GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: bz on 10 Nov 2007 15:15 sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:1194607652.933459.317530(a)z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > On 15 Oct, 22:05, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> innews:1192460319.117732.178540(a)q5g20 > 00prf.googlegroups.com: >> >> > On 17 Sep, 19:02, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >> sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> innews:1190036876.674031.136830(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > On 12 Sep, 15:26, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >> >> sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> >> innews:1189444302.990016.237750(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> >> Sean, this is WAY WAY WAY too long. I will snip liberally while trying >> to avoid cutting anything 'vital'. >> >> .... .... >> No, you were NOT wrong when you said that the source, when it is off, >> does not effect the light it has already emitted. Of course, the >> source, even > when >> it is on, does not effect the light it has already emitted. > How could it? In the source frame the source doesnt move. Therefore it > could not > effect the light as it(light) moved away. >> You statement " in the source frame" is 'almost right'. But it would >> ONLY be correct, as stated, if the 'the source frame' is an inertial >> frame of reference. > I say wrong here. Why? Yes, you said wrong there. There is no guarantee, in general, that a source is in inertial motion. If the source is NOT in inertial motion, THEN irrespective of whether we are speak of SR or the Ballistic theory of light, there is NO theory [except YOURS] that says the light would be constrained to move in any particular way with respect to how the source moves AFTER the light is emitted. SR says that light moves at c with respect to EVERY inertial frame of reference, including the one that the source was co-moving with at the instant of emission. Ballistic theory says that light moves at c with respect ONLY to the inertial frame of reference that the source was in at the instant of emission. Ballistic theory says that [for some time or distance from the point of emission] light moves at c+/-v with respect to any other inertial frame of reference. where v is the relative velocity between the co-moving with source inertial frame of reference (cmwsifr) and the other IFR. > Well lets look at whats observed. > Whats observed is that the source frame rotates. Whereas your inertial > frame, to the best of my understanding, doesnt rotate. That is correct. It doesn't rotate but it DOES continue to move in the direction that the source was moving at the instant that the light was emitted. > Therefore, > the source frame and your inertial frame are NOT the same. If the source is rotating, then that is correct. If the source is in inertial motion, which is what Einstein spoke of, then they are the same. SR deals with sources in inertial motion or with things looked at FROM an inertial frame of reference. The sources frame, in MMX, does not strictly qualify an an inertial frame of reference, so we can not measure things from it, we must 1) use a frame that approximates an inertial frame or 2) restrict our observations to a short enough period of time so that the source is 'for all intents and purposes' in inertial motion. And for the periods of time that observations were made by MMX, the MMX apparatus DID qualify as an inertial frame of reference. Remember what MMX was testing for. >> You NEED to say 'in the inertial frame of reference that was co-moving >> with the source at the instant that the light was emitted, the light >> travels away from the point of origin in that inertial frame of >> reference, at c, irrespective of what happens to the source after the >> light was emitted.' > Why do I need to say this? Because it is a basic postulate or corollary of SR. If you want to use SR to examine what happens, you must stay within its boundaries. > This is incorrect or at best only an unprovable > theoretical asumption. Because the truth of the matter is that light is > observed to travel AWAY at c in the *source frame* only, not the > inertial frame. Dont forget, the measurements in MMX were taken *whilst* > the setup rotated about the earths axis (and sun). The MMX experiment is designed to give a null result for ROTATION of the apparatus. MMX was NOT designed to test for rotation. Sagnac shows rotation. MMX is designed to detect LINEAR motion with respect to the aether. They rotated it so it would point in different directions so that sometimes it would point along the direction of the earths motion around the sun and sometimes it would point perpendicular to that motion. In both of those cases, the apparatus is, to all intents and purposes, in an inertial frame of reference. The negative results show that there is no aether. ..... >> > You are making the false assumption that the aether has to be >> > particulate. >> >> No, just that there is no set of properties 'for the aether' that is >> consistent with MMX other than the aether has NO properties except it >> allows >> EM radiation to propagate through it and has no effect on the >> radiation. > This is incorrect. The aether has at least one defineable property vis > a vis MMx. MMx shows us that one property of the aether is that light > always travels through it at c relative to the source. Regardless of the > motion of the source through the aether. As long as the source is in inertial motion. MMX is NOT designed to be sensitive to rotation so it says NOTHING about light always traveling at c wrt the source _regardless of what the source does after the light is emitted_ (which is what you infer from it, erroneously). > Of course there are other > properties > that can be ascribed to aether. Its just that the only relevant one > that I can think of, for MMx, is the one Ive just defined. >> > THe fact is that MMx does not show us anything about the aether >> > except >> > that it does NOT effect the speed of light relative to the source, >> > and therefore CANNOT be particulate. >> > Any ways your statement that it has to travel further seems a bit >> > unscientific. >> >> On the contrary, under the situation we were discussing, since the >> target is a moving target and the target moves away from the beam of >> light for light going one way, while it moves toward the light beam for >> light going the other >> direction, the distance for light moving one way is longer than for >> light moving the other. > THis is what I was defining as unscientific. (Ie incorrect) In the > source frame, which is the lab frame, and which is the only relevent > frame in MMx... neither mirror nor source move relative to each other. > This is indisputable fact. I agree that, although MMX is designed to allow testing in various orientations within the lab, it is not designed for testing during rotation so the source frame, the lab frame and an approximately inertial frame of reference are all equal for MMX. But MMX is NOT all we are discussing. You have asserted that regardless of what