EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Greg Neill on 15 Jul 2008 18:17 "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:6hVIy7N4aNfIFw3z(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk > Greg Neill wrote: >> "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:m4TfUKGh6GfIFwFq(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk >>> PD wrote: >> >>>> Both. Filipas and Fox explicitly checked photon speeds from moving >>>> sources. >>> >>> I haven't found a write up of that one only loads of people like >>> yourself quoting it as being true. If you know of one then point me >>> to it. >> >> Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. >> >> See also the section "Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources" >> at: >> >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >> > That is not a write - up it is a 2 line conclusion You are not being prevented from securing a copy of Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964) and reading the contents. Consider yourself pointed, as per request.
From: Jerry on 16 Jul 2008 01:22 On Jul 15, 5:17 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "John Kennaugh" <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > news:6hVIy7N4aNfIFw3z(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk > > Greg Neill wrote: > >> Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. > > >> See also the section "Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources" > >> at: > > >>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > That is not a write - up it is a 2 line conclusion > > You are not being prevented from securing a copy of > Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964) and reading the contents. > Consider yourself pointed, as per request. http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf Prediction: It won't make any difference to Kennaugh. He is guaranteed to reject the paper's conclusions, never mind that J.G. Fox was the person who originally pointed out that most early studies on the constancy of the velocity of light could be critiqued on the basis of extinction arguments. http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Fox_1967.pdf Jerry
From: John Kennaugh on 16 Jul 2008 05:56 Jerry wrote: >On Jul 15, 5:17�pm, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: >> "John Kennaugh" <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:6hVIy7N4aNfIFw3z(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk >> > Greg Neill wrote: >> >> Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. >> >> >> See also the section "Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources" >> >> at: >> >> >>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >> >> > That is not a write - up it is a 2 line conclusion >> >> You are not being prevented from securing a copy of >> Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964) and reading the contents. >> Consider yourself pointed, as per request. � > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf Thank you very much for that. At last I have something to study. >Prediction: >It won't make any difference to Kennaugh. He is guaranteed to >reject the paper's conclusions, never mind that J.G. Fox was the >person who originally pointed out that most early studies on the >constancy of the velocity of light could be critiqued on the >basis of extinction arguments. You are at least better informed than some on this NG. The question you should ask is "Who is championing the ballistic theory and looking at the experiment critically to see whether it does indeed rule out ballistic theory." Something so important should not be down to a rank amateur like me who makes no claim to be either a physicist or a mathematician. Someone like you is easy to convince as it is simply confirming what you already believe. I studied the Alvaeger experiment as I had been told that was the most convincing evidence available. I found a number of areas of concern where it has been assumed erroneously that a ballistic theory would have nothing to say. Essentially therefore what had been disproved is a relativist's view of what a ballistic theory might say. Ritz's theory, which Fox acknowledges as " so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, comes so close to describing correctly the vast quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory." is 60 years without further development. Waldron's theory which took account of later knowledge is ignored. I haven't studied Fox's paper and will not be able to but a superficial look gives me the impression that Fox gives me a reason that I hadn't thought of to reject the Alvaeger experiment without actually addressing any of the concerns I already had about it. As I say that judgement may be premature as I haven't studied it properly yet and Fox is better informed about ballistic theory than most. If Fox is correct then had experiments been looked at properly and critically SR and ballistic theory should have been considered equally valid, i.e. put on an equal footing, until 1964 because it is not until then according to Fox that ballistic theory has been shown to be wrong. That should worry you but I somehow doubt that it will. >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Fox_1967.pdf > >Jerry I'm not going to be around to continue this thread. -- John Kennaugh "Conformity may even bring you a university chair, but all advance comes from non conformity. If there had been no troublemakers, no dissenters, we should still be living in caves" - A J P Taylor (historian)
From: NoEinstein on 16 Jul 2008 21:00 On Jul 14, 7:04 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: For a simpleton you sometimes ask good questions. Your question: "...where does ether go?" It doesn't 'pile up', because ether flow can continue 'in' toward masses like the Sun, only because matter, and/or energy is flowing out. In effect the outflow of charged particles is replacing the ether... "out there". Or said another way: "Nothing out, nothing in." That's why the gravity of a pre black hole cuts off as soon as the matter gets so tight that there isn't "wiggle room" for the nuclei. When the wiggle stops, the temperature goes to absolute zero. Under those conditions there can be nothing emitted out. So, the ether no longer has the pressure differential to keep flowing in. That's why the star distribution data for the Andromeda Galaxy shows an "unexplained" (except by me) gap in the stars near the center. This is where those stars being 'sucked in' got a reprieve and went shooting off on a tangent, the same as would happen if you were swinging a rock on a string, and the string broke. The reason the stars didn't keep going out on their tangent lines, is because the EFFECTIVE gravity of Andromeda is still concentrated at the center. The stars had a reduction in their gravity that was in proportion to the mass of the PRE black hole, compared to the mass of such PLUS the mass of all of Andromeda's other matter. The size of the gap should enable determining just what the mass of a PRE black hole is. That's important, because PRE black holes are the most massive singular objects in the universe. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 16 Jul 2008 21:31
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. In 1905 there were none. The *assumption* of source independence > was a result of belief that the speed of light waves was controlled by > the medium in which they propagated, the aether, so could not be > affected by the source. Those who have looked critically at experiments > will tell you that no experiment prior to 1964 need be considered as > valid. > > Neither is it true that Einstein came up with a theory which did not > need the aether. His starting point was Lorentz's aether theory. He said > of Lorentz that he had made the greatest contribution to electrical > theory since Maxwell. His objection to Lorentz's theory was the > asymmetry in the theoretical structure but he failed to come up with an > alternative theoretical structure. He argued in favour of retaining the > aether but argued that that did not have to mean that it had associated > with it a unique frame of reference as per Lorentz. To most people this > is nonsense. > > The way the aether was 'got rid of' was by means of physics redefining > itself and deciding that a theory did not require a theoretical > structure. The mathematics of Maxwell give accurate predictions so the > new thinking said that physics need not concern itself as to whether the > waves the equations describe physically exist or if they do, what they > are waves in so the aether became redundant in the new mathematically > based physics. In view of this, Einstein's failure to come up with an > alternative theoretical structure to Lorentz's was no bar to his theory. > > It is a bit hard on Lorentz. SR and Lorentz's theory are mathematically > identical and Lorentz produced the maths first. > > I believe in the physical reality of the physical world. I believe it > should be a necessary part of physics to try and understand that > physical reality rather than simply model it mathematically. I believe > it is a valid question as to whether the waves of Maxwell's equations > are physical waves or not and if not what is the physical nature of > light and how do Maxwell's equations relate to it. > > It appears that Maxwell's waves do not physically exist and that light > is particulate - photons. Maxwell's waves are waves of probability. They > show statistically and accurately the result produced by millions of > photons. Physics no longer considers it part of its remit to try and > understand why photons behave in such a way as to fit Maxwell's > statistical wave equations. I think it should be. > > I see the reason that physics redefined itself as being that had it not > done so it would have had to reject a theory it had already accepted, > gone back and rethought it i.e. accepted it had got it wrong. I think it > had. > > -- > John Kennaugh > It is a students birthright to question what he is taught.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear John: You are most articulate. A big difference between our approaches to information gathering is that you delve into what others have argued and try to act as a judge. Very early I realized that the long explanations of others were tending to bias the reader based on how good the wording was, not on how good the reasoning was. When I took college physics, I already knew that Einstein was considered the top intellect. Yet, there were so many counter intuitive things being said. When I heard that M-M was supposed to be a comparison of two orthogonal light courses, I realized, immediately (but stayed quiet), that both of those light courses had components in BOTH orthogonal directions. I knew that any explanation for the nil results of M-M had to be because of the misunderstanding of its geometry. Decades later, I became so incensed by all of the Big Bang garbage that I knew Einstein's ideaswhich resulted from M-Mcould most easily be disproved by invalidating M-M. So, I walked to my local public library; looked up Michelson-Morley; and in just one hour of thought and sketching, I realized that M-M LACKED A CONTROL. Interference is a comparison of two light beams. If both of those beams always require the same amount of time to circuit the apparatus, then the fringes won't change. Since the fringes on M-M didn't change, then my explanation could be proved, algebraically, by writing simple equations for the times of travel of the light. My calculations correct to 9 decimal placesprove that by assuming that light velocity speeds up or slows down matching the velocity of the source, the times of travel of the two light courses will be exactly equal! No one in science has been interested in having Einstein be disproved using just 10th grade algebra. So, I designed my own X, Y, Z interferometer with the CONTROL light course on the Z axis, only. [M-M had all of the optics on just X and Y and none on the Z axis.] Writing flowery arguments wouldn't be necessary if arm-chair physicists would just do a little algebra to see for themselves that M- M has no CONTROL. Hope you will follow my thread to understand more about my disproofs of SR and GR. NoEinstein Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# |