EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Greg Neill on 11 Jul 2008 11:59 "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:JJjEYKGpV3dIFwip(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk > 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, The aether is dead. Maxwell's equations haven't relied on an aether for over a hundred years, yet the waves persist. Or are you saying that diffraction, refraction, and interference (such as in the slit experiments) don't really happen? > 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. SR does not employ an aether. Maxwell and SR stand without 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. Silly. Yes, silly. Empirically the speed of light is always measured to have the same value for inertially moving frames. That's as solid a foundation for a postulate as you can hope for. The wave nature of light is also an empirical fact. That said waves require no aether, and neither does the modern formulation of Maxwell, vanishes your argument. > > 2/ SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that > physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory. Another "I don't like it so it's wrong" argument. [rest of maunder mercy snipped]
From: Spaceman on 11 Jul 2008 12:19 Greg Neill wrote: > Silly. Yes, silly. Empirically the speed of light is always > measured to have the same value for inertially moving frames. Greg always ignores "relative motion" to support the relative motion theory. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: Pentcho Valev on 11 Jul 2008 14:00 On Jul 11, 4:59 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)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 pvalev(a)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 [________X'_______________] -->v > | > | > Flash arrives | > | > T T' > > What SR says is as illustrated. In the FoR of T light is emitted from > point X and when it arrives at T the source is still at the same point. > i.e. X' is the same place as X relative to T. Light reaching T is > therefore orthogonal. The source is neither moving away from T or > towards T so true Doppler is zero. However SR says that because the > light source is moving at v the 'clock' generating the light will be > 'dilated' and the frequency will be lower than Fo. As I will show later > it predicts the same lower frequency as ballistic theory. > > SR agrees with ballistic theory that the frequency measured at T' will > be Fo but it says it is because X' is moving towards T' which increases > the frequency due to Doppler shift and at T' this increase is equal and > opposite to the effect of time dilation - resulting in a frequency of Fo > at T'. > > 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. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > GPS "Time Dilation" > > As seen above the frequency measured when orthogonal to the source is > predictably the same for both theories. The centre of the earth is > always orthogonal to the motion of a GPS satellite (assuming a circular > orbit) therefore the frequency will always be Fo x Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2) > whichever theory is used. The ballistic theory explains it without > exotic time dilation. It is simply the result of a velocity triangle. > Both theories will say that the antenna must point away from the centre > of the earth (equiv of XY) to get the best signal. Ballistic theory says > it is to account for the horizontal component of the light speed. SR > because that is 'transformed' to be a right angle in the FoR of the > earth. > > Note therefore that although both theories give identical results the > explanation is completely different and that of Ballistic theory is by > far the simpler. These examples are far from a special case. > > You might try and get hold of a copy of Waldron's "The wave and > ballistic theories of light" Muller 1977. > Einstein preferred to assume that EM theory is correct and that the laws > of mechanics had to change. The alternative, followed by Ritz/Waldron is > that the laws of mechanics are correct and that it is the EM theory > which needs modifying. While the Einstein route requires the ditching of > 3 apparently sensible axioms of physics the alternative route requires > only two changes to electric theory. > > Firstly that light speed is source dependent If one accepts what > experiment showed, that light is not a propagated wave but particles > shot out by the source then what is more natural than that their speed > be a property of the physical process which sends them on their way, the > physical process taking place at the source. What other possible > physical process is there? Take away the aether and the source is > surrounded by nothing which can take part in a physical process - so > there can be no other physical process. > > Secondly Coulomb's law must be modified such that the force between > moving charges varies with the speed between them. This is also > reasonable if one assumes that the force has a maximum speed c at which > it can act. Think of a child's play area with a roundabout. If you stand > by the roundabout and try and give the bar a push every time it goes > around to make it go faster eventually the bar will travel as fast as > your arm can move and you cannot make it go any faster. In a particle > accelerator there is no way of telling whether the effective mass > increases by gamma as per SR or whether the effect on the charge > decreases by gamma as per Waldron. > > All the evidence is that photons do have mass. A photon has momentum and > is affected by gravity the same way as any other particle with mass. > > Waldron produces a formula for the mass of a photon. Based on > experimental evidence he concludes that the energy of a photon has two > components its kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 and internal energy (1/2)mc^2 . > From a stationary source v = c so total energy = mc^2. > So hf = mc^2 or > m = hf/c^2. > > The force caused by light hitting a reflective surface is as predicted > as is the different force on an absorbent surface. > > If you calculate the increase in energy for such a mass falling under > gravity it works out right for photons as per Pound Rebka. > > If you use the same maths on a photon escaping from a planets gravity as > you would use for any other projectile the energy lost works out as per > 'gravitational red shift'. > > If you work out the total mass of the two photons which result from a > positron, electron collision each photon has the same mass as an > electron. i.e. the pair of photons has the same mass as the electron and > positron combined. > > If you have a photon with more than twice the mass of an electron > encountering a massive nucleus it can split into an electron positron > pair and any excess mass is carried away as a low energy photon. The > mass equation balances. It is said that the rest mass of a photon is > zero yet this experiment approximates to bringing a photon (very nearly) > to rest and having as a result something of known mass - an electron and > a positron. > > He calculates the deviation of light caused by gravity - it agrees. > > He derives exactly the same equation for the Compton effect as does > orthodox quantum physics. His maths in accord with Newton. > > Physicists say that photons cannot have mass because if they did that > would mean SR is wrong. I would suggest that they do and it is. > > I doubt that Waldron had all the right answers but his theory is an > impressive attempt for someone working part time. There may be > experimental evidence which appears to contradict ballistic theory but > ballistic theory cannot be ruled out without a serious attempt to make > it work Ritz(1908)was ignored (unfortunately he died in 1909). Waldron > was ignored and will continue to be ignored. Physics has too much to > lose. > -- > John Kennaugh > "If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation I > should have recommended something simpler." Alfonso 'the wise' of > Castile (1221-1284) having studied the Ptolemaic system.
From: PD on 11 Jul 2008 14:25 On Jul 11, 9:59 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)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. (And the fact that it does exhibit particle properties on occasion in NO way asserts that light is in fact "really" particles and not waves, as things that are *really* particles do not exhibit interference phenomena, which we *clearly* see in light. This is the whole point of particle-wave duality -- NOT to insist that things are EITHER particles OR waves and force a decision. Quantum objects are *neither* particles nor waves but exhibit properties of both.) You'll note that Maxwell himself developed his equations with a mental conceptual model of waves in aether and was able later to adjust his mental model to self- supporting, substrateless waves, *without any change whatsoever* to his equations. This is in fact the beauty of the distilled mathematical representation of physical laws, in that it distills the essence of what is really known about things, without the baggage of a mental conceptual model cluttering things up. Note also that the validity of Maxwell's equations is determined by its direct, mathematically produced development into quantitative predictions of measurable phenomena. Since those measurements confirm the predictions, Maxwell's *equations* are confirmed scientifically, without comment one way or the other on any conceptual baggage that someone might attach to the mathematically written laws. > 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 Why, no it isn't. There isn't a thing absurd about it. But we'll see what you think is 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. It implies absolutely no such thing. There is a false dichotomy here that says that if there is a change in length (either wavelength change in Doppler effect, or length contraction, take your pick) then one and only one of only two possibilities must be in effect: Either a) there is something physical that is happening to the object that is altering the object b) it is an observational illusion. This is a frequent stumbling block for many novices and also one of the greatest learning opportunities, for the truth is that it is *neither* of these. Physical length can vary from frame to frame and be a very real effect, while NEITHER requiring that something physical happened to the object NOR relegating it to an optical illusion. Understanding what the *definition* of physical length is, is key to this essential point. I'm embarking on this with M Luttgens, who has stumbled over this for years, in another topic. > 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. > 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. >
From: PD on 11 Jul 2008 14:33
On Jul 11, 8:47 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > PD wrote: > > Not so full. Do you know what how many atoms per cubic inch are in > > that plasma? > > Do you know how stupid it is to talk about atoms only > in the plasma when I said nothing about atoms at all? OK, Do you know how many plasma particles per cubic inch are in that plasma? > Do you even know what I said anymore at all? > You sure prove to all that you don't. > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman |