Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sue...
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
 |
|
On Jul 14, 4:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the source.
|
That almost works but Newton's aether didn't work for
electric charges or their associated fields.
Try:
~Because the speed is controlled by the free-space dielectric
the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source.~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
BTW I moved our dissusion of particle light to
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/f77c731a4595cc08#
but I really hope you have no further interest
in Newton's concept of light or discussing it
except as a historical foot note. ;-)
Regards,
Sue...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 10:33 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:01 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
PD wrote:
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.
LOL
metal touching metal?
LOL
Apparently you think cars don't use fields such as when a
coil pack uses to produce high energy sparks to sparkplugs
and you must have missed the fact that a gas explosion does the
actual pushing of the metal that gets the engine running.
That would be material acting on material, no?
Matter causing other matter to move.
Yes.
It works wonderful
Yes, it does, when it applies.
|
And when applied properly, it applies to everything.
But of course you are affraid of that fact.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
NoEinstein
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 11, 8:24 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 11, 10:28 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:11 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 6:37 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:25 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 3:51 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 5:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:35 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Consider the frequency shift
f' = f(1 + gh/c^2)
confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka. Is it in agreement with
Einstein's 1911 equation:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
and therefore with the equivalent equation:
c' = c + v
given by Newton's emission theory of light? If it is, is it then in
disagreement with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)?
No, it's not. You have this goofball notion that the special
relativity postulate (c'=c) is claimed to apply EVERYWHERE and in ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES. It applies over distances where tidal forces due to
gravity are small compared to measurement precision; i.e. in domains
that are locally inertial. This is why it is called the *special*
theory of relativity, because it (and its postulates) apply in a
*special domain*. Attempts to extrapolate them out to general and
absolute statements leads you mistakenly to the apparent
contradictions you cite above. Have you been laboring all these years
under the impression that there is a contradiction when you do not
know what "special" in "special relativity" means?
This is irrelevant. Consider Master Tom Roberts' teaching:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2d2a006c7d50...
Pentcho Valev: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A
GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the
measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume
you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even
for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant
gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."
That is, if in a gravitational field an observer at rest (relative to
the light source) measures the speed of light to be:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure:
c' = c + v
where v=gh/c is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment
of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception). Is that
OK?
Yes, that's perfectly consistent with what I just told you.
Now, you are apparently still flummoxed with putting this next to
c'=c, thinking there is a contradiction.
There isn't.
c'=c applies in *SPECIAL* relativity, where tidal effects of gravity
are negligible over the distances concerned.
That's why it's called *SPECIAL* relativity, because it applies in
special cases.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi PD,
Do you think it is possible for General Relativity to exist
without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity)
inherent in the theory?
Do you think you are capable of having a meaningful discussion of
general relativity when you are unable to differentiate between
special and general relativity?
[...]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
General Relativity is about curved spacetime causing as one
side effect, gravity.
You miss the point. Gravity _IS_ curvature in general relativity.
Special Relativity is a tiny region of spacetime
which we assume flat.
No more than a surface is assumed flat if you look really close at
it.
Eric Baird book theorized that it is
possible GR is possible without SR. That's why I asked if
it is possible for General Relativity to exist without time
dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) inherent
in the theory?
Baird is an idiot, so "no". And you still don't get it - things like
time dilation and length contraction are fundamental predictions of
the theory of _SPECIAL RELATIVITY_ that are not true in general
relativity.
Time dilation, length contraction may be fundamental predictions
of Special Relativity but in General Relativity, spacetime is
automatically curved. It is inherent in the metric. And a curved
metric automatically implies that time dilates, length distorts
which caused gravity. In other words, when you curve the
metric, time and length is distorted and this can cause dilation
and distortion as in the time dilation near the singularity in
the black hole as well as spagettization in it which is extreme
behavior of the metric.
About Baird. I don't know why he suggests General Relativity
could be true yet Special Relativity could not be true. I mean.
Since General Relativity has inherent time dilation and length
distortion (I didn't say contraction) due to the curved metric.
It won't take much effort for nature to endow the universe
with time dilation, length contraction to occur in flat
spacetime. I know SR implies observer dependent time,
length distortion and GR implies actual distortions
as seen from different reference frames (as in gravitational
time dilation near a planet where all ships would notice it as
similiar in contrast to SR observer dependent fashion).
Agree?
Danny
When we deal with macro object like solar
system and galaxies. GR rule, this means time dilation
and length contraction doesn't apply and only valid in
the tiny region of spacetime or the minkowski metric
and not in the GR manifold, right.
No, it means the situation gets _more_ complicated, not less. Re:
Shapiro delay, gravitational time dilation, etc.
