EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 16 Jul 2008 21:38 On Jul 15, 11:11 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > Dear Greg: You are great with verbiage, but poor with reasoning. Words alone can't validate your errant thinking. NoEinstein > > "John Kennaugh" <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:YZyAMaDnQGfIFwBj(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk > > > > > > > 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. > > It's actually easier to measure velocity diffrences than > velocity itself by employing interferrometric devices. > > > 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. > > I find that rather hard to believe. De Sitter had some good > ideas on the matter as far back as the second decade of the > twentieth century. Doppler redshift masurements were being made > from 1848 (Doppler-Fizeau effect). > > > > > 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. > > The aether of which he subsequently showed to be unnecessary, > and in fact turned out to be non existent. > > > 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. > > He banished the Lorentzian aether (a aether of substance, no > matter how strange its properties) and recast the word to > refer to space itself with its inherent properties. > > > > > 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. > > This may be your opinion, but it is not a demonstrable fact. > Physics did not abandon the scientific method. It is still > defined in the same way. The fact that a mechanical aether > is not tenable may be bothersome for some (you perhaps?), but > physics cannot and should not dictate what Nature is, only > uncover what it is. If what it is goes against our common > sense notions, then it's just bad luck for common sense. > > > 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. > > The aether also became untenable after M&M. And as opposed to > your viewpoint, physicists have been very concious of the > possible implications of wave-particle duality, and have > devoted a great deal of philosophical thinking to it. > > > In view of this, Einstein's failure to > > come up with an alternative theoretical structure to Lorentz's was no > > bar to his theory. > > You seem to be of the opinion that a physical theory needs > to be built upon a gear, lever, and cog underpinning. It > does not. Physics has never been so restricted, even in pre- > Newtonian eras. The ancients thought gravity was the result > of things "wanting" to find their natural place. Newton was > more sophisticated but still left the "reason" for action at a > distance without explanation. Einstein does nothing new by > constructing a theory based upon a set of postulates. > > > > > 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. > > Well, that's all well and good. You should pursue your own > theory then, based upon some "physical" underpinning of your > choice. When you can demonstrate that it accords with all > empirical data then you'll have something that people will > take notice of. Given the current track record of Relativity, > it might be easiest to show that your theory makes mathematically > identical predictions under all the conditions that Relativity > has so far. > > Once you've got your theory in hand you can set about > demolishing Relativity by its philosophical underpinnings > and show the superiority of your own for its "physical" > basis. Simply attacking Relativity because you don't like > it won't hold water, I'm afraid. > > > > > 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. > > One at a time photon Young's experiments show that the wave > nature persists unto the individual photon. Quantum experiments > show that photons have the peculiar quality of being able to > take all possible paths at once from a source to and end point. > No classical "physical" particle can sustain that sort of trick. > > > > > 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. > > That's nonsense. Herculean efforts were being made by > physicists at the turn of the last century to save the > aether and Newtonian physics. Relativity was not an > overnight done deal. The history of physics is a history > of things tried, tested, and modified or rejected. > Working models are not abandoned out of sense of fashion, > but due to necessity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 16 Jul 2008 21:45 On Jul 15, 12:32 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Sue... wrote: > >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 > > "Thus it cannot be argued that the data on binary stars provides support > for the emission theory [source dependency]. However it does seem, > contrary to what has been believed for several decades, that the data on > binary stars does not offer any evidence against emission theory". > J.G. Fox, "Evidence Against Emission Theories"- American Journal of > Physics, Volume 33, #1, Jan. 1965 > > Waldron came to the same conclusion. > > The following quote is of interest: > "Fox claims to have invalidated the majority, if not all, of the speed- > of-light experiments (including binary star observations) that have > been conducted to help us choose between Ritz and Einstein.... Fox gave > a decision in favour of Einstein, but did so in a manner that seems to > suggest that the final verdict is not in. In private correspondence Fox > says: > > '...