EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Spaceman on 14 Jul 2008 11:56 PD wrote: > On Jul 14, 10:33 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: >> PD wrote: >>> On Jul 14, 10:01 am, "Spaceman" >>> <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: >>>> PD wrote: >>>>> Be sure to ask spaceman what he thinks a "physical cause" is. >>>>> Spaceman is a rare breed of goon. He believes that the only real >>>>> physical causes are material things acting on material things. >>>>> Keep in mind he's an auto mechanic, used to metal touching metal >>>>> to make things go. He does not believe in fields, he does not >>>>> believe in structure of space and time other that what he learned >>>>> in 7th grade math about length, area, volume, and duration. >> >>>> LOL >>>> metal touching metal? >>>> LOL >>>> Apparently you think cars don't use fields such as when a >>>> coil pack uses to produce high energy sparks to sparkplugs >>>> and you must have missed the fact that a gas explosion does the >>>> actual pushing of the metal that gets the engine running. >> >>> That would be material acting on material, no? >> >> Matter causing other matter to move. >> Yes. >> It works wonderful > > Yes, it does, when it applies. And when applied properly, it applies to everything. But of course you are affraid of that fact. LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: PD on 14 Jul 2008 12:06 On Jul 14, 10:56 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Jul 14, 10:33 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: > >> PD wrote: > >>> On Jul 14, 10:01 am, "Spaceman" > >>> <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >>>> PD wrote: > >>>>> Be sure to ask spaceman what he thinks a "physical cause" is. > >>>>> Spaceman is a rare breed of goon. He believes that the only real > >>>>> physical causes are material things acting on material things. > >>>>> Keep in mind he's an auto mechanic, used to metal touching metal > >>>>> to make things go. He does not believe in fields, he does not > >>>>> believe in structure of space and time other that what he learned > >>>>> in 7th grade math about length, area, volume, and duration. > > >>>> LOL > >>>> metal touching metal? > >>>> LOL > >>>> Apparently you think cars don't use fields such as when a > >>>> coil pack uses to produce high energy sparks to sparkplugs > >>>> and you must have missed the fact that a gas explosion does the > >>>> actual pushing of the metal that gets the engine running. > > >>> That would be material acting on material, no? > > >> Matter causing other matter to move. > >> Yes. > >> It works wonderful > > > Yes, it does, when it applies. > > And when applied properly, it applies to everything. And this statement, without your having any basis for believing this, is precisely what I just told you is worthy of ridicule. And so you do it again. I'm beginning to wonder whether you *crave* ridicule. > But of course you are affraid of that fact. > LOL > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman
From: John Kennaugh on 14 Jul 2008 16:30 PD wrote: >On Jul 12, 6:34�am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >wrote: >> PD wrote: >> >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. >> >> 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. > Now >it is true that Einstein did not have that experimental information in >hand to know that those axioms were wrong. They are not. What Einstein did is assume that electromagnetism is correct (Maxwell is impeccable) and that therefore mechanics has to forfeit its axioms. The alternative was to assume that mechanics is fine and that electrical theory needs a tweak. The only changes needed to electrical theory is the assumption that light is source dependent - which fits perfectly with light being particles and a modification to Coulombs law when the charge is in motion. Everything then works out with Galileo's relativity and Newtonian mechanics. > And it is indeed true that >he based his axioms, and the necessity of ditching the others, on a >*hunch* about how nature worked. The fact that his hunch played out to >experimental success, much to the demise of the previously held >axioms, is remarkable in itself. Divine inspiration perhaps. Actually this is nonsense The first postulate was first proposed by Galileo, and restated by Newton. It had not been accepted for a couple of centuries because of belief in the aether. If there is an aether every iFoR is different as it has a unique speed relative to the aether and while it was thought the principle of relativity held for mechanics it was assumed that it does not hold for optics. It should be possible, it was argued, to devise an experiment the results of which differed depending upon the speed of the iFoR w.r.t the aether. The MMX was such an experiment. There were others. All showed that *experimentally* the principle of relativity holds equally well for optics as for mechanics. Lorentz's theory acknowledges this. The second postulate was not the result of Einstein's genius, nor divine inspiration it was simply a statement reflecting the general view at the time among those brought up on physics dominated by Maxwell. The clue is in his 1905 paper where he goes to some length to justify his first postulate (because he saw that as potentially controversial) but adds the second without comment as he was expressing the accepted view. Don't take my word for it. In the second volume of Sir Edmund Whittaker's "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity", published in 1953: "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely accepted." If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that an observer's speed relative to the aether is always zero i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether. As an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether he will observe the speed of light always to be c whether the source is moving or not. -----------------I will return to this statement ----------------------- After that it is as Waldron says a matter of some clumsy algebra to derive the transforms which Lorentz had already derived 13 years earlier. It