Danny- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text
- Show quoted text -
|
Dear Danny: "Understanding Einstein" has, for too long, been the
"badge of intellect" of physics buffs. Proclaiming the absurd–—like
all of the space-time h. s...——is so anti-intuitive that normal folks
just turn away. You should have done that, too. Now, because of my
disproofs, Einstein is rightfully just a “badge of stupidity”. Follow
my thread to see if you have... "Einstein's Disease". —— NoEinstein
—— |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
NoEinstein
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 11, 8:31 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 10, 10:21 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things
bonking up against material things -- that is not the only thing
that counts as a "physical cause".
LOL
poor PD.
You just proved you don't have physical causes.
you need physical material to produce physical causes.
That's what YOU say. Note that Newton did not offer that for gravity.
Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun
that delivers the energy from the sun.
Newton never said he had the cause of gravity.
So plasma is not a physical material?
Why yes it is. Newton knew nothing about it, but yes, plasma is a
physical material. Are you saying that plasma is what's responsible
for gravity?
Now, please note that, at the location of the Earth, the flow of
plasma AWAY from the sun is 10,000,000 times greater than the flow of
plasma TOWARD the sun. So explain again, Spaceman, how that plasma is
responsible for the gravitational pull TOWARD the sun?
You truly know nothing about space!
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Dear PD: It isn't! Gravity (in the case stated) is caused by the
flow of ether toward the Sun! —— NoEinstein —— |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
NoEinstein
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 11, 11:17 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
John Kennaugh wrote:
I will now show that Ballistic theory predicts exactly the same
frequency as SR at point T.
_______________________
train [__________X____________] -->v
Y T
Again it is back to hitting a moving target. In order for light
leaving X to hit T it has to set out in the direction XY where YT > > vt. The photons have a component of velocity c in the direction XY
and a component v in the X direction such that the resultant is in the
direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle XY = c YT = v so
the velocity XT = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag
So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L
But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength)
So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)
So Ballistic theory predicts the same result using a velocity triangle
as SR predicts as being due to 'time dilation'.
Note again that there is no identifiable physical mechanism which
causes time dilation it is simply assumed to take place as it is
necessary to distort time to get the right answer - i.e. the answer
given by the credible physical explanation of ballistic theory.
The physical effect for the clock "malfunction" is known.
The clock has malfunctioned for the same reason clocks
have been malfunctioning since they were invented.
The clock is being affected by the g-force changes
causing the "ticker" to not keep the same "rate".
It is a sad repeat of malfunctioning clock history and to
"shadow" this repeat in history, they introduce length contraction.
So the "rubber rulers", mathematically fix the "malfunctioning clocks".
Yet the clocks still have the wrong times on thier faces
when brought back together.
so.....
SR debunking 101:
1 The clock malfunctioned.
The end.
SR is dead, it has ignored a standard of time and to hide this
ignorance, it has accepted a multiple standard for distance
and time to make it all mathematically sound in it's own domain.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Dear Spaceman: I admire your courage against the "PDs" out there.
Gravity is just ether flow. When one travels on a fast plane, or a
space shuttle, you will be pushed back by the ether that comes
through. The more ether, the slower the clocks will run. There is no
such thing as a space-time continuum. By my invalidating M-M (no
CONTROL), I disprove Lorentz, space-time, SR and GR. Quite simple,
really. — NoEinstein — |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
NoEinstein
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 11, 2:00 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear Pentcho: You are so right that nobody cares about disproofs. |
Einsteiniacs would rather argue the absurd than to recognize the
simple truths. — NoEinstein —
| Quote: |
On Jul 11, 4:59 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
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.
Of course its is.
1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that
light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that the waves
of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist, SR is based
upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable,
and therefore that the MMX showed that every observer has nil speed
w.r.t the aether. Einstein's second postulate simply describes what an
observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. Now no one believes
in the aether that interpretation of the MMX is absurd so the second
postulate has no valid foundation and SR makes no attempt to address the
problem that the waves which are the basis of Maxwell's theory do not
physically exist.
2/ SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that
physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory.
Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According
to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c having separated from the
source at a speed of separation c.
If you now change your speed so that you are travelling away
from the source at v the frequency of the light you observe will be
lower due to Doppler shift but according to SR the light still travels
at c w.r.t you.
If c hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength
must have changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what
the maths says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)-
the wavelength has changed because the light is now separating from the
source at c+v generating longer wavelengths than previous.
The problem with this is that your change of speed has
apparently caused a change in what is happening at the source 1 light
year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is even more absurd is
that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to avoid a 1 year delay in
the frequency changing.
That is REALLY a nice argument. Some day it may even become a decisive
step towards the restoration of human rationality. For the moment
however the crisis in Einstein criminal cult has different causes -
physics departments disappear, students do not want to learn idiocies
anymore, money is not flowing towards idiotic projects designed to
gloriously confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory for 30891st time etc.
Nobody cares about aguments, no matter how convincing they are.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
When I point this out to a relativist I am told I am being silly
and that one has changed from a FoR where the light separates from the
source at c and always did - to one where it separates from the source
at c+v and always did but that is simply a description of the
mathematics not of what is physically happening. A FoR is a mathematical
abstraction and cannot affect the progress of light. Physically one has
to assume that when you change speed you change from a universe where
you were stationary w.r.t the aether and light separates from the source
at c because the source too is stationary w.r.t the aether to a parallel
universe where you are again stationary w.r.t the aether but because the
source is moving w.r.t the aether the light separates from the source at
c+v and always has done. As you see the whole thing is physically
absurd. Physics accepted relativity without looking at it carefully
enough.
It is a myth that 'getting rid of the aether' was anything to do with
Einstein. He argued for retaining it. What he described as "an aether
without the immobility of Lorentz's". He was deliberately vague but he
was after an aether which every observer would naturally find himself
stationary w.r.t. as per the second postulate.
So to recap. Today in physics the mathematical model is described as a
'physics theory'. Physical interpretation is not required so it matters
not that it is physically absurd. All that now matters is that the
theory/mathematical model gives accurate predictions in its domain of
applicability. i.e. it works some of the time and you can define when
that is.
Note that The geocentric theory of the solar system gives accurate
predictions in its domain of applicability so cannot be considered as a
'wrong theory'. There is evidence that what the Lorentz transforms do is
transform a wrongly based theory so as to get the right answer just as
bending a sheet of paper with a curve drawn on it can make it look
straight or by complicating the mathematics the geocentric theory could
be made to give the same answer as the sun centred model. That would
explain why SR gives the right answer.
Examples:
_________________________
train [____________X____________] -->v
|
|
|
|
T T'
Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X.
Suppose it fires a very short burst of light, triggered by a switch on
the track when X is exactly opposite distant target T.
Now the train does a high speed run and the laser is triggered at time
zero. What will an observer at the target T see?
Ballistic theory says that the light will have a horizontal component v
which means that although the laser is exactly opposite T when it is
fired the effective source of the light will continue to move with the
train and the flash will, at time t hit T' not T where T' is a distance
vt from T.
SR says that light emitted at point X in the observers FoR (that of T)
will move from X at c. The source of the light remaining at X. At first
sight it seems that this experiment would distinguish between the two
theories but that is not the case as there is one more distortion which
SR requires. We do not need to perform this experiment - It would hit T'
not T just as predicted by Ballistic theory. We know this because if we
look at it from the PoV of an observer on the train *both* theories
predict the same thing. He will see the light travel away from the train
at c at right angles to the train. In the trains FoR it is aiming at a
moving target. If you want to hit a moving target you do not aim AT it,
you aim in front of it, you aim at the point where it is going to be
when whatever travels (be it bullet or flash of light) gets there. If
you want to hit T' you aim at T.
What SR says is that what is a right angle in the FoR of the train is
transformed in the FoR of the target to an angle such that SR says that
it hits T' because in the FoR of the target the laser was pointing at T'
and not at right angles to the train. This change of angle is not the
result of any identified physical process, there is no physical
explanation. It simply *has* to be so in order to get the right
answer - in order to get the same answer ballistic theory gives.
Ballistic theory also has a full physical explanation of what is going
on SR does not.
An important point here is that ANY experiment viewed from the FoR of
the source must have the same outcome for both theories as both theories
state that in the FoR of the source light travels at c w.r.t the source..
---------------------------------------------------------
OK let us change the experiment a little. Instead of a laser let there
be an omni-directional flash of light from X when the train hits the
switch. Light will hit both T and T'
Ballistic Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] -->v
Flash occurs
T T'
_________________________
train [__________X'_____________] -->v
|
|
Flash arrives |
|
T T'
If the frequency of the light as measured on the train is Fo then
according to Ballistic theory the light arriving at T' will have a
frequency Fo because the effective source X' is orthogonal to T' i.e.
the source has no component of velocity either towards or away from the
observer at T' to cause Doppler shift. If the frequency could be
measured [it would actually be very difficult] I can with confidence
predict that it would indeed be Fo exactly as predicted by Ballistic
theory.
Ballistic theory says that the light arriving at T is a lower frequency
than Fo due to Doppler shift because X' is not orthogonal to T but is
moving away from T. Again I have confidence that this would be found to
be the case. My confidence is based upon the fact that SR predicts the
same result:
SR Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] -->v
Flash occurs
T T'
_________________________
train - Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
read more » |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 5:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 11, 8:31 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:21 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things
bonking up against material things -- that is not the only thing
that counts as a "physical cause".
LOL
poor PD.
You just proved you don't have physical causes.
you need physical material to produce physical causes.
