EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Matthew Johnson on 1 Aug 2008 15:32 In article <f34f2e02-cb70-4ffa-ae73-eb2ef7d52ac1(a)z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, NoEinstein says... [snip] >Dear PD: To "follow" the train-of-thought of those "explaining" >technical things (as in books about Einstein) requires that one be >very gullible. Oh, really? I think that anyone who believes what you just said us the gullible one. Now why should anyone believe you instead of me? Notice how few people do? Take the hint. [snip]
From: NoEinstein on 1 Aug 2008 16:18 On Jul 31, 7:02 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > Dear Henri: You are using logic to support and defend a variable velocity for light. Your theory requires that light be vibrating. Tell me, why is it necessary for light to vibrate in order to travel? Do bullets have to vibrate in order to travel? We agree that a photon will emit at velocity c relative to the emitting atom. But why is that so? Its because the motive force of the photon out of the electron ring it was in, results from the universal tangential velocity of my IOTAs. Think of that process as being like two contra-rotating automobile tires shooting out an inserted football at a uniform velocity. A photon is at least one IOTA. But because those are polar, as it shoots out, the ether in its path can cling to it, IOTA to IOTA, like little flying cylinders. And the increasing size of the photon tends to let more non-aligned IOTAs bank up in front. And those can attract their own IOTAS to become these gobs of energy shooting along. Your one photon case doesnt correctly tell the nature of light. In most cases, light is TRAINS of photons. Those are being emitted at a spacing which corresponds to the energy plateau of the electron ring from which they originated. Trains of light, like water coming from a concentrated fire hose, will tend to induce the ether adjacent to the photons to flow in the same direction as the emitted light. What we may think of as uniform illumination with photons, is probably no more than a few percent of the illuminated cross section. That means that the vast majority of the ether in front of the light source is unaffected by the fact that trains of photons are traveling through. Also, since the trains keep right on coming, the IOTAs will move to a sustainable position and orientation relative to the passing photons. And it is that adjacent position that allows the IOTAs beside the photons to assist the photons in traveling at or near velocity c. All of that banging into ether that a lone photon would do, probably slow it down a lot. But another photon, and another , that are behind, will soon get the entire train up to speed. For me the velocity isnt as important as the DISTANCES that light is able to cover. If, say, 50% of the photons in a train get batted off of course, the remaining 50% is enough to still tell the color of the source. The so-called microwave background radiation is probably just photons that got batted off of course. All light, regardless of the wavelengths, is composed of the same basic clumps of IOTAs. The characteristic that gives the light color isnt inherent in the photons themselves. Color is determined by the spacing of the photons, and that was the responsibility of the light source. When light from afar strikes a white paper, the perception of the color results from the apt electron rings responding to the arriving frequency of the light by emitting light that has an identical spacingwhich the human eye can translate into color. So, there is no need for photons to be vibrating in order to communicate their color. Only the spacing of the photons in the photon trains determines the color. I, for one, have never been hypnotized by what Einstein, nor any scientist has professed. I insulate myself from the explanations of others, and reason things out alone. So far, I havent found a single observation in nature that cant be explained by varying ether density and flow. All things being equal, I tend to go with those explanations that are the simplest. Nature does things in simple ways, because those are the most beautiful processes. NoEinstein > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:51:12 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > >On Jul 29, 8:48 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > >Dear Henri: For much too long, many have considered that a > >luminiferous ether is necessary for the propagation of light. IF > >light was... waves, the pressure differences in the ether would keep > >the light going. But that supposes that the ether is uniform. > >Otherwise, the light couldn't travel where there is no ether. But > >light isn't in the least waves! It is perfectly happy to travel > >through the Swiss cheese voids between galaxies where there is no > >ether. > > The smallest energy unit in the Universe is an IOTA (my own > >term). I consider those to be like little rotating doughnuts of > >energy. Depending upon which side of the doughnut you are looking at, > >the rotation can be clockwise, or counterclockwise. So, ether is > >polar. If IOTAs are able to line-up with all of the rotation going in > >the same direction, you have rotating cylinders. If the cylinders > >bend back on themselves, you have thin rotating screws of etheror > >magnetic lines of force. It is their rotation that can induce > >electric current to flow in wires. > > LIGHT is just speeding ether. GRAVITY is flowing ether, like > >"snowflakes" fallingwhile light, or charged particles, that go in > >the opposite direction, replace the ether pressure, down. Light > >shoots up through the falling ether snow like compressed snowballs.. > >On Earth 'the light' is infrared heat energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM is > >just strings of aligned ether, which are the longest 'threads' in the > >Universe. MATTER is just tangles of ether. So, everything that > >exists is made of a single building block! > > That term... "fields" is superfluous. Yes, gravity pressure > >varies. But the word field injects another variable to the > >understanding of very simple processes. Using the 'field crutch' is > >like saying "vague" or... "this needs mathematicians to understand how > >it all works". Or... you can't understand what is happening HERE, > >without knowing what is happening OUT THERE. The Laws of Physics are > >the same