is now acknowledged that SR and LET are mathematically identical. They differ only in the theoretical structure. Lorentz theory has one, SR hasn't. Einstein failed totally in trying to find an alternative to the theoretical structure of Lorentz's theory which he objected to. Physics redefined itself and decided that a theory didn't need a theoretical structure. If it hadn't then SR would not qualify as a 'theory'. >One does not despise or dispense with a hunch for *being* just a >hunch, if the hunch turns out to be correct. No hunch. Just an unshakeable belief in Maxwell's wave in aether theory. The daft part is that having sacrificed 3 sensible axioms of physics in order to save the aether, physics decided it didn't like the aether and that physics theories no longer needed physical explanations to compliment the maths. The aether is part of the physical explanation/theoretical structure and so was deemed to be no longer needed. Physics no longer needs to explain nature or try and understand it. Its remit, which it defined itself, is to construct mathematical models. > >> The basis of SR is the >> interpretation of the MMX in terms of Maxwell's wave in aether theory. > >That is incorrect. Einstein took *only* the equations to be the things >that were accurate about nature and dragged *nothing* unnecessary >along with it. The equations themselves imply that c is a constant >independent of the motion of the source, provided that those equations >hold in every inertial reference frame -- just like other laws of >mechanics. And it is *that* "provided" that Einstein assumed, and >nothing else. All that is modern spin. Re-writing history to try and bring it in line with modern thinking. Einstein was still arguing in favour of the aether in 1920 and still considered that light was waves in the aether in 1938. The equations themselves do not imply that c is a constant independent of the motion of the source that comes from one of the two predictions of Maxwells theory Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract from the speed of light in the aether. The MMX tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein chose to assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is wrong one should assume they both are because they are both based upon the same logic. Maxwell's equations were assumed by Maxwell to be correct in the FoR of the aether. If you assume there is no aether there are two solutions. One allows the observer to assume the role of aether = SR. The other allows the source to assume the roll of the aether = ballistic theory. The maths doesn't care which. --------------------------------------------------------------------- A LESSON IN SPIN - Returning to my earlier statement: "If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that an observers speed relative to the aether is always zero i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether. As an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether he will observe the speed of light always to be c whether the source is moving or not." Now lets suppose you are a spin doctor writing a modern text book and you want to sanitize it. "If you assume as Einstein did that *Maxwell's wave in aether theory* is impeccable" Spin Doc - OK we can't say that because it uses the word aether. Let's replace that with "Maxwell's equations" - a student won't understand them so won't be able to argue so it becomes: "If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's equations are impeccable" That's much better we might improve on it but it will do for now. Now carry on: "... and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that *an observer's speed relative to the aether is always zero* " Spin Doc - Again we can't write that. We dare not give the impression that the aether is involved. Instead of *an observer's speed relative to the aether is always zero* lets write "showed that Maxwell's equations hold in all FoR" - we'll gloss over the fact that the MMX wasn't testing Maxwell's equations it was trying to measure the speed of the earth w.r.t the aether but Maxwell's equations describe waves in the aether so if an observer always has zero speed relative to the aether then Maxwell's equations must hold. We now have: "If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's equations are impeccable and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that Maxwell's equations hold in all FoR." Spin Doc - Lets re-write it a bit: "Einstein instinctively understood the importance of Maxwell's equations and realised that the MMX had shown their validity in all frames of reference". That's much better. OK what is the next bit: "i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether. As an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether he will observe the speed of light always to be c whether the source is moving or not." Spin Doc - Again that word "aether". We need to somehow use the phrase "Maxwell's equations" rather than "aether". How about "Einstein realised that Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light is always c (w.r.t the aether but we won't say that) and we have already said that Maxwell's equations are valid in every FoR so the speed of light must be c in all FoR. Now we have: "Einstein instinctively understood the importance of Maxwell's equations and realised that the MMX had shown their validity in all frames of reference. Einstein realised that Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light is always c in a FoR for which they are valid and the second postulate reflects that". Spin Doc - we can improve that how about: "Einstein instinctively understood the validity of Maxwell's equations. He noticed that Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light is always c in a FoR for which they are valid and realised that the MMX had shown them to be valid in all frames of reference. The second postulate reflects that". Maxwell's equations were assumed by Maxwell to be correct in the FoR of the aether. If you assume there is no aether there are two solutions. One allows the observer to assume the role of aether = SR i.e. that Maxwell's equations are valid in the FoR of the observer. The other allows the source to assume the roll of the aether = ballistic theory i.e. Maxwell's equations are valid in the FoR of the source. The maths doesn't care which and the MMX cannot distinguish between the FoR of the source and that of the observer as there is no relative movement between source and observer. The interpretation put on it by Einstein ONLY works if you assume Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. -- John Kennaugh