That's what YOU say. Note that Newton did not offer that for gravity.
Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun
that delivers the energy from the sun.
Newton never said he had the cause of gravity.
So plasma is not a physical material?
Why yes it is. Newton knew nothing about it, but yes, plasma is a
physical material. Are you saying that plasma is what's responsible
for gravity?
Now, please note that, at the location of the Earth, the flow of
plasma AWAY from the sun is 10,000,000 times greater than the flow of
plasma TOWARD the sun. So explain again, Spaceman, how that plasma is
responsible for the gravitational pull TOWARD the sun?
You truly know nothing about space!
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear PD: It isn't! Gravity (in the case stated) is caused by the
flow of ether toward the Sun! —— NoEinstein ——
|
And where does that ether go when it gets there? Where has it been
piling up for the last several billion years?
And why, when the Earth gets between the sun and the moon, doesn't the
moon block some of the flow of the ether toward the sun and cause the
gravitational pull to lessen, or why doesn't the Earth block some of
the flow of the ether toward the sun and lessen the pull on the moon?
And suppose you pick a point between the Earth and the Sun where the
pull of the Sun exactly matches the pull of the Earth. If you go a
little closer to the sun, then the sun starts to win, meaning that
there is now ether flow toward the sun; but if you go a little closer
to the earth, then the earth starts to win, meaning that there is now
ether flow toward the earth. So where at that point is the ether
coming from, that it is flowing toward the sun on one side and flowing
toward the earth on the other side?
I'm sure you have answers! You're a genius!
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Kennaugh
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:30 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 6:34 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:59 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
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.
Of course its is.
1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that
light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that the waves
of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist, SR is based
upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable,
Whoa, hold on. The ONLY presumption made is that Maxwell's equations
still work for a quantitative description of light. It makes
*absolutely no difference* whether the conceptual model underlying the
development of those equations involved waves in an aether, or self-
supporting fields without a material substrate, or whether light also
exhibits particle properties on occasion.
I am sorry but it does matter. Einstein ditched 3 apparently sensible
and long established axioms of physics in SR.
Which turned out, in the end, to be inconsistent with experiment.
|
Did it? Did someone tell you that or have you checked.
| Quote: |
Now
it is true that Einstein did not have that experimental information in
hand to know that those axioms were wrong.
|
They are not. What Einstein did is assume that electromagnetism is
correct (Maxwell is impeccable) and that therefore mechanics has to
forfeit its axioms. The alternative was to assume that mechanics is fine
and that electrical theory needs a tweak. The only changes needed to
electrical theory is the assumption that light is source dependent -
which fits perfectly with light being particles and a modification to
Coulombs law when the charge is in motion. Everything then works out
with Galileo's relativity and Newtonian mechanics.
| Quote: |
And it is indeed true that
he based his axioms, and the necessity of ditching the others, on a
*hunch* about how nature worked. The fact that his hunch played out to
experimental success, much to the demise of the previously held
axioms, is remarkable in itself.
|
Divine inspiration perhaps. Actually this is nonsense
The first postulate was first proposed by Galileo, and restated by
Newton. It had not been accepted for a couple of centuries because of
belief in the aether. If there is an aether every iFoR is different as
it has a unique speed relative to the aether and while it was thought
the principle of relativity held for mechanics it was assumed that it
does not hold for optics. It should be possible, it was argued, to
devise an experiment the results of which differed depending upon the
speed of the iFoR w.r.t the aether. The MMX was such an experiment.
There were others. All showed that *experimentally* the principle of
relativity holds equally well for optics as for mechanics. Lorentz's
theory acknowledges this.
The second postulate was not the result of Einstein's genius, nor divine
inspiration it was simply a statement reflecting the general view at the
time among those brought up on physics dominated by Maxwell. The clue is
in his 1905 paper where he goes to some length to justify his first
postulate (because he saw that as potentially controversial) but adds
the second without comment as he was expressing the accepted view.
Don't take my word for it. In the second volume of Sir Edmund
Whittaker's "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity",
published in 1953:
"(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity
theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which
attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the
constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in
a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving
relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely
accepted."
If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is
impeccable and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX
showed that an observer's speed relative to the aether is always zero
i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether.
As an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether he will observe the speed
of light always to be c whether the source is moving or not.
-----------------I will return to this statement -----------------------
After that it is as Waldron says a matter of some clumsy algebra to
derive the transforms which Lorentz had already derived 13 years
earlier. It is now acknowledged that SR and LET are mathematically
identical. They differ only in the theoretical structure. Lorentz theory
has one, SR hasn't. Einstein failed totally in trying to find an
alternative to the theoretical structure of Lorentz's theory which he
objected to. Physics redefined itself and decided that a theory didn't
need a theoretical structure. If it hadn't then SR would not qualify as
a 'theory'.
| Quote: |
One does not despise or dispense with a hunch for *being* just a
hunch, if the hunch turns out to be correct.
|
No hunch. Just an unshakeable belief in Maxwell's wave in aether theory.
The daft part is that having sacrificed 3 sensible axioms of physics in
order to save the aether, physics decided it didn't like the aether and
that physics theories no longer needed physical explanations to
compliment the maths. The aether is part of the physical
explanation/theoretical structure and so was deemed to be no longer
needed. Physics no longer needs to explain nature or try and understand
it. Its remit, which it defined itself, is to construct mathematical
models.
| Quote: |
The basis of SR is the
interpretation of the MMX in terms of Maxwell's wave in aether theory.
That is incorrect. Einstein took *only* the equations to be the things
that were accurate about nature and dragged *nothing* unnecessary
along with it. The equations themselves imply that c is a constant
independent of the motion of the source, provided that those equations
hold in every inertial reference frame -- just like other laws of
mechanics. And it is *that* "provided" that Einstein assumed, and
nothing else.
|
All that is modern spin. Re-writing history to try and bring it in line
with modern thinking. Einstein was still arguing in favour of the aether
in 1920 and still considered that light was waves in the aether in 1938.
The equations themselves do not imply that c is a constant independent
of the motion of the source that comes from one of the two predictions
of Maxwells theory
Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the source.
Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract from the
speed of light in the aether.
The MMX tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein chose to
assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is wrong one should
assume they both are because they are both based upon the same logic.
Maxwell's equations were assumed by Maxwell to be correct in the FoR of
the aether. If you assume there is no aether there are two solutions.
One allows the observer to assume the role of aether = SR. The other
allows the source to assume the roll of the aether = ballistic theory.
The maths doesn't care which.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A LESSON IN SPIN - Returning to my earlier statement:
"If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is
impeccable and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX
showed that an observers speed relative to the aether is always zero
i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether.
As an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether he will observe the speed
of light always to be c whether the source is moving or not."
Now lets suppose you are a spin doctor writing a modern text book and
you want to sanitize it.
"If you assume as Einstein did that *Maxwell's wave in aether theory* is
impeccable"
Spin Doc - OK we can't say that because it uses the word aether. Let's
replace that with "Maxwell's equations" - a student won't understand
them so won't be able to argue so it becomes:
"If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's equations are impeccable"
That's much better we might improve on it but it will do for now. Now
carry on:
"... and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed
that *an observer's speed relative to the aether is always zero* "
Spin Doc - Again we can't write that. We dare not give the impression
that the aether is involved. Instead of *an observer's speed relative to
the aether is always zero* lets write "showed that Maxwell's equations
hold in all FoR" - we'll gloss over the fact that the MMX wasn't testing
Maxwell's equations it was trying to measure the speed of the earth
w.r.t the aether but Maxwell's equations describe waves in the aether so
if an observer always has zero speed relative to the aether then
Maxwell's equations must hold. We now have:
"If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's equations are impeccable
and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that
Maxwell's equations hold in all FoR."
Spin Doc - Lets re-write it a bit:
"Einstein instinctively understood the importance of Maxwell's equations
and realised that the MMX had shown their validity in all frames of
reference".
That's much better. OK what is the next bit:
"i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the
aether. As an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether he will observe
the speed of light always to be c whether the source is moving or not."
Spin Doc - Again that word "aether". We need to somehow use the phrase
"Maxwell's equations" rather than "aether". How about "Einstein realised
that Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light is always c
(w.r.t the aether but we won't say that) and we have already said that
Maxwell's equations are valid in every FoR so the speed of light must be
c in all FoR. Now we have:
"Einstein instinctively understood the importance of Maxwell's equations
and realised that the MMX had shown their validity in all frames of
reference. Einstein realised that Maxwell's equations imply that the
speed of light is always c in a FoR for which they are valid and the
second postulate reflects that".
Spin Doc - we can improve that how about:
"Einstein instinctively understood the validity of Maxwell's equations.
He noticed that Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light is
always c in a FoR for which they are valid and realised that the MMX had
shown them to be valid in all frames of reference. The second postulate
reflects that".
Maxwell's equations were assumed by Maxwell to be correct in the FoR of
the aether. If you assume there is no aether there are two solutions.
One allows the observer to assume the role of aether = SR i.e. that
Maxwell's equations are valid in the FoR of the observer. The other
allows the source to assume the roll of the aether = ballistic theory
i.e. Maxwell's equations are valid in the FoR of the source. The maths
doesn't care which and the MMX cannot distinguish between the FoR of the
source and that of the observer as there is no relative movement between
source and observer. The interpretation put on it by Einstein ONLY works
if you assume
Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the source.
--
John Kennaugh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:11 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bQGQOjTwd7eIFw4p@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
| Quote: |
Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the source.
Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the
speed of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract
from the speed of light in the aether.
The MMX tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein chose
to assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is wrong one
should assume they both are because they are both based upon the same
logic.
|
Einstein had the benefit of the knowledge that all
experimental checks on the speed of light were
indicating independance of the speed of light from the
motion of the source, and that all measurements were
turning up the same value (within error). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Kennaugh
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bQGQOjTwd7eIFw4p@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the source.
Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the
speed of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract
from the speed of light in the aether.
The MMX tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein chose
to assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is wrong one
should assume they both are because they are both based upon the same
logic.
Einstein had the benefit of the knowledge that all
experimental checks on the speed of light were
indicating independance of the speed of light from the
motion of the source,
|
It is actually incredibly difficult to produce an experiment showing
source independence and if anyone has told you otherwise you have been
conned. In 1905 there were none. The *assumption* of source independence
was a result of belief that the speed of light waves was controlled by
the medium in which they propagated, the aether, so could not be
affected by the source. Those who have looked critically at experiments
will tell you that no experiment prior to 1964 need be considered as
valid.
Neither is it true that Einstein came up with a theory which did not
need the aether. His starting point was Lorentz's aether theory. He said
of Lorentz that he had made the greatest contribution to electrical
theory since Maxwell. His objection to Lorentz's theory was the
asymmetry in the theoretical structure but he failed to come up with an
alternative theoretical structure. He argued in favour of retaining the
aether but argued that that did not have to mean that it had associated
with it a unique frame of reference as per Lorentz. To most people this
is nonsense.
The way the aether was 'got rid of' was by means of physics redefining
itself and deciding that a theory did not require a theoretical
structure. The mathematics of Maxwell give accurate predictions so the
new thinking said that physics need not concern itself as to whether the
waves the equations describe physically exist or if they do, what they
are waves in so the aether became redundant in the new mathematically
based physics. In view of this, Einstein's failure to come up with an
alternative theoretical structure to Lorentz's was no bar to his theory.
It is a bit hard on Lorentz. SR and Lorentz's theory are mathematically
identical and Lorentz produced the maths first.
I believe in the physical reality of the physical world. I believe it
should be a necessary part of physics to try and understand that
physical reality rather than simply model it mathematically. I believe
it is a valid question as to whether the waves of Maxwell's equations
are physical waves or not and if not what is the physical nature of
light and how do Maxwell's equations relate to it.
It appears that Maxwell's waves do not physically exist and that light
is particulate - photons. Maxwell's waves are waves of probability. They
show statistically and accurately the result produced by millions of
photons. Physics no longer considers it part of its remit to try and
understand why photons behave in such a way as to fit Maxwell's
statistical wave equations. I think it should be.
I see the reason that physics redefined itself as being that had it not
done so it would have had to reject a theory it had already accepted,
gone back and rethought it i.e. accepted it had got it wrong. I think it
had.
--
John Kennaugh
It is a students birthright to question what he is taught. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Kennaugh
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 3:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 12, 6:34 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:59 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
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.
Of course its is.
1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that
light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that
the waves
of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist, SR is based
upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable,
Whoa, hold on. The ONLY presumption made is that Maxwell's equations
still work for a quantitative description of light. It makes
*absolutely no difference* whether the conceptual model underlying the
development of those equations involved waves in an aether, or self-
supporting fields without a material substrate, or whether light also
exhibits particle properties on occasion.
I am sorry but it does matter. Einstein ditched 3 apparently sensible
and long established axioms of physics in SR.
Which turned out, in the end, to be inconsistent with experiment.
Did it? Did someone tell you that or have you checked.
Both. Filipas and Fox explicitly checked photon speeds from moving
sources.
|
I haven't found a write up of that one only loads of people like
yourself quoting it as being true. If you know of one then point me to
it.
It does however seem to be similar to other experiments which I have
looked at such as Alvaeger et al 1964. This was once recommended to me
by Franz Heymann as the most convincing evidence of source independence.
One problem is that IF light is source dependent the current theory is
wrong. The experiment is highly technical and draws on current theory.
This is worrying in that they may be trying to prove an alternate theory
wrong by drawing on current theory and therefore assuming current theory
is right which therefore assumes the alternate theory is wrong in the
first place. This is not necessarily the case but you should put a
question mark every time I say "Current theory says".
The only thing one can say for sure in the Alvager et al experiment is
that high energy particles hit a beryllium target and the result was
gamma photons apparently travelling at c relative to the beryllium
target as would be expected by ballistic theory.
If you say that the beryllium target is the source then it has
proved nothing at all but 'current theory says' that an interim stage
exists - a pion was created travelling at 0.9999c and this is what
decayed into gamma photons so constituting a moving source.
A pion (neutral pi-meson) if it exists at all exists for only 8.4 x
10^-17 s which means that it does not exist long enough to prove it
exists, nor to measure its speed both are therefore a figment of current
theory' and even if it does when it decays it does so within the atomic
structure of the beryllium target and does not travel in free space at
all. I don't think we know enough to say what interaction will take
place between the photons and the atomic structure of the Beryllium
before it exits and anything assumed will be based upon 'current
theory'. Ballistic theory says that a photon ejected by an atom travels
at c w.r.t the structure as a whole not at c w.r.t the individual atom.
A pion (if such a thing exists) decaying within the atomic structure of
a metal would presumably be subject to those same constraints.
| Quote: |
And I've checked both synchrotron radiation and direct photon
production from hadron-hadron collisions, where the source is moving.
|
A reference I can look at would be useful. I am always willing to look
at evidence.
Two predictions of Maxwells theory were:
Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the source.
Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract from the
speed of light in the aether.
The MMX showed the second was false and here we are 100 years later
trying to prove the aether exists by showing the first to be true
because a century of physics has been built on it and we still haven't
worked out that if there is no aether a source is surrounded by nothing
which can take part in a physical process so the only physical process
which can determine the speed of light is that taking place in the
source.
--
John Kennaugh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 4:32 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 3:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 12, 6:34 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:59 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
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.
Of course its is.
1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that
light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that
the waves
of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist, SR is based
upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable,
Whoa, hold on. The ONLY presumption made is that Maxwell's equations
still work for a quantitative description of light. It makes
*absolutely no difference* whether the conceptual model underlying the
development of those equations involved waves in an aether, or self-
supporting fields without a material substrate, or whether light also
exhibits particle properties on occasion.
I am sorry but it does matter. Einstein ditched 3 apparently sensible
and long established axioms of physics in SR.
Which turned out, in the end, to be inconsistent with experiment.
Did it? Did someone tell you that or have you checked.
Both. Filipas and Fox explicitly checked photon speeds from moving
sources.
I haven't found a write up of that one only loads of people like
yourself quoting it as being true. If you know of one then point me to
it.
|
It's available in any university library, or you could try
scholar.google.com.
| Quote: |
It does however seem to be similar to other experiments which I have
looked at such as Alvaeger et al 1964. This was once recommended to me
by Franz Heymann as the most convincing evidence of source independence.
One problem is that IF light is source dependent the current theory is
wrong.
|
That's right.
| Quote: |
The experiment is highly technical and draws on current theory.
This is worrying in that they may be trying to prove an alternate theory
wrong by drawing on current theory and therefore assuming current theory
is right which therefore assumes the alternate theory is wrong in the
first place. This is not necessarily the case but you should put a
question mark every time I say "Current theory says".
|
This general kind of fret, that any technical experiment has to assume
the very model its testing, is an ill-advised one. Experiments like
this, especially ones that endure despite strong scrutiny, have been
designed specifically to avoid that. Otherwise, they would not be good
experimental tests. The details of how that is avoided is thoroughly
described in the article that stems from the experiment. I invite you
to look it up.
| Quote: |
The only thing one can say for sure in the Alvager et al experiment is
that high energy particles hit a beryllium target and the result was
gamma photons apparently travelling at c relative to the beryllium
target as would be expected by ballistic theory.
If you say that the beryllium target is the source then it has
proved nothing at all but 'current theory says' that an interim stage
exists - a pion was created travelling at 0.9999c and this is what
decayed into gamma photons so constituting a moving source.
A pion (neutral pi-meson) if it exists at all exists for only 8.4 x
10^-17 s which means that it does not exist long enough to prove it
exists,
|
I think you underestimate experimental sensitivity. If you want to
learn more about the experimental understanding of the neutral pion,
you should look up the (many) references in the pi-zero portion of the
Particle Data Groups compendium: http://pdg.lbl.gov.
But as a word of caution: If you *automatically* question the validity
of any experimental result that conflicts with your favorite model,
then you are skirting dangerously toward crankish practices and away
from scientific balance.
| Quote: |
nor to measure its speed both are therefore a figment of current
theory' and even if it does when it decays it does so within the atomic
structure of the beryllium target and does not travel in free space at
all. I don't think we know enough to say what interaction will take
place between the photons and the atomic structure of the Beryllium
before it exits and anything assumed will be based upon 'current
theory'. Ballistic theory says that a photon ejected by an atom travels
at c w.r.t the structure as a whole not at c w.r.t the individual atom.
A pion (if such a thing exists) decaying within the atomic structure of
a metal would presumably be subject to those same constraints.
And I've checked both synchrotron radiation and direct photon
production from hadron-hadron collisions, where the source is moving.
A reference I can look at would be useful. I am always willing to look
at evidence.
|
For direct photon production, you can look at the NIM papers for the
E706 collaboration, Fermilab. Paul Slattery was the collaboration
leader, if that helps.
| Quote: |
Two predictions of Maxwells theory were:
Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the source.
Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed
of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract from the
speed of light in the aether.
The MMX showed the second was false and here we are 100 years later
trying to prove the aether exists by showing the first to be true
because a century of physics has been built on it and we still haven't
worked out that if there is no aether a source is surrounded by nothing
which can take part in a physical process so the only physical process
which can determine the speed of light is that taking place in the
source.
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:41 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 4:47 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bQGQOjTwd7eIFw4p@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the source.
Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the
speed of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract
from the speed of light in the aether.
The MMX tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein chose
to assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is wrong one
should assume they both are because they are both based upon the same
logic.
Einstein had the benefit of the knowledge that all
experimental checks on the speed of light were
indicating independance of the speed of light from the
motion of the source,
It is actually incredibly difficult to produce an experiment showing
source independence and if anyone has told you otherwise you have been
conned.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
Sue...
| Quote: |
John Kennaugh
It is a students birthright to question what he is taught. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YZyAMaDnQGfIFwBj@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bQGQOjTwd7eIFw4p@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the source.
Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the
speed of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract
from the speed of light in the aether.
The MMX tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein
chose to assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is
wrong one should assume they both are because they are both based
upon the same logic.
Einstein had the benefit of the knowledge that all
experimental checks on the speed of light were
indicating independance of the speed of light from the
motion of the source,
It is actually incredibly difficult to produce an experiment showing
source independence and if anyone has told you otherwise you have been
conned.
|
It's actually easier to measure velocity diffrences than
velocity itself by employing interferrometric devices.
| Quote: |
In 1905 there were none. The *assumption* of source
independence was a result of belief that the speed of light waves was
controlled by the medium in which they propagated, the aether, so
could not be affected by the source. Those who have looked
critically at experiments will tell you that no experiment prior to
1964 need be considered as valid.
|
I find that rather hard to believe. De Sitter had some good
ideas on the matter as far back as the second decade of the
twentieth century. Doppler redshift masurements were being made
from 1848 (Doppler-Fizeau effect).
| Quote: |
Neither is it true that Einstein came up with a theory which did not
need the aether. His starting point was Lorentz's aether theory.
|
The aether of which he subsequently showed to be unnecessary,
and in fact turned out to be non existent.
| Quote: |
He
said of Lorentz that he had made the greatest contribution to
electrical theory since Maxwell. His objection to Lorentz's theory
was the asymmetry in the theoretical structure but he failed to come
up with an alternative theoretical structure. He argued in favour of
retaining the aether but argued that that did not have to mean that
it had associated with it a unique frame of reference as per Lorentz.
To most people this is nonsense.
|
He banished the Lorentzian aether (a aether of substance, no
matter how strange its properties) and recast the word to
refer to space itself with its inherent properties.
| Quote: |
The way the aether was 'got rid of' was by means of physics redefining
itself and deciding that a theory did not require a theoretical
structure.
|
This may be your opinion, but it is not a demonstrable fact.
Physics did not abandon the scientific method. It is still
defined in the same way. The fact that a mechanical aether
is not tenable may be bothersome for some (you perhaps?), but
physics cannot and should not dictate what Nature is, only
uncover what it is. If what it is goes against our common
sense notions, then it's just bad luck for common sense.
| Quote: |
The mathematics of Maxwell give accurate predictions so the
new thinking said that physics need not concern itself as to whether
the waves the equations describe physically exist or if they do, what
they are waves in so the aether became redundant in the new
mathematically based physics.
|
The aether also became untenable after M&M. And as opposed to
your viewpoint, physicists have been very concious of the
possible implications of wave-particle duality, and have
devoted a great deal of philosophical thinking to it.
| Quote: |
In view of this, Einstein's failure to
come up with an alternative theoretical structure to Lorentz's was no
bar to his theory.
|
You seem to be of the opinion that a physical theory needs
to be built upon a gear, lever, and cog underpinning. It
does not. Physics has never been so restricted, even in pre-
Newtonian eras. The ancients thought gravity was the result
of things "wanting" to find their natural place. Newton was
more sophisticated but still left the "reason" for action at a
distance without explanation. Einstein does nothing new by
constructing a theory based upon a set of postulates.
| Quote: |
It is a bit hard on Lorentz. SR and Lorentz's theory are
mathematically identical and Lorentz produced the maths first.
I believe in the physical reality of the physical world. I believe it
should be a necessary part of physics to try and understand that
physical reality rather than simply model it mathematically. I believe
it is a valid question as to whether the waves of Maxwell's equations
are physical waves or not and if not what | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