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's > theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and > Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity > of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'" > > Note that Ritz's theory was 1908 and 60 years later it still "comes so > close". Waldron analysis of Ritz theory says that Ritz could not take > account of the later experiments which he, Waldron has done and had got > some things wrong. I am not aware of Fox giving an appraisal of > Waldron's work [1]. Either way Ritz theory was ignored after his death a > year after publishing his theory and virtually written out of the > history books. Waldron worked on his theory part time and has been > ignored. If you believe that that constitutes a thorough, fair and > detailed appraisal of what is the biggest challenge to relativity then I > do not. > > -- > John Kennaugh- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear John: If the distances to binary stars are great enough the Doppler effect will be nullified by the action of the ether through which the light travels. Ether will maintain a light velocity of 'c', only. Under certain intense light conditions, ether can be tunneled through (pushed out of the way), so that light can keep traveling above velocity 'c'. In which case, the Doppler effect can measure the rotational speed of the binary stars. NoEinstein
From: maxwell on 20 Jul 2008 23:50 On Jul 16, 2:56 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >... Hello John: I have been meaning to write to you now for some time, as you seem to be a fellow 'old-timer' who is totally dissatisfied with the direction of modern physics. I share this viewpoint & would guess that it reflects our common UK education that views physics from a Newtonian/ philosophical perspective rather than the Cartesian/Continentalist approach that has continued for 2500 years to push the Pythagorean/ Platonic mathematical view. I have been following your recent efforts in this thread and others, to get the current revisionist view of SR corrected: a most valiant effort but one that cannot overcome the lack of historical or philosophical knowledge demonstrated by your antagonists (and almost all theoretical physicists in the last 50 years!). It still seems astonishing to me that students today do not realize that SR is grounded in Maxwell's EM aether theory. The attempt to retain his wave theory while dropping the aether could only be acceptable to mathematicians who have no physical intuition. You give theoretical physics too much credence: it almost never makes predictions but tries very hard to generate accurate retrodictions to fit with numbers already derived from experiments. The philosophical naievety of today's physicists is repeatedly demonstrated when they claim that any of these retrodictive agreements proves that their theory is 'true', instead of simply accurate: multiple theories can come up with similar results, e.g. Ptolemy. My studies of Maxwell indicate that he was opposed to Newton's inter- particle action-at-a-distance metaphysics (as used in his theory of gravity). Maxwell's religious views needed ALL of space filled with God's immanence: the field was the mathematical representation of this universal 'force', a direct update of Descartes' rival view of contact force filling all of space. Newton was always intensely opposed to DesCartes' aether type theories. L. V. Lorenz proposed an inter-charge action-at-a-distance theory of EM in 1867 that Maxwell reluctantly acknowledged in a short note in his 1873 Treatise as equally capable of predicting all the results that Maxwell had achieved with his own field theory. You were quite right: Maxwell never renounced his aether theory, even though his Lagangian approach (in the Treatise) tried to hide the aether connection. Those people (like PD = Peter Draper) who think experiment confirms Maxwell's theory have it backwards, Maxwell developed a micro theory to be compatible with all the known macroscopic experiments (like Faraday's Law). I loved your 'Lesson in Spin'. This accurately reflects the mental gymnastics that have beeen used to convert the classical EM theories of circa 1900 into today's orthodoxy. I would highly recommend Harvard science historian Stanley Goldberg's 'Understanding Relativity' as a solid review of how Einstein's SR was initially rejected & finally accepted over the following 40 years (as his critics died off). I have investigated Ritz's emission/ballistic theory & eventually found it inadequate. The sticking point for all these 'classical' EM theories is the electron - the experimental evidence that all electricity is materially discrete. This blows the 'charge-density' model out of the window and returns physics to Newton's particulate view of the world. My own research indicates that an asynchronous action-at-a-distance inter-electron model is a more powerful basis for a complete theory of modern physics. In this theory, the only ontological entity required is the electron; there is no need for an additional object (photon or wave) to 'carry' the EM interaction. Enough for now. Good luck with your rearguard defence of British 'commonsense'. Herb Spencer ('Maxwell') PhD, DIC, BSc
From: NoEinstein on 23 Jul 2008 19:05 On Jul 20, 11:50 pm, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > On Jul 16, 2:56 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote:>... > > Hello John: > I have been meaning to write to you now for some time, as you seem to > be a fellow 'old-timer' who is totally dissatisfied with the direction > of modern physics. I share this viewpoint & would guess that it > reflects our common UK education that views physics from a Newtonian/ > philosophical perspective rather than the Cartesian/Continentalist > approach that has continued for 2500 years to push the Pythagorean/ > Platonic mathematical view. > > I have been following your recent efforts in this thread and others, > to get the current revisionist view of SR corrected: a most valiant > effort but one that cannot overcome the lack of historical or > philosophical knowledge demonstrated by your antagonists (and almost > all theoretical physicists in the last 50 years!). > > It still seems astonishing to me that students today do not realize > that SR is grounded in Maxwell's EM aether theory. The attempt to > retain his wave theory while dropping the aether could only be > acceptable to mathematicians who have no physical intuition. You give > theoretical physics too much credence: it almost never makes > predictions but tries very hard to generate accurate retrodictions to > fit with numbers already derived from experiments. The philosophical > naievety of today's physicists is repeatedly demonstrated when they > claim that any of these retrodictive agreements proves that their > theory is 'true', instead of simply accurate: multiple theories can > come up with similar results, e.g. Ptolemy. > > My studies of Maxwell indicate that he was opposed to Newton's inter- > particle action-at-a-distance metaphysics (as used in his theory of > gravity). Maxwell's religious views needed ALL of space filled with > God's immanence: the field was the mathematical representation of this > universal 'force', a direct update of Descartes' rival view of contact > force filling all of space. Newton was always intensely opposed to > DesCartes' aether type theories. > > L. V. Lorenz proposed an inter-charge action-at-a-distance theory of > EM in 1867 that Maxwell reluctantly acknowledged in a short note in > his 1873 Treatise as equally capable of predicting all the results > that Maxwell had achieved with his own field theory. You were quite > right: Maxwell never renounced his aether theory, even though his > Lagangian approach (in the Treatise) tried to hide the aether > connection. Those people (like PD = Peter Draper) who think experiment > confirms Maxwell's theory have it backwards, Maxwell developed a > micro theory to be compatible with all the known macroscopic > experiments (like Faraday's Law). > > I loved your 'Lesson in Spin'. This accurately reflects the mental > gymnastics that have beeen used to convert the classical EM theories > of circa 1900 into today's orthodoxy. I would highly recommend Harvard > science historian Stanley Goldberg's 'Understanding Relativity' as a > solid review of how Einstein's SR was initially rejected & finally > accepted over the following 40 years (as his critics died off). > > I have investigated Ritz's emission/ballistic theory & eventually > found it inadequate. The sticking point for all these 'classical' EM > theories is the electron - the experimental evidence that all > electricity is materially discrete. This blows the 'charge-density' > model out of the window and returns physics to Newton's particulate > view of the world. > > My own research indicates that an asynchronous action-at-a-distance > inter-electron model is a more powerful basis for a complete theory of > modern physics. In this theory, the only ontological entity required > is the electron; there is no need for an additional object (photon or > wave) to 'carry' the EM interaction. > Enough for now. Good luck with your rearguard defence of British > 'commonsense'. > Herb Spencer ('Maxwell') PhD, DIC, BSc Dear Maxwell: Your namesake, (James Clerk) Maxwell proposed to A. A. Michelson that his new interferometer might be able to detect the slowing of light caused by the Earth passing through the supposed, but unverified, luminiferous ether. The last sentence shows Maxwell, and all who have supported Lorentz and Einstein since, to have been lacking in fundamental common sense. To wit: The concept that light can be slowed in passing through the ether, also, must suppose that light can be slowed much more in passing through a lot of ether. The M-M experiment had a maximum path length of less than 100 feet (using multiple reflections of the light). It was supposed by Michelson that multiple fringe shifts should be detectedbut none were. If light had been detected as "being slowed", then the rate of slowing over, say, the distance to the Sun would be such that no light would reach the Earth. No light equals no life on Earth Because of that simple reasoning, the M-M experiment is invalidated as a 'concept'. I have also invalidated such because I realized that M-M didn't have a CONTROL, or unchanging light course. The above two paragraphs disproves Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, and disproves SR and GR. But the ether is alive and well! Ether NURTURES light on its course, because light and ether are the same 'stuff'. Varying ether density and flow explains every single observation in nature. Ether is the 'stuff' of all matter, and the mechanism of all forces. Understand ether, and you understand creation! NoEinstein 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#
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 23 Jul 2008 19:35