all across the Universe. Understand what is happening HERE, > >and you KNOW what is happening... OUT THERE. THAT is how I have come > >to understand the Universe as a simple truth, not as an unfathomable > >mystery! > > So, use EM as a term in explaining the very small, but refrain > >from using it in the very large "simpler" contexts. Do that, and we > >both are 'teaching' the same physics! NoEinstein > > It would be nice if all the processes of the universe could be explained in > simple and basic terms by your 'IOTA'....but I think it is rather more > complicated than that. > > For instance, if an isolated atom in space emits a single light quanta, what > causes it to initially move at c wrt that atom....... which it presumeably > does. It has no speed reference other than its source. > My theory says its speed is likely to subsequently vary over time as it > interacts with the various factors in space that affect it, factors we probably > know little or nothing about at present. Nobody looks for such things because > the physics establishment has been completely hypnotised by Einstein's > confidence trick. > > I view a photon as a long, thin, self contained lump of 'aether' along which an > intrinsic EM field oscillates backwards and forwards to form a standing wave > with an absolute wavelength. An alternative model views a photon as a pair of > charges that spin very rapidly and self propagate through space with very > little energy loss. ....just enough to cause the cosmic redshift. > > It appears that little or nothing in the universe moves at anywhere near c wrt > anything else. Therefore all photons travelling in any one direction initially > moves at speeds that do not differ much. These speeds tend to unify over time. > Variable star curves support such a unification theory. > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 1 Aug 2008 16:23 On Aug 1, 12:20 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: And in just one hour of analysis in my local library, I realized that M-M lacked a CONTROL. That one fact negates any reason you may have had for making a long post. 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# > > Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > > I can't understand why anyone would want to persist in making a fool of himself > > like he does. > > > 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. > > Oh Henri... > > Poincaré & Einstein > Ref: "EINSTEIN 1905", John S. Rigden, Harvard University Press (2005) > > In his 1902 book "La Science et l'Hypothèse", the > mathematical physicist Henri Poincaré identified three > fundamental yet unresolved problems [in physics]. > > One problem concerned the mysterious way ultraviolet > light ejects electrons from the surface of a metal; > > the second problem was the zig-zagging perpetual motion > of pollen particles suspended in a liquid; > > the third problem was the failure of experiments to > detect Earth's motion through the aether. > > In 1904, Einstein read Poincaré's book. He had also been > thinking about these problems, independently of Poincaré. > For Einstein, they were clearly part of God's thoughts. > One year later, in 1905, he solved all three. > > _______________________ > > Ref:http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/2/1 > Adapted from "Five papers that shook the world" > by Matthew Chalmers > January 2005 > > Most physicists would be happy to make one discovery that > is important enough to be taught to future generations of > physics students. Only a very small number manage this in > their lifetime, and even fewer make two appearances in > the textbooks. > > But Einstein was different. In little more than eight > months in 1905 he completed five papers that would change > the world for ever. Spanning three quite distinct topics > - relativity, the photoelectric effect and Brownian > motion - Einstein overturned our view of space and time, > showed that it is insufficient to describe light purely > as a wave, and laid the foundations for the discovery of > atoms. > > Genius at work > > Perhaps even more remarkably, Einstein's 1905 papers were > based neither on hard experimental evidence nor > sophisticated mathematics. Instead, he presented elegant > arguments and conclusions based on physical intuition. > > "Einstein's work stands out not because it was difficult > but because nobody at that time had been thinking the way > he did," says Gerard 't Hooft of the University of > Utrecht, who shared the 1999 Nobel Prize for Physics for > his work in quantum theory. > > "Dirac, Fermi, Feynman and others also made multiple > contributions to physics, but Einstein made the world > realize, for the first time, that pure thought can change > our understanding of nature." > > And just in case the enormity of Einstein's achievement > is in any doubt, we have to remember that he did all of > this in his "spare time". > > Statistical revelations > > In 1905 Einstein was married with a one-year-old son and > working as a patent examiner in Bern in Switzerland. His > passion was physics, but he had been unable to find an > academic position after graduating from the ETH in Zurich > in 1900. > > Nevertheless, he had managed to publish five papers in > the leading German journal Annalen der Physik between > 1900 and 1904, and had also submitted an unsolicited > thesis on molecular forces to the University of Zurich, > which was rejected. > > Most of these early papers were concerned with the > reality of atoms and molecules, something that was far > from certain at the time. But on 17 March in 1905 - three > days after his 26th birthday - Einstein submitted a paper > titled "A heuristic point of view concerning the > production and transformation of light" to Annalen der > Physik. > > Einstein suggested that, from a thermodynamic > perspective, light can be described as if it consists of > independent quanta of energy (Ann. Phys., Lpz 17 > 132-148). > > This hypothesis, which had been tentatively proposed by > Max Planck a few years earlier, directly challenged the > deeply ingrained wave picture of light. However, Einstein > was able to use the idea to explain certain puzzles about > the way that light or other electromagnetic radiation > ejected electrons from a metal via the photoelectric > effect. > > Maxwell's electrodynamics could not, for example, explain > why the energy of the ejected photoelectrons depended > only on the frequency of the incident light and not on > the intensity. However, this phenomenon was easy to > understand if light of a certain frequency actually > consisted of discrete packets or photons all with the > same energy. > > Einstein would go on to receive the 1921 Nobel Prize for > Physics for this work, although the official citation > stated that the prize was also awarded "for his services > to theoretical physics". > > "The arguments Einstein used in the photoelectric and > subsequent radiation theory are staggering in their > boldness and beauty," says Frank Wilczek, a theorist at > the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who shared the > 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics. > > "He put forward revolutionary ideas that both inspired > decisive experimental work and helped launch quantum > theory." Although not fully appreciated at the time, > Einstein's work on the quantum nature of light was the > first step towards establishing the wave-particle duality > of quantum particles. > > On 30 April, one month before his paper on the > photoelectric effect appeared in print, Einstein > completed his second 1905 paper, in which he showed how > to calculate Avogadro's number and the size of molecules > by studying their motion in a solution. > > This article was accepted as a doctoral thesis by the > University of Zurich in July, and published in a slightly > altered form in Annalen der Physik in January 1906. > > Despite often being obscured by the fame of his papers on > special relativity and the photoelectric effect, > Einstein's thesis on molecular dimensions became one of > his most quoted works. > > Indeed, it was his preoccupation with statistical > mechanics that formed the basis of several of his > breakthroughs, including the idea that light was > quantized. > > After finishing a doctoral thesis, most physicists would > be either celebrating or sleeping. But just 11 days later > Einstein sent another paper to Annalen der Physik, this > time on the subject of Brownian motion. > > In this paper, "On the movement of small particles > suspended in stationary liquids required by the > molecular-kinetic theory of heat", Einstein combined > kinetic theory and classical hydrodynamics to derive an > equation that showed that the displacement of Brownian > particles varies as the square root of time (Ann. Phys., > Lpz 17 549-560). > > This was confirmed experimentally by Jean Perrin three > years later, proving once and for all that atoms do > exist. In fact, Einstein extended his theory of Brownian > motion in an additional paper that he sent to the journal > on 19 December, although this was not published until > February 1906. > > A special discovery > > Shortly after finishing his paper on Brownian motion > Einstein had an idea about synchronizing clocks that were > spatially separated. > > _______________________ > > Adapted from "The Mechanical Universe" > Episode 43: Velocity and Time > > In the 1800s Michael Faraday discovered, or I should say > formalized, electromagnetic induction. Given a coil of > wire and a bar magnet... > > F = qE + qv x B > > Holding the coil stationary and moving the bar magnet > produced an electric current in the coil. Similarly > holding the bar magnet stationary and moving the coil > also produced an electric current in the coil. > > But in the language of electrodynamics of the day the two > cases were distinct independent phenomena that had > completely different explanations. > > When Albert Einstein saw that, he said "Look guys, you've > just got to be kidding--Any yo-yo can see that these are > the same thing". > > So it was this little experiment that was really the > start of relativity, not the Michelson-Morley > Experiment--not some exotic experiment to detect the > motion of the earth through the aether. > > With this simple little phenomenon, that of course > everybody knew about, disturbed nobody else, but Albert > Einstein. > > This led him to write a paper that landed on the desks of > Annalen der Physik on 30 June, and would go on to > completely overhaul our understanding of space and time. > Some 30 pages long and containing no references, his > fourth 1905 paper was titled "On the electrodynamics of > moving bodies" (Ann. Phys., Lpz 17 891-921). > > In the 200 or so years before 1905, physics had been > built on Newton's laws of motion, which were known to > hold equally well in stationary reference frames and in > frames moving at a constant velocity in a straight line. > Provided the correct "Galilean" rules were applied, one > could therefore transform the laws of physics so that > they did not depend on the frame of reference. > > However, the theory of electrodynamics developed by > Maxwell in the late 19th century posed a fundamental > problem to this "principle of relativity" because it > suggested that electromagnetic waves always travel at the > same speed. > > Either electrodynamics was wrong or there had to be some > kind of stationary "ether" through which the waves could > propagate. > > _______________________ > > I just want to read to you the first two paragraphs of > Einsteins 4th paper... > > ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES > By A. Einstein > June 30, 1905 > > It is known that > > read more »...
From: PD on 1 Aug 2008 16:39 On Aug 1, 3:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 31, 7:02 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > I, for one, have never been hypnotized by what Einstein, nor any > scientist has professed. I insulate myself from the explanations of > others, and reason things out alone. So far, I havent found a single > observation in nature that cant be explained by varying ether density > and flow. You say this as though it is commendable. > > All things being equal, I tend to go with those explanations that are > the simplest. Nature does things in simple ways, because those are > the most beautiful processes. NoEinstein >
From: Matthew Johnson on 1 Aug 2008 16:53
In article <12eaa318-32bc-4942-9b17-249fa8f400be(a)f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, NoEinstein says... > >On Aug 1, 12:20=A0am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> >Dear Sam: And in just one hour of analysis in my local library, I >realized that M-M lacked a CONTROL. Then maybe you needed 1 1/2 hours. For what you 'realized', as SO often, is not even true. [snip] |