EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 2 Aug 2008 16:17 On Aug 1, 4:51 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:57:49 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 31, 5:40 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:31:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Jul 31, 4:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 29, 8:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > >> >> Dear Henri: Yes, we've got PD pegged. I just wish it was with a > >> >> 'wooden stake' through his blood sucker's heart. NoEinstein > > >> >:>) > >> >Good to know you're irritated. > >> >And apparently not just by me. > >> >I wonder if you have a compulsion to be mocked. You certainly can't > >> >seem to step away from the circumstances where that happens. Ever > >> >wonder what your role in that is? > > >> Diaper, just accept the facts. YOU have been hopelessly indoctrinated by a > >> typical religion. > > >Well, that's one of your cut-and-paste statements that you toss out > >when you lack the imagination to think of something new to say. > > >I'll reiterate that some have the privilege (and I'm one) of running > >experiments that are designed to discern whether relativity is the way > >that nature works. So it becomes a matter of whether I should believe > >my own eyes. If I understand you right: > >1. If one reads a theoretical article or book about relativity and > >verifies that it is logically consistent and mathematically correct, > >then one is indoctrinated. > >2. If one reads an experimental paper or book about relativity and > >sees that reproducible data with documented integrity checks are > >consistent with relativity, then one is indoctrinated. > >3. If one runs an experiment for oneself and verifies for oneself that > >data collected and carefully analyzed are in agreement with > >relativity, then one is indoctrinated. > >4. Only if one steadfastly refuses to believe any logically consistent > >and mathematically correct theory that supports relativity, refuses to > >believe any reproducible data with checked integrity that supports > >relativity, and in fact refuses to believe one's own eyes if they do > >an experiment to test relativity's claims -- only then does one escape > >indoctrination. > > >In other words, deny any verifiable reality if it supports relativity, > >for the overriding purpose of avoiding indoctrination. > > The only 'experimental evidence' that even remotely supports Einstein's version > of relativity is either statistically unsound or has alternative Newtonian > explanations. BS. Oh, perhaps if you include with alternative Newtonian explanations the things like Wilsonian Density Babbles and invisible winged pixies. PD > For instance the GR and BaTh equation for gravitational redshift is exactly the > same. > > >PD > > 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.
From: jrysk on 5 Aug 2008 13:14 On Aug 1, 1:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4... > Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847... > Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... > > > > > > > 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 > > specialrelativityand 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. > > > Aspecialdiscovery > > > 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 ofrelativity, 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » You are not understanding the relativity of simultaneity as constructivist math (what Einstein called "practical geometry"). That's not so surprising, because until now no one knew exactly how Einstein had used constructivist math in formulating the relativity of simultaneity. However, we do now: it's the "natural" coincidence he imported into the formulation. Here is a discussion of it, and some discussion of the influence of utterly ridiculous constructivist math on the twentieth century. Unfortuately, constructivism proceeds on the assumption that arguments must have their logical content removed or they will end in "paradox." For this bugaboo, Einstein destroyed whatever ideas he ever had. Isn't it absurd? You probably don't have any interest in living in the 21st century-- most people are MUCH to vain to educate themselves. They prefer their prejudices. But if you can manage to struggle free of your vanity, you may begin your education in twentieth-century ideas by reading A. Garciadiego, BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE ORIGINS OF THE SET-THEORETIC 'PARADOXES.' Sooner or later, if you manage this, you will realize that the question before us is this: where is "natural" coincidence in the Pythagorean theorem? It will prove beyond your powers to address this question, and you will lapse back into your prejudices. Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas" (June 17, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085
From: jrysk on 5 Aug 2008 13:18 On Aug 5, 10:14 am, jrysk <philneo2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 1:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > 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 Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4... > > Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847... > > Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... > > > > 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 > > > specialrelativityand 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. > > > > Aspecialdiscovery > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » You are not understanding the relativity of simultaneity as constructivist math (what Einstein called "practical geometry"). That's not so surprising, because until now no one knew exactly how Einstein had used constructivist math in formulating the relativity of simultaneity. However, we do now: it's the "natural" coincidence he imported into the formulation. Here is a discussion of it, and some discussion of the influence of utterly ridiculous constructivist math on the twentieth century. Unfortuately, constructivism proceeds on the assumption that arguments must have their logical content removed or they will end in "paradox." For this bugaboo, Einstein destroyed whatever ideas he ever had. Isn't it absurd? You probably don't have any interest in living in the 21st century-- most people are MUCH to vain to educate themselves. They prefer their prejudices. But if you can manage to struggle free of your vanity, you may begin your education in twentieth-century ideas by reading A. Garciadiego, BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE ORIGINS OF THE SET-THEORETIC 'PARADOXES.' Sooner or later, if you manage this, you will realize that the question before us is this: where is "natural" coincidence in the Pythagorean theorem? It will prove beyond your powers to address this question, and you will lapse back into your prejudices. Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas" (June 17, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085
From: NoEinstein on 5 Aug 2008 20:14 On Aug 1, 4:39 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: For Einsteiniacs, like you, it must be difficult to realize that simple disproofs of the complicated are commendable. I didn't disprove Einstein to get your, or anyones acclaim. I did it to STOP the incredible waste of manpower in 'teaching' relativity. There are no "rubber rulers" needed to understand my new physics. Those who want simple truths should be rejoicing! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 5 Aug 2008 20:22
On Aug 1, 4:53 pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...(a)newsguy.org> wrote: > In article <12eaa318-32bc-4942-9b17-249fa8f40...(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] Dear Matthew: Anyone is welcomed to "shoot me down"if they can. But to do such, one must do more than "make a claim". They must explain the whys and the where-fors. Can you string more than two sentences together to do that? If not, you should take your assessments of physics to the kindergarten, where you will be in your element. NoEinstein |