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:05:38 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Jul 20, 11:50�pm, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> On Jul 16, 2:56�am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >> wrote:>... >> >> Hello John: >> I have been meaning to write to you now for some time, as you seem to >> be a fellow 'old-timer' who is totally dissatisfied with the direction >> of modern physics. I share this viewpoint & would guess that it >> reflects our common UK education that views physics from a Newtonian/ >> philosophical perspective rather than the Cartesian/Continentalist >> approach that has continued for 2500 years to push the Pythagorean/ >> Platonic mathematical view. >> >> I have been following your recent efforts in this thread and others, >> to get the current revisionist view of SR corrected: a most valiant >> effort but one that cannot overcome the lack of historical or >> philosophical knowledge demonstrated by your antagonists (and almost >> all theoretical physicists in the last 50 years!). >> >> It still seems astonishing to me that students today do not realize >> that SR is grounded in Maxwell's EM aether theory. The attempt to >> retain his wave theory while dropping the aether could only be >> acceptable to mathematicians who have no physical intuition. You give >> theoretical physics too much credence: it almost never makes >> predictions but tries very hard to generate accurate retrodictions to >> fit with numbers already derived from experiments. �The philosophical >> naievety of today's physicists is repeatedly demonstrated when they >> claim that any of these retrodictive agreements proves that their >> theory is 'true', instead of simply accurate: multiple theories can >> come up with similar results, e.g. Ptolemy. >> >> My studies of Maxwell indicate that he was opposed to Newton's inter- >> particle action-at-a-distance metaphysics (as used in his theory of >> gravity). �Maxwell's religious views needed ALL of space filled with >> God's immanence: the field was the mathematical representation of this >> universal 'force', a direct update of Descartes' rival view of contact >> force filling all of space. �Newton was always intensely opposed to >> DesCartes' aether type theories. >> >> L. V. Lorenz proposed an inter-charge action-at-a-distance theory of >> EM in 1867 that Maxwell reluctantly acknowledged in a short note in >> his 1873 Treatise as equally capable of predicting all the results >> that Maxwell had achieved with his own field theory. �You were quite >> right: Maxwell never renounced his aether theory, even though his >> Lagangian approach (in the Treatise) tried to hide the aether >> connection. Those people (like PD = Peter Draper) who think experiment >> confirms Maxwell's theory have it backwards, �Maxwell developed a >> micro theory to be compatible with all the known macroscopic >> experiments (like Faraday's Law). >> >> I loved your 'Lesson in Spin'. �This accurately reflects the mental >> gymnastics that have beeen used to convert the classical EM theories >> of circa 1900 into today's orthodoxy. I would highly recommend Harvard >> science historian Stanley Goldberg's 'Understanding Relativity' as a >> solid review of how Einstein's SR was initially rejected & finally >> accepted over the following 40 years (as his critics died off). >> >> I have investigated Ritz's emission/ballistic theory & eventually >> found it inadequate. �The sticking point for all these 'classical' EM >> theories is the electron - the experimental evidence that all >> electricity is materially discrete. �This blows the 'charge-density' >> model out of the window and returns physics to Newton's particulate >> view of the world. >> >> My own research indicates that an asynchronous action-at-a-distance >> inter-electron model is a more powerful basis for a complete theory of >> modern physics. In this theory, the only ontological entity required >> is the electron; there is no need for an additional object (photon or >> wave) to 'carry' the EM interaction. >> Enough for now. �Good luck with your rearguard defence of British >> 'commonsense'. >> Herb Spencer ('Maxwell') PhD, DIC, BSc > >Dear Maxwell: Your namesake, (James Clerk) Maxwell proposed to A. A. >Michelson that his new interferometer might be able to detect the >slowing of light caused by the Earth passing through the supposed, but >unverified, luminiferous ether. The last sentence shows Maxwell, and >all who have supported Lorentz and Einstein since, to have been >lacking in fundamental common sense. > >To wit: The concept that light can be slowed in passing through the >ether, also, must suppose that light can be slowed much more in >passing through a lot of ether. The M-M experiment had a maximum path >length of less than 100 feet (using multiple reflections of the >light). It was supposed by Michelson that multiple fringe shifts >should be detected��but none were. If light had been detected as >"being slowed", then the rate of slowing over, say, the distance to >the Sun would be such that no light would reach the Earth. No light >equals no life on Earth� Because of that simple reasoning, the M-M >experiment is invalidated as a 'concept'. I have also invalidated >such because I realized that M-M didn't have a CONTROL, or unchanging >light course. > >The above two paragraphs disproves Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, and >disproves SR and GR. But the ether is alive and well! Ether NURTURES >light on its course, because light and ether are the same 'stuff'. >Varying ether density and flow explains every single observation in >nature. Ether is the 'stuff' of all matter, and the mechanism of all >forces. Understand ether, and you understand creation! �� NoEinstein There is no single absolute aether. Throughout the whole of space there are regions that behave like weak 'local aethers' where any EM passing through TENDS TOWARDS a uniform speed wrt that region. A consequence of this is that the speed of all light moving in a particular direction in space tends towards (but by no means reaches) uniformity. Also, there appears to be an aetherlike 'sphere of EM influence' around all large masses, such that the speed of light escaping from such objects is unified to varying degrees. >�� > >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 Einstein�s 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# Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |