Relativity is a circular cause theory based upon a multiple
standard as the cause.
It is a joke to anyone that knows anything about "timing" things
for real.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
My dear,
It is possible that the coupling details of quantum particles
to the spacetime manifold can't be known because
the spacetime parameter may be an intrinsic part of
the particle like mass, charge, spin, etc. What is
spin? What is charge? There may be no newtonian
correlate just like spacetime parameter of particles.
So be ready for a lifetime of frustrations and despair.
D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
