Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Kennaugh
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
 |
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 4:47 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
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
|
"Thus it cannot be argued that the data on binary stars provides support
for the emission theory [source dependency]. However it does seem,
contrary to what has been believed for several decades, that the data on
binary stars does not offer any evidence against emission theory".
J.G. Fox, "Evidence Against Emission Theories"- American Journal of
Physics, Volume 33, #1, Jan. 1965
Waldron came to the same conclusion.
The following quote is of interest:
"Fox claims to have invalidated the majority, if not all, of the speed-
of-light experiments (including binary star observations) that have
been conducted to help us choose between Ritz and Einstein.... Fox gave
a decision in favour of Einstein, but did so in a manner that seems to
suggest that the final verdict is not in. In private correspondence Fox
says:
'...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity
of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'"
Note that Ritz's theory was 1908 and 60 years later it still "comes so
close". Waldron analysis of Ritz theory says that Ritz could not take
account of the later experiments which he, Waldron has done and had got
some things wrong. I am not aware of Fox giving an appraisal of
Waldron's work [1]. Either way Ritz theory was ignored after his death a
year after publishing his theory and virtually written out of the
history books. Waldron worked on his theory part time and has been
ignored. If you believe that that constitutes a thorough, fair and
detailed appraisal of what is the biggest challenge to relativity then I
do not.
--
John Kennaugh |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Kennaugh
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m4TfUKGh6GfIFwFq@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
PD wrote:
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.
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
See also the section "Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources"
at:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
That is not a write - up it is a 2 line conclusion |
--
John Kennaugh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Kennaugh
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:00 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 4:32 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
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.
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.
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.
|
One might start with the question "which theory was it trying to
falsify". The description of the Alvaeger experiment talks of the
photons passing through a window. Now one version of ballistic theory
says that when photons pass through a transparent solid they are
re-emitted at c w.r.t the solid. When I pointed out to Franz Heymann
wrote
"That [the window] was simply a small hole in a concrete shielding wall.
I have seen that hole myself. It was an empty hole in the shield wall
to let the photons through. High energy photons like those in that
experiment cannot penetrate much by way of matter without generating a
shower."
However I re-read the write up and it referred to the window of the
vacuum chamber so not only is the possibility of re emission there is
the complication of it generating a shower - not sure what of.
| 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.
|
I don't think so. Even light only manages to travel 25 millionths of a
mm in that time scale.
| Quote: |
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.
|
You would automatically question the validity of any experimental result
which appeared to conflict with relativity and you would place it under
the closest possible scrutiny surely. I am not a physicist nor a
mathematician. Even if there was a fatal flaw I would not necessarily
spot it but there do appear to be some question marks that even I can
spot. The fact that the decay of the pion takes place within the
structure of the beryllium target being one. In such an experiment who
acts for the defence. Who champions the theory being 'disproved'.
Basically no one. The purpose of the experiment is to be able to report
in a prestigious journal that a fundamental basis of relativity is
correct. Apparently Alvager was a bit two anxious to receive that
acclaim.
Re Alvager Nilsson anf Kjellman 1963. Waldron writes:
"From their observations Alvaeger et al concluded that the invariance
postulate was verified. However they published a set of typical
observations and my calculations from these indicated a difference in
the times of flight from the fixed and moving sources. This supports the
ballistic theory and contradicts the Lorentz- Einstein theory. The
reason for this opposed conclusion is not clear and correspondence with
Dr Alvaeger has failed to clear up the discrepancy" Waldron 1977
Let me put a point to you. Lets suppose that this Alvager go it right in
1964 and his experiment did genuinely dispose of ballistic theory. There
is nothing prior to it which can't be explained in terms of ballistic
theory therefore for 60 years Ritz's theory and SR were equally valid.
Does the conduct of physicists reflect that?
If Ritz had lived and his theory had been adopted as accepted theory for
60 years do you think that Alvager's experiment would have swept it away
or would someone find an explanation to maintain the status quo? You
cannot rule out human nature. An experiment which appears to disprove
accepted theory is treated very differently to one which supports it.
Good debate, whether in government, in a court of law or in physics is
always the result of having at least 2 sides battling it out. What has
been missing for a century in physics is any serious opposition. The
basis of opposition was there but one camp became all powerful.
--
John Kennaugh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:17 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6hVIy7N4aNfIFw3z@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m4TfUKGh6GfIFwFq@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
PD wrote:
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.
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
See also the section "Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources"
at:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
That is not a write - up it is a 2 line conclusion
|
You are not being prevented from securing a copy of
Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964) and reading the contents.
Consider yourself pointed, as per request. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 5:17 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
"John Kennaugh" <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6hVIy7N4aNfIFw3z@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
Greg Neill wrote:
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
See also the section "Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources"
at:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
That is not a write - up it is a 2 line conclusion
You are not being prevented from securing a copy of
Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964) and reading the contents.
Consider yourself pointed, as per request.
|
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf
Prediction:
It won't make any difference to Kennaugh. He is guaranteed to
reject the paper's conclusions, never mind that J.G. Fox was the
person who originally pointed out that most early studies on the
constancy of the velocity of light could be critiqued on the
basis of extinction arguments.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Fox_1967.pdf
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Kennaugh
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
Jerry wrote:
Thank you very much for that. At last I have something to study.
| Quote: |
Prediction:
It won't make any difference to Kennaugh. He is guaranteed to
reject the paper's conclusions, never mind that J.G. Fox was the
person who originally pointed out that most early studies on the
constancy of the velocity of light could be critiqued on the
basis of extinction arguments.
|
You are at least better informed than some on this NG. The question you
should ask is "Who is championing the ballistic theory and looking at
the experiment critically to see whether it does indeed rule out
ballistic theory." Something so important should not be down to a rank
amateur like me who makes no claim to be either a physicist or a
mathematician. Someone like you is easy to convince as it is simply
confirming what you already believe.
I studied the Alvaeger experiment as I had been told that was the most
convincing evidence available. I found a number of areas of concern
where it has been assumed erroneously that a ballistic theory would have
nothing to say. Essentially therefore what had been disproved is a
relativist's view of what a ballistic theory might say.
Ritz's theory, which Fox acknowledges as " so different in structure
from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, comes so close to describing
correctly the vast quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic
electromagnetic theory." is 60 years without further development.
Waldron's theory which took account of later knowledge is ignored.
I haven't studied Fox's paper and will not be able to but a superficial
look gives me the impression that Fox gives me a reason that I hadn't
thought of to reject the Alvaeger experiment without actually addressing
any of the concerns I already had about it. As I say that judgement may
be premature as I haven't studied it properly yet and Fox is better
informed about ballistic theory than most.
If Fox is correct then had experiments been looked at properly and
critically SR and ballistic theory should have been considered equally
valid, i.e. put on an equal footing, until 1964 because it is not until
then according to Fox that ballistic theory has been shown to be wrong.
That should worry you but I somehow doubt that it will.
| Quote: |
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Fox_1967.pdf
Jerry
I'm not going to be around to continue this thread. |
--
John Kennaugh
"Conformity may even bring you a university chair, but all advance comes
from non conformity. If there had been no troublemakers, no dissenters,
we should still be living in caves" - A J P Taylor (historian) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
NoEinstein
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:00 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 7:04 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 5:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Dear PD: For a simpleton you sometimes ask good questions. Your
question: "...where does ether go?" It doesn't 'pile up', because
ether flow can continue 'in' toward masses like the Sun, only because
matter, and/or energy is flowing out. In effect the outflow of
charged particles is replacing the ether... "out there". Or said
another way: "Nothing out, nothing in." That's why the gravity of a
pre black hole cuts off as soon as the matter gets so tight that there
isn't "wiggle room" for the nuclei. When the wiggle stops, the
temperature goes to absolute zero. Under those conditions there can
be nothing emitted out. So, the ether no longer has the pressure
differential to keep flowing in.
That's why the star distribution data for the Andromeda Galaxy shows
an "unexplained" (except by me) gap in the stars near the center.
This is where those stars being 'sucked in' got a reprieve and went
shooting off on a tangent, the same as would happen if you were
swinging a rock on a string, and the string broke. The reason the
stars didn't keep going out on their tangent lines, is because the
EFFECTIVE gravity of Andromeda is still concentrated at the center.
The stars had a reduction in their gravity that was in proportion to
the mass of the PRE black hole, compared to the mass of such PLUS the
mass of all of Andromeda's other matter. The size of the gap should
enable determining just what the mass of a PRE black hole is. That's
important, because PRE black holes are the most massive singular
objects in the universe. —— NoEinstein —— |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
NoEinstein
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:31 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. 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.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Dear John: You are most articulate. A big difference between our
approaches to information gathering is that you delve into what others
have argued and try to act as a judge. Very early I realized that the
long explanations of others were tending to bias the reader based on
how good the wording was, not on how good the reasoning was.
When I took college physics, I already knew that Einstein was
considered the top intellect. Yet, there were so many counter
intuitive things being said. When I heard that M-M was supposed to be
a comparison of two orthogonal light courses, I realized, immediately
(but stayed quiet), that both of those light courses had components in
BOTH orthogonal directions. I knew that any explanation for the nil
results of M-M had to be because of the misunderstanding of its
geometry.
Decades later, I became so incensed by all of the Big Bang
garbage that I knew Einstein's ideas——which resulted from M-M——could
most easily be disproved by invalidating M-M. So, I walked to my
local public library; looked up Michelson-Morley; and in just one hour
of thought and sketching, I realized that M-M LACKED A CONTROL.
Interference is a comparison of two light beams. If both of those
beams always require the same amount of time to circuit the apparatus,
then the fringes won't change. Since the fringes on M-M didn't
change, then my explanation could be proved, algebraically, by writing
simple equations for the times of travel of the light. My calculations
——correct to 9 decimal places——prove that by assuming that light
velocity speeds up or slows down matching the velocity of the source,
the times of travel of the two light courses will be exactly equal!
No one in science has been interested in having Einstein be
disproved using just 10th grade algebra. So, I designed my own X, Y,
Z interferometer with the CONTROL light course on the Z axis, only.
[M-M had all of the optics on just X and Y and none on the Z axis.]
Writing flowery arguments wouldn't be necessary if arm-chair
physicists would just do a little algebra to see for themselves that M-
M has no CONTROL. Hope you will follow my thread to understand more
about my disproofs of SR and GR. —— NoEinstein ——
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
NoEinstein
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 11:11 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear Greg: You are great with verbiage, but poor with reasoning. |
Words alone can't validate your errant thinking. —— NoEinstein ——
| Quote: |
"John Kennaugh" <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YZyAMaDnQGfIFwBj@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
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.
It's actually easier to measure velocity diffrences than
velocity itself by employing interferrometric devices.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, that's all well and good. You should pursue your own
theory then, based upon some "physical" underpinning of your
choice. When you can demonstrate that it accords with all
empirical data then you'll have something that people will
take notice of. Given the current track record of Relativity,
it might be easiest to show that your theory makes mathematically
identical predictions under all the conditions that Relativity
has so far.
Once you've got your theory in hand you can set about
demolishing Relativity by its philosophical underpinnings
and show the superiority of your own for its "physical"
basis. Simply attacking Relativity because you don't like
it won't hold water, I'm afraid.
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.
One at a time photon Young's experiments show that the wave
nature persists unto the individual photon. Quantum experiments
show that photons have the peculiar quality of being able to
take all possible paths at once from a source to and end point.
No classical "physical" particle can sustain that sort of trick.
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.
That's nonsense. Herculean efforts were being made by
physicists at the turn of the last century to save the
aether and Newtonian physics. Relativity was not an
overnight done deal. The history of physics is a history
of things tried, tested, and modified or rejected.
Working models are not abandoned out of sense of fashion,
but due to necessity.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
NoEinstein
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:45 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 12:32 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:47 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
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
"Thus it cannot be argued that the data on binary stars provides support
for the emission theory [source dependency]. However it does seem,
contrary to what has been believed for several decades, that the data on
binary stars does not offer any evidence against emission theory".
J.G. Fox, "Evidence Against Emission Theories"- American Journal of
Physics, Volume 33, #1, Jan. 1965
Waldron came to the same conclusion.
The following quote is of interest:
"Fox claims to have invalidated the majority, if not all, of the speed-
of-light experiments (including binary star observations) that have
been conducted to help us choose between Ritz and Einstein.... Fox gave
a decision in favour of Einstein, but did so in a manner that seems to
suggest that the final verdict is not in. In private correspondence Fox
says:
'...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity
of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'"
Note that Ritz's theory was 1908 and 60 years later it still "comes so
close". Waldron analysis of Ritz theory says that Ritz could not take
account of the later experiments which he, Waldron has done and had got
some things wrong. I am not aware of Fox giving an appraisal of
Waldron's work [1]. Either way Ritz theory was ignored after his death a
year after publishing his theory and virtually written out of the
history books. Waldron worked on his theory part time and has been
ignored. If you believe that that constitutes a thorough, fair and
detailed appraisal of what is the biggest challenge to relativity then I
do not.
--
John Kennaugh- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Dear John: If the distances to binary stars are great enough the
Doppler effect will be nullified by the action of the ether through
which the light travels. Ether will maintain a light velocity of 'c',
only. Under certain intense light conditions, ether can be tunneled
through (pushed out of the way), so that light can keep traveling
above velocity 'c'. In which case, the Doppler effect can measure the
rotational speed of the binary stars. —— NoEinstein —— |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:41 am Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 8:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 7:04 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear PD: For a simpleton you sometimes ask good questions. Your
question: "...where does ether go?" It doesn't 'pile up', because
ether flow can continue 'in' toward masses like the Sun, only because
matter, and/or energy is flowing out. In effect the outflow of
charged particles is replacing the ether... "out there".
|
Nice wild-ass conjecture.
So what is flowing out of the Earth? What matter and/or energy?
What is flowing out of the Moon? What matter and/or energy?
| Quote: |
Or said
another way: "Nothing out, nothing in." That's why the gravity of a
pre black hole cuts off as soon as the matter gets so tight that there
isn't "wiggle room" for the nuclei. When the wiggle stops, the
temperature goes to absolute zero. Under those conditions there can
be nothing emitted out. So, the ether no longer has the pressure
differential to keep flowing in.
|
So, according to you, then, black holes cannot exert any gravitational
pull inward anymore because there is no flow outward.
And so the accretion disk around a black hole (pictured here:
http://www.rkm.com.au/ASTRONOMY/blackhole.html) doesn't have any
reason to accrete, there being no gravitational pull inward.
Likewise, the black hole binaries (here: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060412..html)
have no reason to orbit each other because there is no gravitational
pull outside a black hole.
| Quote: |
That's why the star distribution data for the Andromeda Galaxy shows
an "unexplained" (except by me) gap in the stars near the center.
This is where those stars being 'sucked in' got a reprieve and went
shooting off on a tangent, the same as would happen if you were
swinging a rock on a string, and the string broke. The reason the
stars didn't keep going out on their tangent lines, is because the
EFFECTIVE gravity of Andromeda is still concentrated at the center.
The stars had a reduction in their gravity that was in proportion to
the mass of the PRE black hole, compared to the mass of such PLUS the
mass of all of Andromeda's other matter. The size of the gap should
enable determining just what the mass of a PRE black hole is. That's
important, because PRE black holes are the most massive singular
objects in the universe. —— NoEinstein —— |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