From: PD on 14 Jul 2008 16:49 On Jul 14, 3:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > PD wrote: > >On Jul 12, 6:34 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> PD wrote: > >> >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. > > >> 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. And I've checked both synchrotron radiation and direct photon production from hadron-hadron collisions, where the source is moving. > > > Now > >it is true that Einstein did not have that experimental information in > >hand to know that those axioms were wrong. > > They are not. What Einstein did is assume that electromagnetism is > correct (Maxwell is impeccable) and that therefore mechanics has to > forfeit its axioms. The alternative was to assume that mechanics is fine > and that electrical theory needs a tweak. The only changes needed to > electrical theory is the assumption that light is source dependent - > which fits perfectly with light being particles and a modification to > Coulombs law when the charge is in motion. Everything then works out > with Galileo's relativity and Newtonian mechanics. > > > And it is indeed true that > >he based his axioms, and the necessity of ditching the others, on a > >*hunch* about how nature worked. The fact that his hunch played out to > >experimental success, much to the demise of the previously held > >axioms, is remarkable in itself. > > Divine inspiration perhaps. Actually this is nonsense > > The first postulate was first proposed by Galileo, and restated by > Newton. It had not been accepted for a couple of centuries because of > belief in the aether. If there is an aether every iFoR is different as > it has a unique speed relative to the aether and while it was thought > the principle of relativity held for mechanics it was assumed that it > does not hold for optics. It should be possible, it was argued, to > devise an experiment the results of which differed depending upon the > speed of the iFoR w.r.t the aether. The MMX was such an experiment. > There were others. All showed that *experimentally* the principle of > relativity holds equally well for optics as for mechanics. Lorentz's > theory acknowledges this. > > The second postulate was not the result of Einstein's genius, nor divine > inspiration it was simply a statement reflecting the general view at the > time among those brought up on physics dominated by Maxwell. The clue is > in his 1905 paper where he goes to some length to justify his first > postulate (because he saw that as potentially controversial) but adds > the second without comment as he was expressing the accepted view. > > Don't take my word for it. In the second volume of Sir Edmund > Whittaker's "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity", > published in 1953: > "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity > theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which > attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the > constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in > a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving > relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely > accepted." > > If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is > impeccable and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX > showed that an observer's speed relative to the aether is always zero > i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether. > As an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether he will observe the speed > of light always to be c whether the source is moving or not. > -----------------I will return to this statement ----------------------- > > After that it is as Waldron says a matter of some clumsy algebra to > derive the transforms which Lorentz had already derived 13 years > earlier. It is now acknowledged that SR and LET are mathematically > identical. They differ only in the theoretical structure. Lorentz theory > has one, SR hasn't. Einstein failed totally in trying to find an > alternative to the theoretical structure of Lorentz's theory which he > objected to. Physics redefined itself and decided that a theory didn't > need a theoretical structure. If it hadn't then SR would not qualify as > a 'theory'. > > >One does not despise or dispense with a hunch for *being* just a > >hunch, if the hunch turns out to be correct. > > No hunch. Just an unshakeable belief in Maxwell's wave in aether theory. > The daft part is that having sacrificed 3 sensible axioms of physics in > order to save the aether, physics decided it didn't like the aether and > that physics theories no longer needed physical explanations to > compliment the maths. The aether is part of the physical > explanation/theoretical structure and so was deemed to be no longer > needed. Physics no longer needs to explain nature or try and understand > it. Its remit, which it defined itself, is to construct mathematical > models. > > > > >> The basis of SR is the > >> interpretation of the MMX in terms of Maxwell's wave in aether theory. > > >That is incorrect. Einstein took *only* the equations to be the things > >that were accurate about nature and dragged *nothing* unnecessary > >along with it. The equations themselves imply that c is a constant > >independent of the motion of the source, provided that those equations > >hold in every inertial reference frame -- just like other laws of > >mechanics. And it is *that* "provided" that Einstein assumed, and > >nothing else. > > All that is modern spin. Re-writing history to try and bring it in line > with modern thinking. Einstein was still arguing in favour of the aether > in 1920 and still considered that light was waves in the aether in 1938. > The equations themselves do not imply that c is a constant independent > of the motion of the source that comes from one of the two predictions > of Maxwells theory > > Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed > of light is independent of the speed of the source. > > Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed > of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract from the > speed of light in the aether. > > The MMX tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein chose to > assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is wrong one should > assume they both are because they are both based upon the same logic. > > Maxwell's equations were assumed by Maxwell to be correct in the FoR of > the aether. If you assume there is no aether there are two solutions. > One allows the observer to assume the role of aether = SR. The other > allows the source to assume the roll of the aether = ballistic theory. > The maths doesn't care which. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > A LESSON IN SPIN - Returning to my earlier statement: > > "If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is > impeccable and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX > showed that an observers speed relative to the aether is always zero > i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether. > As an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether he will observe the speed > of light always to be c whether the source is moving or not." > > Now lets suppose you are a spin doctor writing a modern text book and > you want to sanitize it. > > "If you assume as Einstein did that *Maxwell's wave in aether theory* is > impeccable" > > Spin Doc - OK we can't say that because it uses the word aether. Let's > replace that with "Maxwell's equations" - a student won't understand > them so won't be able to argue so it becomes: > > "If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's equations are impeccable" > > That's much better we might improve on it but it will do for now. Now > carry on: > > "... and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed > that *an observer's speed relative to the aether is always zero* " > > Spin Doc - Again we can't write that. We dare not give the impression > that the aether is involved. Instead of *an observer's speed relative to > the aether is always zero* lets write "showed that Maxwell's equations > hold in all FoR" - we'll gloss over the fact that the MMX wasn't testing > Maxwell's equations it was trying to measure the speed of the earth > w.r.t the aether but Maxwell's equations describe waves in the aether so > if an observer always has zero speed relative to the aether then > Maxwell's equations must hold. We now have: > > "If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's equations are impeccable > and if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that > Maxwell's equations hold in all FoR." > > Spin Doc - Lets re-write it a bit: > > "Einstein instinctively understood the importance of Maxwell's equations > and realised that the MMX had shown their validity in all frames of > reference". > > That's much better. OK what is the next bit: > > "i.e. that an observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the > aether. As an observer is stationary w.r.t the aether he will observe > the speed of light always to be c whether the source is moving or not." > > Spin Doc - Again that word "aether". We need to somehow use the phrase > "Maxwell's equations" rather than "aether". How about "Einstein realised > that Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light is always c > (w.r.t the aether but we won't say that) and we have already said that > Maxwell's equations are valid in every FoR so the speed of light must be > c in all FoR. Now we have: > > "Einstein instinctively understood the importance of Maxwell's equations > and realised that the MMX had shown their validity in all frames of > reference. Einstein realised that Maxwell's equations imply that the > speed of light is always c in a FoR for which they are valid and the > second postulate reflects that". > > Spin Doc - we can improve that how about: > > "Einstein instinctively understood the validity of Maxwell's equations. > He noticed that Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light is > always c in a FoR for which they are valid and realised that the MMX had > shown them to be valid in all frames of reference. The second postulate > reflects that". > > Maxwell's equations were assumed by Maxwell to be correct in the FoR of > the aether. If you assume there is no aether there are two solutions. > One allows the observer to assume the role of aether = SR i.e. that > Maxwell's equations are valid in the FoR of the observer. The other > allows the source to assume the roll of the aether = ballistic theory > i.e. Maxwell's equations are valid in the FoR of the source. The maths > doesn't care which and the MMX cannot distinguish between the FoR of the > source and that of the observer as there is no relative movement between > source and observer. The interpretation put on it by Einstein ONLY works > if you assume > > Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed > of light is independent of the speed of the source. > > -- > John Kennaugh
From: Sue... on 14 Jul 2008 16:50
On Jul 14, 4:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: [...] > > Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed > of light is independent of the speed of the source. That almost works but Newton's aether didn't work for electric charges or their associated fields. Try: ~Because the speed is controlled by the free-space dielectric the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source.~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space BTW I moved our dissusion of particle light to http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/f77c731a4595cc08# but I really hope you have no further interest in Newton's concept of light or discussing it except as a historical foot note. ;-) Regards, Sue... > > -- > John Kennaugh |