the source does after it emits the light, the light must maintain a velocity of c with respect to the source. That implies that if I throw my laser away from me, at .5 c, perpendicular to the beam direction, the entire beam that has already been emitted must INSTANTLY begin to move at .5 c. This is totally at odds with experimental data. Picture a hose with a stream of water shooting from it. Wiggle the hose side to side, while keeping the stream parallel to the original stream. If your theory were correct, the water stream must behave like a stiff rod with zero inertia and instantly move, all along its length. I say that light acts like the water really acts. The sideways displacement travels away from the source at the speed of the water [c for light] rather than instantly as your propose. ..... >> water. Your 'understanding' would be correct if 'travels' means >> distance relative to the banks of the river. > Thats what I was saying. It depends on what reference frame you > measure in. Im saying MMx measures in the lab/source frame. Any other > frame appears to be irrelevent in MMx. Because, as we measure light at c > in the source frame, this means that the motion of the source relative > to any other object or objects is not effected by the motion of these > objects or by the motion of the source relative to these objects. > I didnt make this up! This is what is observed in MMx. But MMX observation does NOT require light to stay in contact with the source and continue to move at c with respect to it, no matter how it moves after the light has been emitted. You keep trying to tie light to the source, even when the light was emitted milliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days or years before. You keep claiming that if the source is moved after the light has been emitted, ALL the light that it has ever emitted MUST instantly respond to the movement of the source. That claim is contrary to all our observations. >> If you are the swimmer, you are MUCH more interested in distance >> traveled relative to the water. > IF... the water effected the swimmers velocity. And yes in the river > a swimmers velocity IS effected ,... BUT in MMx the so called flow > of aether appears to do the opposite. And NOT effect the speed of the > light (swimmer) That is why aether does NOT act like a medium should act and why the aether of Maxwell was rejected. >> It can be a life or death matter, as swimmers in rip-tides have found >> out. >> >> > Its just that one way there is more friction for want of a better >> > word. >> >> 'friction' is a very poor word to use in this case. > You get my point though. What word would you prefer? > Ive clipped the next section because it assumes that aether acts on > light > in the same way as water does on a swimmer, or air does on a ballon. > Unfortunately MMXs shows this to be an incorrect assumption. Or fortunately. In any case, MMX showed us that aether does NOT act like a flowing medium. ..... >> based on a wrong theory and some wrong assumptions. > I assume you are referring here to SR. Seeing as so far you havent > supplied any proof that is inconsistent with emmision theory. Emission theory was disproved by Sagnac and by De Sitter. >> Your theory is wrong and your assumptions are wrong but they lead you >> to a conclusion that is consistent with one experiment. > This is a funny statement. You are saying that emmision theory is > wrong, yet you are unable to supply any observed proof to substantiate > this claim. I have provided several. > And you say my assumptions are wrong. What? My assumptions that MMx > shows us that light is travelling at c in the lab? NO, your assertion that light always travels at c wrt the source, regardless of what happens to the source after the light is emitted. > Have you any evidence to show that light isnt travelling at c in the > lab? Of course not. I never said it isn't. I said that what happens to the source does not effect light that has already been emitted by the source. THAT is what George and I have been trying to tell you. > No. >> But you are ignoring dozens of other experiments and the definition of >> an inertial frame of reference. > What other experiment shows us that light doesnt travel at c in the > source frame? None. If the source frame in non inertial, light does NOT travel at c wrt the source frame. Light can only travel at c wrt the inertial frame that was co-moving with the source at the instant of emission. That is my entire point that I have been trying to make. Sagnac shows that light does NOT travel at c wrt the source frame. The entire frame rotates. So all the mirrors, the source and the detector are at rest with respect to one another IN THE SOURCE FRAME. This would mandate a null effect for rotation of the Sagnac experiment. This is NOT the result seen. That invalidates the ballistic theory of light. > And as far as the definition of an inertial frame goes. Why should I > define it? Its irrelevent. No measurements are ever made in this frame. Because it is the ONLY frame that the emitted light travels at c wrt that is related to the source. > Therefore no theoretical assumptions can be made regarding how light > acts in this frame. >> No source that is in any kind of motion other than inertial motion can >> 'keep up with' the inertial frame of reference that co-existed with >> that source at the instant that a particular packet of light was >> emitted. The light travels at c with respect to the inertial frame of >> reference, NOT >> the source which has moved elsewhere. > You have no proof of this. The light was only measured in a rotating > frame, not an imaginary inertial frame. Sagnac would get a null result if you were right. >> >> NO! Once the light leaves the source, it travels at a constant >> >> velocity with respect to the inertial frame of reference that was >> >> co-moving with the source at the instant that the light was emitted. >> >> THAT frame of reference continues to move at a constant velocity. >> >> What the source does, after emitting the light, is unimportant. >> > No This staement cannot be substantiated. You suggest that light >> > leaves >> > a source and continues on at c in the direction the source was >> > travelling at the point it was emmited. >> >> Not only do I suggest it, I have been saying it explicitly, over and >> over. >> >> > But MMx does not observe >> > this. >> >> Yes it does. It shows us exactly that. >> >> > It shows us that light leaves the source and travels at c relative to >> > where the source is *after* it was emmited. >> >> NO. > You make a unsubstantiated claim. You ignore the facts. MMX is > rotating > during the course of the experiment. very slowly and MMX was designed to be insensitive to rotation. The whole point was to look for linear motion. > Yet the light is still observed > to travel at c during this time and relative to the rotating frame of > the experiment >> > Otherwise there would be no null result. THink about it. >> >> I have. The math of SR is derivable from exactly those assumptions. And >> t > he >> null result of MMX is consistent with SR. > Maybe if you pretend that your imaginary inertial frame is the same > as the rotating lab frame. But it isnt. In fact even you say an > inertial > frame cannot rotate . Well in that case,... an inertial frame > is not the same as the lab frame. >> > Do two calculations. In both have a source that rotates on a page. >> > In 1 calculate the speed of light at c in that frame that co-moves >> > with the source as you say above. In the second (2) calculate the >> > speed >> > in a frame that moves and rotates with the source as I suggest. >> > Youll find that when you calculate what distance the `photon` >> > travels every second relative to the source in the co moving frame >> > (example 1) youll see that over time the distance travelled >> > from the source varies (as the source is rotating and moving in >> > your frame in example 1) >> >> > In my example 2 youll find that the distance is always constant over >> > time because the photon always moves away from the source at a >> > constant >> > speed, because the source does NOT move in my frame. >> >> And your calculations would be wrong. If you were right, we could >> transmit information instantly by moving the source from side to side. > The maths show us that when you calculate what distance the `photon` > travels every second relative to the source in the co moving frame > (example 1) youll see that over time the distance travelled > from the source varies (as the source is rotating and moving in > your frame in example 1) > In other words , your calculations are wrong because youve calculated > (incorrectly) that light that travels at c in an inertial frame > will also appear be observed to travel at c in the rotating > lab frame. Thats impossible mathematically, theoretically and > not consistent with observations >> Take a laser and aim it at a spot on the moon. >> Move the laser parallel to its current path, by 1 foot to the right. >> The spot on the moon MUST, under your theory, instantly move one foot >> to > the >> right also. >> >> On the other hand, if turned off the laser, and moved it one foot to >> the right, then, by your theory, the spot must jump one foot to the >> right and only, after 1.28 seconds, the spot would go dark. >> >> Do you NOT see the absurdity of your idea? > It would be absurd if you could prove that the light *didnt* move on > the moon. We don't need to go to the moon, it can be tested across a 10 meter path, as I suggested. > But you can only pretend it doesnt. The fact is there are no > experiments made yet that test for this. Therefore any claims of > absurdity > on your part are... unsubstantiated. > And finally I do have proof that the light would move. Its called MMx. NO. MMX only proves that there is no aether flow for an aether that would act as Maxwell thought the aether should act when he developed his equations. > If light werent acting as I suggest the MMx would not give a null > result. You are wrong. >> If it were correct, we would have faster than light communications. >> Just wiggle a laser from side to side. > So far you have no proof that light always travels at > c in any observors frame. And further more Im not saying that light > can travel at C+v in the source frame. Its always at c. > Thats what MMx shows us. If it travels at c in the source frame then the test I proposed would show it. >> > In MMx we observe the speeds on both paths to be constant. >> > Which is only consistent with my example 2. Not yours >> >> No. It is consistent with BOTH, but yours is wrong. > How could I be wrong if I correctly predict that light should be > observed I formulate a theory called the daemon theory of gravity. Daemons live in everything and they like to visit with each other. As they travel back and forth, they drag things toward each other with a force equal to gravity. Prove I am wrong! How could I be wrong if I correctly predict that apples fall off of trees when their stems break? Being able to make a correct prediction does NOT prove a theory is right. Nothing proves a theory right. >> >> > (although drag is georges term. I like to think of it this way.. >> >> > that light is at c in straight lines only in the source frame) >> >> >> That is incorrect. Although it is true of the frame that was >> >> co-moving with the source at the instant of emission, it is also >> >> true that the light will be measured to move at c in ANY inertial >> >> frame of reference. >> > Yousay it is incorrect of me to say that light does move in straight >> > lines in the source frame? Wheres your proof? >> >> It only moves in a straight line in the inertial frame that was >> co-moving with the source at the moment it was emitted. >> Otherwise, moving the source would move the beam. Move the source >> sideways and you move the beam sideways, instantly. >> That would allow faster than light communications, as I have explained >> several times. > So far youve supplied unsubstantiated assumptions. I repeat... > wheres your proof that light does not travel at c in the lab. You are misquoting me. I NEVER said it does not move at c in the lab. I said that it does not move at c with respect to a source that moves in a non inertial way. It does not continue to move at c with respect to the source if the source is turned off after the light is emitted. but it does continue to move at c with respect to the inertial frame that was co-moving with the source at the instant of emission. It does not continue to move at c with respect to the source when the source suddenly jogs to the right. >> Such phenomena are NOT observed. Your theory is falsified. >> Enough said. > Not nearly enough. So far you havent supplied a jot of evidence to > back > up your erroneous claim that light can not travel at c in the lab. You are misquoting me. I NEVER said it does not move at c in the lab's inertial frame of reference. ..... large snip of repeated stuff > at >> fact? I didn't insult you. > Yes you did. You said I dont understand how science works. When in > fact it is > you who is the one who seems to ignore scientific processes. > After all, youre the one who ignores the obvious scientific evidence > that comes from the MMx. It shows us that light is at > c in the lab. Yet you ignore the science and pretend that MMx > shows us that light is NOt at c in the lab. You continue to misquote me. I NEVER said light doesn't move at c in the lab. > If you want me to be polite dont be rude and pretend that your > mistakes are in fact mine. If you want me to continue our correspondence you will be polite. It is not a case of my 'wanting you to be polite.' I have other things I should be doing with my time right now. I need to be reviewing a chapter for a book we are writing. >> take a laser diode and mount it on the voice coil of a loud speaker, >> perpendicular to the motion of the speaker. >> >> measure the time it takes for the 'wiggle' to travel across the room. >> It ain't instantaneous! >> Your theory is falsified. > Once again you have no experimental > proof to back up this claim. Do the experiment. Prove ME wrong and earn a Nobel prize. You can do the experiment for a few hundred dollars. > I supply proof . MMx can only work if light is always at c in any > source frame. > And if this is true then your wiggle experiment would confirm my > predictions. Do it. If it does, you have a Nobel prize waiting for you and a fortune because you have just invented faster-than-light communications. I will even let you keep all the royalties on the invention. I hereby and forever forgo any rights to and claims upon the idea as set forth in our correspondence. ..... >> >> The magnetron has the word 'magnet' in it because it uses a magnetic >> fiel > d. >> If you are asking if the 'oven portion' of the microwave oven is inside >> a strong magnetic field, the answer is no. Why would it be? > I was trying to define what the mechanism inside the oven consisted of. > Dont forget I had said previously that an applied oscillating magnetic > field in the cavity produced the radiation. You then replied by saying > NO this was incorrect and that in the microwave oven this applied > oscillating field didnt produce xrays. In fact its you who seems to be > making the mistake. > Because as far as I can tell you now admit that it isnt an applied > *oscillating em field* in the cavity that produces the microwave > radiation. > Its an applied *strong static magnetic field* in the cavity which > produces > oscillations in the microwave oven. YOU were the one that claimed it was an oscillating magnetic field that produced the microwaves. I told you that there is a static magnetic field. You claimed that magnetrons produced xrays. > Theres a big difference between the two (cyclotrons and magnetrons) yep. and I know the difference. > At least on the basis of the reference Ive looked at. > As far as I can tell its the cavity shape that differs between the two > (contrary to what you suggest) Not at all contrary to what I suggested. > and more importantly the cyclotron > HAS a extra applied high frequency oscillating EM field which steps > up the cavity oscillation. WHAT 'cavity oscillations' are you talking about? The cyclotron uses microwave energy to accelerate groups of electrons. A STATIC magnetic field BENDS the path of the groups of electrons. When electron paths are bent, EM radiation is emitted. In this case, the EM radiation is in the xray region of the spectrum. The xray radiation has nothing to do with the resonant frequency of any cavities in the apparatus. A cavity resonant at xray frequencies would be much too small to be seen with the eye. The cavities in the microwave generators and in the cyclotron and synchrotron are MUCH larger. > Whereas the microwave oven has > no extra applied oscillating electromagnetic field. As I told you at the beginning. > Thats a two big differences between the two. Yes. It is good to see that you are learning something about how microwaves are generated and how microwave ovens work. > Furthermore no source that I have read specifies the frequency of > the applied high frequency oscillating field in cyclotrons. Can you > cite > a url that confirms that this applied "high frequency oscillating em > field > in the cyclotron setup *is* in the microwave range? > Sean http://www.clsi.ca/education/whatis.php [quote] Microwave radio frequency fields in the 2856 megahertz LINAC provide energy to the electrons that are accelerated to an energy of 250 million electron volts or MeV. .... As they circulate, electrons receive a boost in energy from 250 million electron volts (MeV) to 2900 MeV (energy equivalent to about 2 billion flashlight batteries!) from microwave fields generated in the Radio Frequency Cavity at 2856 MHz. .... There are two cavities that use microwaves to boost the energy carried by the electrons. cylindrical cavity in the booster ring delivers a high energy kick to the electron bunches during each turn around the ring. It operates with an RF frequency of 500 MHz. [unquote] Both 500 MHz and 2.8 GHz are in the microwave region of the EM spectrum. http://www.aip.org/history/lawrence/epa.htm gives the formula for calculating the frequency needed. .....
From: John Kennaugh on 15 Nov 2007 16:07 bz wrote: > >Yes, you said wrong there. There is no guarantee, in general, that a >source is in inertial motion. If the source is NOT in inertial motion, >THEN irrespective of whether we are speak of SR or the Ballistic theory of >light, there is NO theory [except YOURS] that says the light would be >constrained to move in any particular way with respect to how the source >moves AFTER the light is emitted. I am gratified that I have managed to teach you something. > >SR says that light moves at c with respect to EVERY inertial frame of >reference, including the one that the source was co-moving with at the >instant of emission. Ballistic theory says that light moves at c with >respect ONLY to the inertial frame of reference that the source was in at >the instant of emission. Ballistic theory says that [for some time or >distance from the point of emission] light moves at c+/-v with respect to >any other inertial frame of reference. where v is the relative velocity >between the co-moving with source inertial frame of reference (cmwsifr) >and the other IFR. If you make your predictions based upon what an observer stationary with the FoR of the source would predict - both theories predict the same and that prediction is correct. Where the theories differ is in how they explain that same prediction when viewed from a different FoR. For example _________________________ train [__[_________X_X'______]__] -->v | | | | T T' Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X. Suppose it fires when X is exactly opposite T. At first sight you might think that according to SR an observer at T would see light hit the target T and that if ballistic theory were correct it would instead hit T'. Not true BOTH theories say it will miss T and hit T'. For an observer on the train, in the FoR of the source, both theories will predict the same outcome and that is that it will hit T' not T. The ballistic explanation is straight forward as an observer stationary with T will give the same explanation as the observer on the train. The SR explanation I think says that what is a right angle for the observer on the train is not for the observer at T. In other words that SR says that in the frame of reference of T it missed T and hits T' because the laser was pointing at T' in his FoR. If we now repeat the experiment with an omni-directional flash of light when X is alongside T it will of course reach both T and T'. If the frequency of the light as measured on the train is Fo then according to ballistic theory the light reaching T' will have a frequency Fo because the effective source is X' and that is orthogonal to T' i.e. the source has no component of speed either towards or away from T'. OTOH ballistic theory says that X' has a component of velocity away from T so the frequency measured at T will be less that Fo. Now for SR T not T' is the position which is orthogonal to the source X so the source has no component of velocity towards or away from the observer to cause Doppler however in SR the clock producing the frequency is time dilated so SR agrees with ballistic theory that the frequency measured at T is indeed less than Fo, and by the same amount - it simply disagrees about the cause. Likewise SR agrees with ballistic theory that the frequency measured at T' will be Fo just as Ballistic theory says. It says this is because the source has a component of velocity towards T' which causes Doppler shift which is equal and opposite to the frequency shift due to time dilation - they cancel and the frequency is Fo. It would appear that the Lorentz transforms distort time and space in such a way as to get the same results as the simpler ballistic theory. If you are going to devise experiments to show the difference between the two theories you first have to be very sure you know what they both predict and be sure it is different. In most cases it isn't. >> Well lets look at whats observed. >> Whats observed is that the source frame rotates. Whereas your inertial >> frame, to the best of my understanding, doesnt rotate. > >That is correct. It doesn't rotate but it DOES continue to move in the >direction that the source was moving at the instant that the light was >emitted. Remember that - I'll come back to that later. >> Therefore, >> the source frame and your inertial frame are NOT the same. > >If the source is rotating, then that is correct. If the source is in >inertial motion, which is what Einstein spoke of, then they are the same. >SR deals with sources in inertial motion or with things looked at FROM an >inertial frame of reference. > >The sources frame, in MMX, does not strictly qualify an an inertial frame >of reference, NO FoR strictly qualifies as an inertial FoR. > so we can not measure things from it, we must 1) use a frame >that approximates an inertial frame or 2) restrict our observations to a >short enough period of time so that the source is 'for all intents and >purposes' in inertial motion. > >And for the periods of time that observations were made by MMX, the MMX >apparatus DID qualify as an inertial frame of reference. > >Remember what MMX was testing for. It was measuring the speed of the apparatus w.r.t the aether and always got zero. Therefore the observation platform (= the observer) is always stationary w.r.t the aether - which is what the second postulate is describing i.e. what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. OTOH the MMX may be seen differently. The MMX was an experiment which gave different results depending on whether Maxwell's wave in aether theory was correct or Newton's corpuscular theory was correct. Newton's theory predicted a null result. There was a null result. Then later it was discovered that light is made up of particles just as Newton Predicted. Newton 2 : Maxwell 0 Remind me again how physics works :o) Ah yes. You ignore the fact that accepted theory has been proved wrong, and ignore the alternative theory despite the fact it predicted the right answer. You ignore the massive boost to the alternative theory given by experimental results and you stick with accepted theory and adjust it by assuming that space and time are distorted so as to get it to give the correct answer. As there are no physical processes which could conceivably distort space and time as your theory now requires you declare that physics need not concern itself with physical process as that is an old fashioned way of looking at things. Put simply the ways physics works is to maintain the status quo despite the evidence. >>> You NEED to say 'in the inertial frame of reference that was co-moving >>> with the source at the instant that the light was emitted, the light >>> travels away from the point of origin in that inertial frame of >>> reference, at c, irrespective of what happens to the source after the >>> light was emitted.' >> Why do I need to say this? > >Because it is a basic postulate or corollary of SR. >If you want to use SR to examine what happens, you must stay within its >boundaries. >> This is incorrect or at best only an unprovable >> theoretical asumption. Because the truth of the matter is that light is >> observed to travel AWAY at c in the *source frame* only, not the >> inertial frame. Dont forget, the measurements in MMX were taken *whilst* >> the setup rotated about the earths axis (and sun). > >The MMX experiment is designed to give a null result for ROTATION of the >apparatus. MMX was NOT designed to test for rotation. Sagnac shows >rotation. The Sagnac maths shows that the fringe shift is a function of the area contained within the loop. The MMX has no area contained within the light path so would not show a phase shift anyway even when it is actually rotating. > >MMX is designed to detect LINEAR motion with respect to the aether. correct >They rotated it so it would point in different directions so that >sometimes it would point along the direction of the earths motion around >the sun and sometimes it would point perpendicular to that motion. In both >of those cases, the apparatus is, to all intents and purposes, in an >inertial frame of reference. nearly right. OK you start with the apparatus pointing in one direction. You get a null result. This may be for several reasons. One is that at that point in space you just happen to be stationary w.r.t the aether - to rule that out try at several different times of the year. Another is that the aether flow is vertical - so repeat it at different times of day. Finally each time you do a measurement you don't know the direction of flow of the aether wind so you have to try all possible angles so as to ensure that at some point one arm points in the direction of flow and at another, the other arm. It is rotating it relative to the unknown direction of flow of the aether wind rather than the earths orbital direction as you implied. > >The negative results show that there is no aether. No! All it showed was that predictions based on Maxwell's theory were wrong. Anything else is interpretation. It is important that you make this distinction. I agree that one interpretation is that there is no aether and therefore the speed of light cannot be controlled by the aether and therefore must be the result of the physical processes taking place in the source. Although that is by far the simplest and most logical explanation of the null result it was rejected. Instead both Lorentz and Einstein refused to abandon accepted theory and continued to assume Maxwell's wave/aether theory was correct. Lorentz came up with a fix which was in Einstein's view too complicated. He did not like the idea of a FoR which was essential to the theory but which was indistinguishable from an infinite number of other FoR. He decided not to worry about how nature managed to have every observer stationary w.r.t the aether, he just accepted the result of the MMX that they are (or effectively are). The second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe - as per the wave in aether theory interpretation of the null result. The problem is that later physics (not Einstein) accepted the 'no aether doctrine' which makes a nonsense of that interpretation and leaves the authors of contemporary text books with a dilemma as to how to present that interpretation as being reasonable without mentioning the key part the aether played in the thinking. >>> > You are making the false assumption that the aether has to be >>> > particulate. >>> >>> No, just that there is no set of properties 'for the aether' that is >>> consistent with MMX other than the aether has NO properties except it >>> allows >>> EM radiation to propagate through it and has no effect on the >>> radiation. >> This is incorrect. The aether has at least one defineable property vis >> a vis MMx. MMx shows us that one property of the aether is that light >> always travels through it at c relative to the source. Regardless of the >> motion of the source through the aether. > >As long as the source is in inertial motion. > >MMX is NOT designed to be sensitive to rotation so it says NOTHING about >light always traveling at c wrt the source _regardless of what the source >does after the light is emitted_ (which is what you infer from it, >erroneously). > >> Of course there are other >> properties >> that can be ascribed to aether. Its just that the only relevant one >> that I can think of, for MMx, is the one Ive just defined. > > >>> > THe fact is that MMx does not show us anything about the aether >>> > except >>> > that it does NOT effect the speed of light relative to the source, >>> > and therefore CANNOT be particulate. >>> > Any ways your statement that it has to travel further seems a bit >>> > unscientific. >>> >>> On the contrary, under the situation we were discussing, since the >>> target is a moving target and the target moves away from the beam of >>> light for light going one way, while it moves toward the light beam for >>> light going the other >>> direction, the distance for light moving one way is longer than for >>> light moving the other. > >> THis is what I was defining as unscientific. (Ie incorrect) In the >> source frame, which is the lab frame, and which is the only relevent >> frame in MMx... neither mirror nor source move relative to each other. >> This is indisputable fact. > >I agree that, although MMX is designed to allow testing in various >orientations within the lab, it is not designed for testing during >rotation so the source frame, the lab frame and an approximately inertial >frame of reference are all equal for MMX. But MMX is NOT all we are >discussing. > >You have asserted that regardless of what the source does after it emits >the light, the light must maintain a velocity of c with respect to the >source. That implies that if I throw my laser away from me, at .5 c, >perpendicular to the beam direction, the entire beam that has already been >emitted must INSTANTLY begin to move at .5 c. This is totally at odds with >experimental data. and totally at odds with any possible causality. > >Picture a hose with a stream of water shooting from it. >Wiggle the hose side to side, while keeping the stream parallel to the >original stream. > >If your theory were correct, the water stream must behave like a stiff rod >with zero inertia and instantly move, all along its length. I say that >light acts like the water really acts. The sideways displacement travels >away from the source at the speed of the water [c for light] rather than >instantly as your propose. > >.... >>> water. Your 'understanding' would be correct if 'travels' means >>> distance relative to the banks of the river. >> Thats what I was saying. It depends on what reference frame you >> measure in. Im saying MMx measures in the lab/source frame. Any other >> frame appears to be irrelevent in MMx. Because, as we measure light at c >> in the source frame, this means that the motion of the source relative >> to any other object or objects is not effected by the motion of these >> objects or by the motion of the source relative to these objects. >> I didnt make this up! This is what is observed in MMx. > >But MMX observation does NOT require light to stay in contact with the >source and continue to move at c with respect to it, no matter how it >moves after the light has been emitted. > >You keep trying to tie light to the source, even when the light was >emitted milliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days or years before. You >keep claiming that if the source is moved after the light has been >emitted, ALL the light that it has ever emitted MUST instantly respond to >the movement of the source. That claim is contrary to all our >observations. > >>> If you are the swimmer, you are MUCH more interested in distance >>> traveled relative to the water. >> IF... the water effected the swimmers velocity. And yes in the river >> a swimmers velocity IS effected ,... BUT in MMx the so called flow >> of aether appears to do the opposite. And NOT effect the speed of the >> light (swimmer) > >That is why aether does NOT act like a medium should act and why the >aether of Maxwell was rejected. > >>> It can be a life or death matter, as swimmers in rip-tides have found >>> out. >>> >>> > Its just that one way there is more friction for want of a better >>> > word. >>> >>> 'friction' is a very poor word to use in this case. >> You get my point though. What word would you prefer? >> Ive clipped the next section because it assumes that aether acts on >> light >> in the same way as water does on a swimmer, or air does on a ballon. >> Unfortunately MMXs shows this to be an incorrect assumption. > >Or fortunately. In any case, MMX showed us that aether does NOT act like a >flowing medium. Quite correct it shows either that the aether acts like a stationary medium or that there is no aether in which case there is no justification for continuing to assume that the physics processes generating the light are not responsible for the speed at which it travels. In the absence of the aether there can be no other physical processes involved as a source is surrounded by nothing physical which can take part in a physical process. What physics has done is accepted a theory based upon the stationary medium interpretation, then decided that there is no aether. That leaves it without any possible physical process which is why in modern physics the role of mathematics has been elevated to be the be-all and end-all and anyone talking about physical process is scorned as clinging to old fashioned notions of what physics is. > >.... >>> based on a wrong theory and some wrong assumptions. > >> I assume you are referring here to SR. Seeing as so far you havent >> supplied any proof that is inconsistent with emmision theory. > >Emission theory was disproved by Sagnac and by De Sitter. Oh dear here we go again. Sagnac - You are assuming the very thing you have been arguing is wrong. That light is tied to the source even when it is rotating. This you earlier accepted is a misrepresentation of ballistic theory. Sagnac has been shown to be consistent with both relativity and ballistic theory provided you actually know what ballistic theory says. De Sitter - When someone looked into it seriously J.G. Fox, "Evidence Against Emission Theories"- American Journal of Physics, Volume 33, #1, Jan. 1965 states: "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 [De Sitter etc.] does not offer any evidence against emission theory". No matter how often I point it out to you it doesn't stop you trotting it out as regular as clockwork does it. Please remove that from your list of excuses. >>> Your theory is wrong and your assumptions are wrong but they lead you >>> to a conclusion that is consistent with one experiment. >> This is a funny statement. You are saying that emmision theory is >> wrong, yet you are unable to supply any observed proof to substantiate >> this claim. > >I have provided several. > >> And you say my assumptions are wrong. What? My assumptions that MMx >> shows us that light is travelling at c in the lab? > >NO, your assertion that light always travels at c wrt the source, >regardless of what happens to the source after the light is emitted. Which is what you assume in your suggestion that Sagnac disproves ballistic theory. If you assume the correct interpretation of ballistic theory that the speed is always, and only, velocity c in the *inertial* FoR in which the light was emitted it predicts fringe shift for Sagnac. -- John Kennaugh "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
From: bz on 16 Nov 2007 12:59 John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:dMgV7eCqULPHFwsX(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk: I am making some big trims of things I will address separately because the text was much too long. ..... >>Emission theory was disproved by Sagnac and by De Sitter. > > Oh dear here we go again. > > Sagnac - You are assuming the very thing you have been arguing is wrong. > That light is tied to the source even when it is rotating. This you > earlier accepted is a misrepresentation of ballistic theory. Sagnac has > been shown to be consistent with both relativity and ballistic theory > provided you actually know what ballistic theory says. > > De Sitter - When someone looked into it seriously > > J.G. Fox, "Evidence Against Emission Theories"- American Journal of > Physics, Volume 33, #1, Jan. 1965 states: > > "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 [De Sitter etc.] does not offer any evidence > against emission theory". > > No matter how often I point it out to you it doesn't stop you trotting > it out as regular as clockwork does it. Please remove that from your > list of excuses. > ..... Fox was wrong. You are wrong. Fox invoked 'extinction' as a way of avoiding the problems that De Sitter pointed out. As I have pointed out to Henri many times, (and perhaps to you), 'extinction' requires a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics because it (1) reduces the entropy by 'increasing the ordering of the light' passing through a region of space (this requires both an unknown mechanism and a lot of energy) (2) must take energy from fast light and pass it to slow light to speed up the slow light. must make sure it takes energy from the correct 'fast light' [right frequency/wavelength/point of origin/direction of travel] and passes it to the corresponding correct 'slow light'[just right frequency/wavelength and the same origin and direction of travel] Without some magic Wilson or Kennaugh Daemons to grab the speedy packets of light, remove exactly the right amount of energy to slow that light down to c, and wait for another packet, traveling in the right direction, with the right speed and frequency to need exactly that amount of energy to speed it up to c, I don't believe that 'extinction' can occur. Also, De Sitter is NOT the only one that has studied the problem. Perry cites some http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Phillips.html [quote] In 1953, however, Parry Moon and Domina Spencer analyzed a number of visual binaries to see whether the phenomenon predicted by Bergmann would even be visible in the first place.7 They assumed the Ritz hypothesis8, but their computations showed that Bergmann's predicted multiple images for binaries would not, in fact, be observed. (They do not elaborate on de Sitter's prediction of spurious eccentricities, and they do not mention whether they reexamined his data or not.) Hence, they concluded that visual binaries proved absolutely nothing about the constancy of the velocity of light. [emphasis mine]In the same article, Moon and Spencer performed a similar analysis of spectroscopic binaries and of Cepheid variables.9 They concluded that the Ritz hypothesis would produce spurious spectral lines, but no such phenomenon was observed.[end emphasis] ..... is Fox's criticism-that the observations of de Sitter and Bergmann did not take the Ewald and Oseen extinction effect into account-still valid? Definitely not, for by 1964 direct evidence for the validity of Einstein's postulate on the velocity of light was provided by a number of experimenters: D. Sadeh; T.A. Filippas and J.G. Fox; and T. Alvager et al.14 All of these experimenters measured the velocity of gamma rays which had been emitted by decaying subatomic particles moving at nearly the speed of light. In every case, the velocity of the gamma rays equaled that of the normal velocity of light in free space. In no case did the velocity of the gamma rays behave as proposed by Ritz. In addition to the above Earth-based experiments, in 1977 K. Brecher used radiation from pulsars (rotating neutron stars which emit radiation in a periodic manner) to show that the speed of light was independent of the motion of the source.15 Neither Brecher's experiment nor the ones mentioned in the preceding paragraph were subject to Fox's criticism. Hence, observations of both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena have shown once and for all that Ritz's hypothesis is invalid. .... [unquote] Finally, the extinction method proposed by Fox involved slowing down fast light. If it slows down fast light, why not slow down light moving AT c? If it slows down fast light, why not continue slowing down light that was moving at c-v? But for Fox to be right and able to save Ritz, the fast light is slowed down, the 'normal light' isn't touched, AND the slow light is speeded up. Surely, with your love of 'physical mechanisms' you must recognize that there is no viable 'physical mechanism' to work such a miracle. Propose one that satisfies your love for physical mechanisms and is mathematically sound (remember the laws of thermodynamics must be satisifed), I would LOVE to see it. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Tom Roberts on 17 Nov 2007 11:29 bz wrote: > As I have pointed out to Henri many times, (and perhaps to you), > 'extinction' requires a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics This is simply not true. Optical extinction is what makes eyeglasses and other lenses work. > it (1) reduces the entropy by 'increasing the ordering of the light' > passing through a region of space (this requires both an unknown mechanism > and a lot of energy) Your argument against c+v is bogus. One can easily construct a model in which the light interacts with the medium, transferring energy and momentum to the medium as required. This is just a minor variation on how classical electrodynamics models this process (without c+v of course). > (2) must take energy from fast light and pass it to > slow light to speed up the slow light. > Nonsense. The individual portions of a light ray can exchange energy and momentum with the medium, resulting in the light traveling at c/n relative to the medium, regardless of the light's initial speed. As long as the light path through the medium is significantly longer than the medium's extinction length. There are quite a few measurements for which extinction is negligible that refute ballistic theories that claim light is emitted with speed c+v. See the FAQ for references (more are cited in the new version coming soon). John Kennaugh said: > I will explain extinction to you. Your "explanation" is both confused and downright wrong. To have any hope of explaining anything, you must PICK ONE THEORY and stick to it throughout; you must also UNDERSTAND that theory. Then do the same for another theory, if appropriate. Intermixing two theories just confuses both you and your reader. For an accurate classical explanation, see: Born and Wolf, _Principles_of_Optics_. > The basic problem is that there is no independent verification of what the source is. Nonsense. There are several terrestrial experiments which refute ballistic theory, for which the source motion is completely known. And even for the observations of binaries, it is perverse to make such a statement. For instance, many of the binaries are now resolved into two mutually-orbiting stars using VLBI and other high-resolution instruments -- YOU are not living back when DeSitter made his observations. As for the subject of this thread: it simply is not possible to "get rid" of relativity. An intelligent person would STUDY it to learn its limitations, and then go look for exceptions and/or enhancements. Of course a number of physicists are doing just that.... Tom Roberts
From: bz on 17 Nov 2007 17:11
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:TFE%i.22137$lD6.20414(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net: > bz wrote: >> As I have pointed out to Henri many times, (and perhaps to you), >> 'extinction' requires a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics > > This is simply not true. Optical extinction is what makes eyeglasses and > other lenses work. I am afraid that my understanding of optical extinction is different from yours. [quote http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/epjd/abs/1999/06/d8252/d8252.html] The optical extinction rate of the particle embedded in an absorbing host is defined as a rate of local energy losses caused by the particle (absorption in the particle volume and scattering by the particle-matrix interface) referenced to the matrix background. [unquote] There is nothing about energy gain from the medium. The light leaving the medium has LESS energy (some is absorbed and scattered) than the light that entered. Even in a laser, neither speed nor energy is gained by the light passing through, only intensity. >> it (1) reduces the entropy by 'increasing the ordering of the light' >> passing through a region of space (this requires both an unknown >> mechanism and a lot of energy) > > Your argument against c+v is bogus. c+/-v must be converted to c. light enters a medium from a vacuum and slows down. This has been observed. It does NOT speed up. That has never been observed. Light leaves the medium, returning to the vacuum, and it speeds back up. That has been observed. That is why I said it is thermodynamically impossible. One way IS possible. slowing down upon enter, speed up again when leave. There is nothing magic about that. SOME light slowing down while other light speeds up upon entering requires some magic. Even more magic is needed to keep the slowed light from speeding back up when it leaves the medium. Even more magic is needed to keep the speeded up light from slowing back down when it leaves. There is no justification of assuming that it would behave differently. You must invent mechanisms to do these things. They have not been observed. > One can easily construct a model in > which the light interacts with the medium, transferring energy and > momentum to the medium as required. This slows down light. Once the light leaves the medium, it speeds back up. This IS observed. > This is just a minor variation on > how classical electrodynamics models this process (without c+v of > course). One might. I have yet to see any one do so. > > >> (2) must take energy from fast light and pass it to >> slow light to speed up the slow light. > > > Nonsense. The individual portions of a light ray can exchange energy and > momentum with the medium, resulting in the light traveling at c/n > relative to the medium, regardless of the light's initial speed. That has NEVER been demonstrated. Slowing down by the medium HAS been but speeding by the medium has not. Simultaneous slowing and speeding have not. > As long > as the light path through the medium is significantly longer than the > medium's extinction length. Extinction has only ever been observed when light has slowed upon entering a medium AND speeds back up again when leaving. It is not justified to cite it when it is unobserved. > There are quite a few measurements for which extinction is negligible > that refute ballistic theories that claim light is emitted with speed > c+v. See the FAQ for references (more are cited in the new version > coming soon). Even if slow light and fast light could exchange energy and speed, to have all light traveling at the same velocity is a more orderly situation than to have the light traveling at different velocities. This represents a decrease in the entropy of the light. A decrease in entropy requires EXTRA energy. Where is that extra energy to come from? Is there ENOUGH extra energy in the fast light to speed up the slow light AND supply the enthalpy needed for the decrease in entropy? I don't think so. I see NOTHING that justifies such ideas. > > John Kennaugh said: >> I will explain extinction to you. > > Your "explanation" is both confused and downright wrong. To have any > hope of explaining anything, you must PICK ONE THEORY and stick to it > throughout; you must also UNDERSTAND that theory. Then do the same for > another theory, if appropriate. Intermixing two theories just confuses > both you and your reader. > > For an accurate classical explanation, see: Born and Wolf, > _Principles_of_Optics_. > > >> The basic problem is that there is no independent verification of what >> the source is. > > Nonsense. There are several terrestrial experiments which refute > ballistic theory, for which the source motion is completely known. And > even for the observations of binaries, it is perverse to make such a > statement. For instance, many of the binaries are now resolved into two > mutually-orbiting stars using VLBI and other high-resolution instruments > -- YOU are not living back when DeSitter made his observations. > > > > As for the subject of this thread: it simply is not possible to "get > rid" of relativity. An intelligent person would STUDY it to learn its > limitations, and then go look for exceptions and/or enhancements. Of > course a number of physicists are doing just that.... > > > Tom Roberts -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |