EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 14 Jul 2008 19:04 On Jul 14, 5:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 11, 8:31 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 10, 10:21 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: > > > > PD wrote: > > > > On Jul 10, 10:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > > > wrote: > > > >> PD wrote: > > > >>> You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things > > > >>> bonking up against material things -- that is not the only thing > > > >>> that counts as a "physical cause". > > > > >> LOL > > > >> poor PD. > > > >> You just proved you don't have physical causes. > > > >> you need physical material to produce physical causes. > > > > > That's what YOU say. Note that Newton did not offer that for gravity. > > > > Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun > > > > that delivers the energy from the sun. > > > > Newton never said he had the cause of gravity. > > > So plasma is not a physical material? > > > Why yes it is. Newton knew nothing about it, but yes, plasma is a > > physical material. Are you saying that plasma is what's responsible > > for gravity? > > Now, please note that, at the location of the Earth, the flow of > > plasma AWAY from the sun is 10,000,000 times greater than the flow of > > plasma TOWARD the sun. So explain again, Spaceman, how that plasma is > > responsible for the gravitational pull TOWARD the sun? > > > > You truly know nothing about space! > > > LOL > > > > -- > > > James M Driscoll Jr > > > Spaceman- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear PD: It isn't! Gravity (in the case stated) is caused by the > flow of ether toward the Sun! NoEinstein And where does that ether go when it gets there? Where has it been piling up for the last several billion years? And why, when the Earth gets between the sun and the moon, doesn't the moon block some of the flow of the ether toward the sun and cause the gravitational pull to lessen, or why doesn't the Earth block some of the flow of the ether toward the sun and lessen the pull on the moon? And suppose you pick a point between the Earth and the Sun where the pull of the Sun exactly matches the pull of the Earth. If you go a little closer to the sun, then the sun starts to win, meaning that there is now ether flow toward the sun; but if you go a little closer to the earth, then the earth starts to win, meaning that there is now ether flow toward the earth. So where at that point is the ether coming from, that it is flowing toward the sun on one side and flowing toward the earth on the other side? I'm sure you have answers! You're a genius! PD
From: John Kennaugh on 15 Jul 2008 04:47 Greg Neill wrote: >"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:bQGQOjTwd7eIFw4p(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk > >> Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the >> speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. >> >> Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the >> speed of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract >> from the speed of light in the aether. >> >> The MMX tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein chose >> to assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is wrong one >> should assume they both are because they are both based upon the same >> logic. > >Einstein had the benefit of the knowledge that all >experimental checks on the speed of light were >indicating independance of the speed of light from the >motion of the source, It is actually incredibly difficult to produce an experiment showing source independence and if anyone has told you otherwise you have been conned. In 1905 there were none. The *assumption* of source independence was a result of belief that the speed of light waves was controlled by the medium in which they propagated, the aether, so could not be affected by the source. Those who have looked critically at experiments will tell you that no experiment prior to 1964 need be considered as valid. Neither is it true that Einstein came up with a theory which did not need the aether. His starting point was Lorentz's aether theory. He said of Lorentz that he had made the greatest contribution to electrical theory since Maxwell. His objection to Lorentz's theory was the asymmetry in the theoretical structure but he failed to come up with an alternative theoretical structure. He argued in favour of retaining the aether but argued that that did not have to mean that it had associated with it a unique frame of reference as per Lorentz. To most people this is nonsense. The way the aether was 'got rid of' was by means of physics redefining itself and deciding that a theory did not require a theoretical structure. The mathematics of Maxwell give accurate predictions so the new thinking said that physics need not concern itself as to whether the waves the equations describe physically exist or if they do, what they are waves in so the aether became redundant in the new mathematically based physics. In view of this, Einstein's failure to come up with an alternative theoretical structure to Lorentz's was no bar to his theory. It is a bit hard on Lorentz. SR and Lorentz's theory are mathematically identical and Lorentz produced the maths first. I believe in the physical reality of the physical world. I believe it should be a necessary part of physics to try and understand that physical reality rather than simply model it mathematically. I believe it is a valid question as to whether the waves of Maxwell's equations are physical waves or not and if not what is the physical nature of light and how do Maxwell's equations relate to it. It appears that Maxwell's waves do not physically exist and that light is particulate - photons. Maxwell's waves are waves of probability. They show statistically and accurately the result produced by millions of photons. Physics no longer considers it part of its remit to try and understand why photons behave in such a way as to fit Maxwell's statistical wave equations. I think it should be. I see the reason that physics redefined itself as being that had it not done so it would have had to reject a theory it had already accepted, gone back and rethought it i.e. accepted it had got it wrong. I think it had. -- John Kennaugh It is a students birthright to question what he is taught.
