EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: John Kennaugh on 12 Jul 2008 12:28 Sue... wrote: >On Jul 11, 4:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >wrote: > >> > >> >> By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase >> have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the >> sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a >> point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent >> photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. >> The maximum has >> the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically >> conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and >> cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with >> the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some >> physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the >> normal intensity pattern. > > >Photons don't "arrive". They are undefined >until absorbed. No they are simply particles with mass and some sort of dynamic structure which gives rise to wavelike phenomena. > They are not a model of light >propagation and don't even know how to move in >a straight line. Of course they do. Otherwise my digital camera wouldn't give a nice sharp picture the right photon having found its way with unerring accuracy to the pixel on the chip. BTW in one of the experiments which supposedly shows source independence the Alvager et al experiment the photons were expected to find their way down a leaden collimator with diameter of 5 mm approx 2m long which the authors show in their diagram but fail to explain in their text. Even relativists seem confused about what they do believe. The problem with physics is it mixes the physical and the metaphysical. If I sit under an isolated tree in a thunderstorm there is a chance I might be hit by lightening. It is possible that the probability could be worked out. If I am killed however it will not be because of the probability. It will be the lightening which kills me. Unfortunately Physics today has limited its remit to prediction. It does not attempt to try and 'understand' nature, to understand what is happening. It ascribes things to metaphysical parameters such as probability. In the double slit experiment the wave model is a statistical model. Just as I am killed by the lightening not the probability that I would be, so the fringe distribution is not caused by the wave model which simply provides a statistical distribution of where the photons end up and nothing at all about which direction a particular photon will go or why. There must be a physical reason why a photon heads off in a particular direction we don't know what it is and even if we did we have not got enough information about a particular photon to predict the result. Modern physics gets this all mixed up. Instead of admitting our ignorance, our uncertainty it has decided that it is nature which is uncertain. It describes the uncertainty reflected in the maths as an uncertainty of nature. Instead of saying that we do not know the exact starting parameters so we don't know where it will end up until it gets there they say the maths says it could end up anywhere (same thing) so it travels in all possible paths (illogical) and the act of detecting it determines its history (silly). This is the Schrodinger's cat thingy where the cat is both dead and alive until the box is opened. No it isn't it is either dead or alive and the only thing which changes when you open the box is the metaphysical quantity = our knowledge and the smell in the room which will tell you how long it has been dead showing that it wasn't alive and dead before the box is opened. > >(you have nearly clarified that later in your >posting. Call me overly critial but don't take >it personally ) > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation >http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html > >The assumption that photons move on any particular >path usually accompanies a faulty assumption they have some >coupling to the gravito-inertial field. They do not. What on earth does that mean. If it means that I assume a photon has mass then yes I do. It could not be plainer. > ><<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate >transformation will convert electric or magnetic >fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, >but no transformation mixes them with the >gravitational field. >> Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It does and it is. >http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html > > >Exploring all classical paths with a clock is >how photons get their claim to fame. Feynman's QED > >> The minimum in the >> low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever >> reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. > >"Probabily amplitude" is the term you seek. It is a >mathmatical abstraction, not a physical process. Well I am glad we agree about that. Light is not a physical wave it is made up of photons. The wave model is a statistical model. The waves are not waves in the aether they are metaphysical statistical waves. Being metaphysical they cannot transport energy. Light is, or carries with it, real physical energy and does not physically consist of waves but of particles which have energy or are energy. They have mass and travel in straight lines unless their trajectory is altered by gravity acting on the mass. They gain energy as they fall, they lose energy if they are projected from a massive object. When they hit something they have momentum. Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It does and it is. That is the way science works. If something has mass and a theory says it can't have the theory is wrong. You don't perform metaphysical intellectual somersaults to redefine mass so that you can continue to believe in a theory which is based on a false premise and is physically absurd. -- John Kennaugh "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
From: John Kennaugh on 12 Jul 2008 11:29 Pentcho Valev wrote: >On Jul 11, 10:30�pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >wrote: >> Greg Neill wrote: >> >"John Kennaugh" <J...(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? >> >> I'm not saying they don't happen only that light does not physically >> consist of waves. If it does what are they waves IN. Perhaps you do not >> understand the nature of modern physics. It is no longer a science >> merely a branch of mathematics dealing with mathematical modelling. A >> mathematical model which works "some of the time" is referred to as a >> 'theory' which works in its "Domain of Applicability". Thus if a wave >> mathematical model works some of the time it is described as a theory. >> >> "Experiments with beams of light or of electrons have been made such >> that both aspects - waves and particles - are observed. For interference >> to occur it is among other things also necessary for the beam to have >> available more than one path from source to detector (e.g. a screen). >> Interference is explained by the wave picture. When the beam intensity >> is sufficiently low and the detector suitable the impact of particles >> one by one can be observed. The energy quanta are then localised as if >> particles in space and time." >> >> By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase >> have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the >> sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a >> point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent >> photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. The minimum in the >> low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever >> reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. The maximum has >> the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically >> conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and >> cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with >> the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some >> physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the >> normal intensity pattern. >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> I am talking about the provenance of relativity - the history - where it >> came from - the mental processes which underpin it. 20 years or so after >> SR was adopted physicists decided that the only thing which matters is >> the maths and the maths does not have to concern itself with anything >> physical. Your statement is the equivalent of saying that a weather map >> does not need to concern itself with physical processes. All that is >> required is something to display it on and whether it tells you whether >> or not you will get wet. >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> There is no experiment prior to 1964 which anyone who has studied the >> subject would seriously claim shows that the speed of light is always >> measured as c from a moving source. There certainly was none when >> Einstein formulated his SR theory. The second postulate was not the >> result of experiment nor 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 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. The second >> postulate is simply describing what an observer stationary w.r.t. the >> aether would experience. >> >> > The wave nature of light is also an empirical fact. >> >> The wavelike behaviour of light is certainly well documented but a wave >> cannot explain the photoelectric effect and as I show in the case of the >> double slit it does not really explain that either. >> >> > 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] >> >> Note to Danny Milano - You may note how tetchy relativists get when you >> attack their religion and how little their faith is built upon. They >> believe all sorts of things which are not true. They believe that >> Einstein came up with a theory which doesn't need the aether. He didn't >> he argued in favour of the aether. Physics made an arbitrary decision >> that a physics theory does not require a physical explanation and the >> aether is a physical explanation so in the new order is not needed. SR >> is a 'principle theory' which is another word for a mathematical model >> and as such has nothing to say as to whether there is or there isn't an >> aether >> -- >> John Kennaugh >> 'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' Bertrand Russell. > >Some Einsteinians are making their money by trying to convert Divine >Albert's Divine Special Relativity from "principle theory" into a >"constructive theory" and introducing even more idiocies - e.g. the >breathtaking idea that "the forces that hold the parts of the rod >together" are somehow responsible for length contraction: > >http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/ >Brown, Harvey R. and Pooley, Oliver (2004) "Minkowski space-time: a >glorious non-entity" > >http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603 >"Harvey Brown thinks that most philosophers are confused about >relativity. Most centrally, he thinks they're confused about the >relativistic effects of length contraction and time >dilation.....According to (what Brown alleges is) the dominant view >among substantivalists, the geometrical structure of Minkowski >spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why >moving clocks run slow. Brown rejects this view. He asserts, instead, >that in order to explain why moving rods shrink we must appeal to the >dynamical laws governing the forces that hold the parts of the rod >together. The geometry of Minkowski spacetime plays no role in this >explanation.....He thinks that good answers to these questions say >something about the way in which the forces holding the parts of the >rod together depend on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of >what causes the particles to get closer together, and so what causes >the rod to shrink." He is simply reinventing Lorentz aether theory which is after all the only physical explanation of SR; Einstein having failed totally to come up with a better 'theoretical structure' than the one he objected to. Judging from some of the comments on this NG few seem to appreciate the contribution of Lorentz. Before the MMX he developed Maxwell's theory and added to it. Even the version of Maxwell's equations found in modern text books are Lorentz's version. The aether was not only a medium through which light waves propagate it also explains the action at a distance force between charges. A charge causes a "stress pattern" in the aether which is what a 'field' is and the force between charges is the interaction between fields. Lorentz postulated that matter is made up of a matrix of positive and negative charges held together by action at a distance forces transferred via the aether. When the aether is moving that matrix finds a new equilibrium. He calculated that the matter would get shortened in the direction of travel relative to the aether (note Bohr's model of the atom was much later but the modern equivalent would be that the orbits of the electrons become ellipses). I have seen a few programs where the phrase "the fabric of spacetime" was used and the implication was that it was responsible for nearly everything. The aether is obviously not dead it is constantly being re-invented. That does not surprise me because IF you believe in SR you will be drawn back to the aether concept because that is what SR is based on. Einstein ditched 3 perfectly reasonable and long established axioms of physics to rescue it. -- John Kennaugh
From: Sue... on 12 Jul 2008 15:59 On Jul 12, 12:28 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Sue... wrote: > >On Jul 11, 4:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >wrote: > > >> By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase > >> have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the > >> sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a > >> point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent > >> photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. > >> The maximum has > >> the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically > >> conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and > >> cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with > >> the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some > >> physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the > >> normal intensity pattern. > > >Photons don't "arrive". They are undefined > >until absorbed. > > No they are simply particles with mass and some sort of dynamic > structure which gives rise to wavelike phenomena. > > > They are not a model of light > >propagation and don't even know how to move in > >a straight line. > > Of course they do. Otherwise my digital camera wouldn't give a nice > sharp picture the right photon having found its way with unerring > accuracy to the pixel on the chip. You might try removing the lens and see if your logic still holds. Are photons divisible? http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/ > > BTW in one of the experiments which supposedly shows source independence > the Alvager et al experiment the photons were expected to find their way > down a leaden collimator with diameter of 5 mm approx 2m long which the > authors show in their diagram but fail to explain in their text. Even > relativists seem confused about what they do believe. Isn't that a pion experiment ? > > The problem with physics is it mixes the physical and the metaphysical. > If I sit under an isolated tree in a thunderstorm there is a chance I > might be hit by lightening. It is possible that the probability could be > worked out. If I am killed however it will not be because of the > probability. It will be the lightening which kills me. There is also some probabilityy an atomic oscillator will change energy states. It can be much more predictable than lightning strikes with a path integral. > > Unfortunately Physics today has limited its remit to prediction. It does > not attempt to try and 'understand' nature, to understand what is > happening. It ascribes things to metaphysical parameters such as > probability. In the double slit experiment the wave model is a > statistical model. Just as I am killed by the lightening not the > probability that I would be, so the fringe distribution is not caused by > the wave model which simply provides a statistical distribution of where > the photons end up and nothing at all about which direction a particular > photon will go or why. If you could use QED for lightning, the probability will kill you. This, because the classical path is a part of the probability amplitude. > > There must be a physical reason why a photon heads off in a particular > direction we don't know what it is and even if we did we have not got > enough information about a particular photon to predict the result. We certainly do know. We could not build lasers if we didn't. http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html > Modern physics gets this all mixed up. Instead of admitting our > ignorance, our uncertainty it has decided that it is nature which is > uncertain. It describes the uncertainty reflected in the maths as an > uncertainty of nature. Instead of saying that we do not know the exact > starting parameters so we don't know where it will end up until it gets > there they say the maths says it could end up anywhere (same thing) so > it travels in all possible paths (illogical) and the act of detecting it > determines its history (silly). If you think classical paths illogical then remove all the lenses on your optics and sell whatever you have that could be an antenna for scrap metal. > This is the Schrodinger's cat thingy > where the cat is both dead and alive until the box is opened. No it > isn't it is either dead or alive and the only thing which changes when > you open the box is the metaphysical quantity = our knowledge and the > smell in the room which will tell you how long it has been dead showing > that it wasn't alive and dead before the box is opened. > if you can do a path integral, the cat's fate will become more certain. > > > >(you have nearly clarified that later in your > >posting. Call me overly critial but don't take > >it personally ) > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation > >http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html > > >The assumption that photons move on any particular > >path usually accompanies a faulty assumption they have some > >coupling to the gravito-inertial field. They do not. > > What on earth does that mean. If it means that I assume a photon has > mass then yes I do. It could not be plainer. Since you can't figure how it knows which way to go perhaps need to rethink that a bit. > > > > ><<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate > >transformation will convert electric or magnetic > >fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, > >but no transformation mixes them with the > >gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html > > Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It > does and it is. It is only the *light-particles* that make SR ~wrong~. i<<in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light,>> See equation 511 "Retarded potentials" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html So in the subatomic realm, SR is ~right~ . > > > >Exploring all classical paths with a clock is > >how photons get their claim to fame. Feynman's QED > > >> The minimum in the > >> low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever > >> reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. > > >"Probabily amplitude" is the term you seek. It is a > >mathmatical abstraction, not a physical process. > > Well I am glad we agree about that. > Light is not a physical wave it is made up of photons. The wave model is > a statistical model. The waves are not waves in the aether they are > metaphysical statistical waves. Being metaphysical they cannot transport > energy. Light is, or carries with it, real physical energy and does not > physically consist of waves but of particles which have energy or are > energy. They have mass and travel in straight lines unless their > trajectory is altered by gravity acting on the mass. They gain energy as > they fall, they lose energy if they are projected from a massive object. > When they hit something they have momentum. Aether carries Newton's gravito-inertial properties. You still assume it if you think photons have mass and know how to follow a kinetic trajectory. An electrodmagnetic dielectric does not make such assumptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html And it agrees with our observations. ;-) > > Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It > does and it is. That is the way science works. If something has mass and > a theory says it can't have the theory is wrong. You don't perform > metaphysical intellectual somersaults to redefine mass so that you can > continue to believe in a theory which is based on a false premise and is > physically absurd. If you want a photon's mass to give it directivity then you are claiming Newton's aether. Antennas and dielectrics are how it is done in the real world. "Near and Far fields" http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html (Repeating myself) Are ~photons~ divisible ? http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/ Sue... > > -- > John Kennaugh
From: PD on 12 Jul 2008 20:30 On Jul 11, 3:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: > >"John Kennaugh" <J...(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? > > I'm not saying they don't happen only that light does not physically > consist of waves. No one is quite sure what light *consists of*. What we know is that it exhibits certain properties shared by particles, and these can be distilled down to certain mathematical statements that are free from the conceptual baggage of particles which would demand certain things of light that DO NOT apply to light. We also know that it exhibits certain properties shared by waves, and likewise, these can be distilled down to certain mathematical statements that are free of the conceptual baggage of waves which would demand certain things that DO NOT apply to light. > If it does what are they waves IN. They are waves in the fields. There is no earthly reason to PRESUME that there must be a material medium for waves to exist. Waves exist *whenever* the law of physics governing their behavior take the form of a wave equation, which Maxwell's equations certainly do. Whenever something that is of the broad class of wave equations apply, wave solutions appear in the behavior. The presumption of material substrate is precisely the kind of conceptual baggage that comes with pits, traps, and petards. > Perhaps you do not > understand the nature of modern physics. It is no longer a science > merely a branch of mathematics dealing with mathematical modelling. A > mathematical model which works "some of the time" is referred to as a > 'theory' which works in its "Domain of Applicability". Thus if a wave > mathematical model works some of the time it is described as a theory. > > "Experiments with beams of light or of electrons have been made such > that both aspects - waves and particles - are observed. For interference > to occur it is among other things also necessary for the beam to have > available more than one path from source to detector (e.g. a screen). > Interference is explained by the wave picture. When the beam intensity > is sufficiently low and the detector suitable the impact of particles > one by one can be observed. The energy quanta are then localised as if > particles in space and time." Yes, that's right, and even one at a time, they STILL exhibit interference, which a strictly deterministic particle view does not support. > > By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase > have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the > sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a > point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent > photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. The minimum in the > low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever > reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. The maximum has > the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically > conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and > cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with > the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some > physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the > normal intensity pattern. > > > > >> 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. > > I am talking about the provenance of relativity - the history - where it > came from - the mental processes which underpin it. That is conceptual baggage which may be appropriate or may be not. If it turns out that the excess baggage is unwarranted, then it is the *excess* that must be identified and dispensed with. You are proposing throwing out the baby if the bathwater is to be discarded, or demanding that the bathwater accompany the baby wherever it goes. > 20 years or so after > SR was adopted physicists decided that the only thing which matters is > the maths and the maths does not have to concern itself with anything > physical. Your statement is the equivalent of saying that a weather map > does not need to concern itself with physical processes. All that is > required is something to display it on and whether it tells you whether > or not you will get wet. > > > > >> 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. > > There is no experiment prior to 1964 which anyone who has studied the > subject would seriously claim shows that the speed of light is always > measured as c from a moving source. There certainly was none when > Einstein formulated his SR theory. The second postulate was not the > result of experiment nor 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 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. The second > postulate is simply describing what an observer stationary w.r.t. the > aether would experience. > > > The wave nature of light is also an empirical fact. > > The wavelike behaviour of light is certainly well documented but a wave > cannot explain the photoelectric effect and as I show in the case of the > double slit it does not really explain that either. > > > 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] > > Note to Danny Milano - You may note how tetchy relativists get when you > attack their religion and how little their faith is built upon. They > believe all sorts of things which are not true. They believe that > Einstein came up with a theory which doesn't need the aether. He didn't > he argued in favour of the aether. Physics made an arbitrary decision > that a physics theory does not require a physical explanation and the > aether is a physical explanation so in the new order is not needed. SR > is a 'principle theory' which is another word for a mathematical model > and as such has nothing to say as to whether there is or there isn't an > aether > -- > John Kennaugh > 'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' Bertrand Russell.
From: PD on 12 Jul 2008 21:19
On Jul 12, 5:54 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > It seems that anti-relativists would go to any length to > debunk time dilation, length contraction at the cost of > even weirder mechanisms. In your years of experience > with them. Do yo think anti-relativists are purely newtonian? > Or do anti-relativists still believe in quantum mechanics "now you > see it, now you don't" foundations? Because if anti-relativists > are quantum followers. They could propose creatures > that can control quantum probability (call it fairies) > that can create the same predictions and observations as > time dilation, length contraction in physical stuff. This > is the only way I think they can explain the same relativistic > experiments. But if anti-relativists don't believe in fairies > and they don't think time and length can distort and just > believe in absolute space and absolute time, there seems > no way to pull off those SR, GR experimental stunts, isn't it... > unless anti-relativists are aetherists. Are they? In essence, > how many percentage approximately of anti-relativists > believe in quantum mechanics and how many percentage > approx. believe in the aether and how many percentage > believe in neither of them. I'd like to have rough idea of > how their brains work. With a few exceptions, the anti-relativists *here* don't really have a physics agenda. They are not Newtonian, necessarily, because most of them don't understand Newtonian physics, either. They have some vague and poorly considered ideas along the lines of - strict causal determinism - material basis for all causal effects; only "stuff" can influence "stuff" - a model's credibility is based on how clear a mental image can be formed of it; shape and dimension and tangibility overweigh mathematical or logical structure - consistency with common sense Note that many of these things Newton also thought little of. What really bothers anti-relativists is the notion that one investigator receives such popular adulation (note *popular* adulation, not the adulation of the physics community). It is important to them that no such adulation should occur at all, and this drives a desire to take physics and physicists down a peg. And what is especially rankling is the folklore (which is not accurate) that Einstein did what he did just by thinking things through on his own, without much hard work or calculation, or anything that the average lay person could look at and say, "Hey, that dude sure earned what he got." And in fact, some try to emulate the folklore by inventing their own "theories" and "gedanken experiments" and "postulates", under the mistaken impression that this is how he did what he did -- all in the hopes that they too will get a piece of the pie. Of course, since they're not really doing what he did, their efforts do not pay off as expected, and this fuels their rage, which comes out as scorn. PD |