From: John Kennaugh on 15 Jul 2008 05:32 PD wrote: >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. I haven't found a write up of that one only loads of people like yourself quoting it as being true. If you know of one then point me to it. It does however seem to be similar to other experiments which I have looked at such as Alvaeger et al 1964. This was once recommended to me by Franz Heymann as the most convincing evidence of source independence. One problem is that IF light is source dependent the current theory is wrong. The experiment is highly technical and draws on current theory. This is worrying in that they may be trying to prove an alternate theory wrong by drawing on current theory and therefore assuming current theory is right which therefore assumes the alternate theory is wrong in the first place. This is not necessarily the case but you should put a question mark every time I say "Current theory says". The only thing one can say for sure in the Alvager et al experiment is that high energy particles hit a beryllium target and the result was gamma photons apparently travelling at c relative to the beryllium target as would be expected by ballistic theory. If you say that the beryllium target is the source then it has proved nothing at all but 'current theory says' that an interim stage exists - a pion was created travelling at 0.9999c and this is what decayed into gamma photons so constituting a moving source. A pion (neutral pi-meson) if it exists at all exists for only 8.4 x 10^-17 s which means that it does not exist long enough to prove it exists, nor to measure its speed both are therefore a figment of current theory' and even if it does when it decays it does so within the atomic structure of the beryllium target and does not travel in free space at all. I don't think we know enough to say what interaction will take place between the photons and the atomic structure of the Beryllium before it exits and anything assumed will be based upon 'current theory'. Ballistic theory says that a photon ejected by an atom travels at c w.r.t the structure as a whole not at c w.r.t the individual atom. A pion (if such a thing exists) decaying within the atomic structure of a metal would presumably be subject to those same constraints. > And I've checked both synchrotron radiation and direct photon >production from hadron-hadron collisions, where the source is moving. A reference I can look at would be useful. I am always willing to look at evidence. Two predictions of Maxwells theory were: Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract from the speed of light in the aether. The MMX showed the second was false and here we are 100 years later trying to prove the aether exists by showing the first to be true because a century of physics has been built on it and we still haven't worked out that if there is no aether a source is surrounded by nothing which can take part in a physical process so the only physical process which can determine the speed of light is that taking place in the source. -- John Kennaugh
From: PD on 15 Jul 2008 07:29 On Jul 15, 4:32 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > PD wrote: > >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. > > I haven't found a write up of that one only loads of people like > yourself quoting it as being true. If you know of one then point me to > it. It's available in any university library, or you could try scholar.google.com. > > It does however seem to be similar to other experiments which I have > looked at such as Alvaeger et al 1964. This was once recommended to me > by Franz Heymann as the most convincing evidence of source independence. > > One problem is that IF light is source dependent the current theory is > wrong. That's right. > The experiment is highly technical and draws on current theory. > This is worrying in that they may be trying to prove an alternate theory > wrong by drawing on current theory and therefore assuming current theory > is right which therefore assumes the alternate theory is wrong in the > first place. This is not necessarily the case but you should put a > question mark every time I say "Current theory says". This general kind of fret, that any technical experiment has to assume the very model its testing, is an ill-advised one. Experiments like this, especially ones that endure despite strong scrutiny, have been designed specifically to avoid that. Otherwise, they would not be good experimental tests. The details of how that is avoided is thoroughly described in the article that stems from the experiment. I invite you to look it up. > > The only thing one can say for sure in the Alvager et al experiment is > that high energy particles hit a beryllium target and the result was > gamma photons apparently travelling at c relative to the beryllium > target as would be expected by ballistic theory. > > If you say that the beryllium target is the source then it has > proved nothing at all but 'current theory says' that an interim stage > exists - a pion was created travelling at 0.9999c and this is what > decayed into gamma photons so constituting a moving source. > > A pion (neutral pi-meson) if it exists at all exists for only 8.4 x > 10^-17 s which means that it does not exist long enough to prove it > exists, I think you underestimate experimental sensitivity. If you want to learn more about the experimental understanding of the neutral pion, you should look up the (many) references in the pi-zero portion of the Particle Data Groups compendium: http://pdg.lbl.gov. But as a word of caution: If you *automatically* question the validity of any experimental result that conflicts with your favorite model, then you are skirting dangerously toward crankish practices and away from scientific balance. > nor to measure its speed both are therefore a figment of current > theory' and even if it does when it decays it does so within the atomic > structure of the beryllium target and does not travel in free space at > all. I don't think we know enough to say what interaction will take > place between the photons and the atomic structure of the Beryllium > before it exits and anything assumed will be based upon 'current > theory'. Ballistic theory says that a photon ejected by an atom travels > at c w.r.t the structure as a whole not at c w.r.t the individual atom. > A pion (if such a thing exists) decaying within the atomic structure of > a metal would presumably be subject to those same constraints. > > > And I've checked both synchrotron radiation and direct photon > >production from hadron-hadron collisions, where the source is moving. > > A reference I can look at would be useful. I am always willing to look > at evidence. For direct photon production, you can look at the NIM papers for the E706 collaboration, Fermilab. Paul Slattery was the collaboration leader, if that helps. > > Two predictions of Maxwells theory were: > > Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed > of light is independent of the speed of the source. > > Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed > of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract from the > speed of light in the aether. > > The MMX showed the second was false and here we are 100 years later > trying to prove the aether exists by showing the first to be true > because a century of physics has been built on it and we still haven't > worked out that if there is no aether a source is surrounded by nothing > which can take part in a physical process so the only physical process > which can determine the speed of light is that taking place in the > source. > -- > John Kennaugh
From: Sue... on 15 Jul 2008 07:41
On Jul 15, 4:47 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: > >"John Kennaugh" <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:bQGQOjTwd7eIFw4p(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk > > >> Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the > >> speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. > > >> Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the > >> speed of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract > >> from the speed of light in the aether. > > >> The MMX tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein chose > >> to assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is wrong one > >> should assume they both are because they are both based upon the same > >> logic. > > >Einstein had the benefit of the knowledge that all > >experimental checks on the speed of light were > >indicating independance of the speed of light from the > >motion of the source, > > It is actually incredibly difficult to produce an experiment showing > source independence and if anyone has told you otherwise you have been > conned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment Sue... > John Kennaugh > It is a students birthright to question what he is taught. |