GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Dono on 20 Nov 2007 10:39 On Nov 20, 3:50 am, John Kennaugh > Getting back to my point. The ballistic theory was the simplest theory > consistent with the facts in 1905. There is no evidence against that > theory worth considering until the 1960s and DeSitters evidence was > flawed with or without extinction. > > -- > John Kennaugh Wrong: the ballistic theory is falsified by several experiments: -Ives-Stilwell -Sagnac Sorry to disappoint you :-) http://www.movv.com/prvupload/uploads/super_retard_stfu.jpg
From: John Kennaugh on 20 Nov 2007 14:12 Dono wrote: >On Nov 20, 3:50 am, John Kennaugh >> Getting back to my point. The ballistic theory was the simplest theory >> consistent with the facts in 1905. There is no evidence against that >> theory worth considering until the 1960s and DeSitters evidence was >> flawed with or without extinction. >> >> -- >> John Kennaugh > >Wrong: the ballistic theory is falsified by several experiments: > >-Ives-Stilwell >-Sagnac See my other posting to bz where I deal with Sagnac. Ballistic theory has to give the same result as SR. I am not an expert on Ballistic theory. It was first proposed by Ritz in 1908 (Ritz's emission theory) and unfortunately he died in 1909. It was a serious challenge to SR and yet has been written out of the history books so effectively that Waldron was unaware of it and had been developing his Ballistic theory for a number of years before he became aware of Ritz. Ritz theory is not accessible to me. I am not aware of a complete translation. I have obtained "The Wave and Ballistic theory of light" Waldron 1977 and am in the process of studying it. His theory has subtleties I was not previously aware of and as yet I have not got my head around them but according to his maths the Ives-Stillwell experiment fails to distinguish between the Lorentz-Einstein theory and his ballistic theory. I suggest you get the book yourself and study the arguments put forward. He lists the following experiments as being consistent with his theory: Arago, Hoek, Fizeau, Aberration, Double star observations, The MMX, Majorana 1, Majorana 2, Sagnac, Michelson, James-Sternburg repetition of Kantor's experiment*, Babcock-Bergman repetition of Kantor's experiment, Beckmen-Mandics repetition of Kantor's experiment, Beckmen-Mandics 1, Beckmen-Mandics 2, Sadeh. Kantor's own experiment apparently disproved SR and Ballistic theory. >Sorry to disappoint you :-) > >http://www.movv.com/prvupload/uploads/super_retard_stfu.jpg > -- John Kennaugh
From: bz on 20 Nov 2007 11:41 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:q4D0j.18932$4V6.3989(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.net: > bz wrote: >> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in ..... >> >> There is nothing about energy gain from the medium. > > The difficulty is that there are two different theoretical contexts > being discussed, with no clear demarcation between them. They are: > A) the modern theory of classical electrodynamics, including SR > B) some generic emission or ballistic theory involving c+v > > Your quote is using (A) but most of my statements were related to (B). > Some of my statements, like the one above about eyeglasses, apply to > both (A) and (B). > >> The light leaving the medium has LESS energy (some is absorbed and >> scattered) than the light that entered. > > One must carefully distinguish the energy of individual photons from the > energy (intensity) of the entire light beam. I agree that I have been unclear. Of course, the distinction was clear, at all times, in my mind. :) > For theoretical context (A): > > The energy of individual photons is proportional to their frequency. As > photons propagate between mediums their frequency does not change > (continuity of fields at the boundary), so neither does their energy. > > The total energy of a light beam is related to its intensity, and as a > light beam propagates between mediums some is reflected at the boundary, > and some is absorbed in the medium, so the total energy of the beam > decreases. > > > For theoretical context (B): > > It's not clear that photons are appropriate; certainly (B) does not > include QED (which is the theory that defines photons). So I'll say > "light packet" in context (B) where I would say "photon" in context (A). > > If individual packets of light have energy related to their speed, then > as light propagates from a more dense medium to a less dense medium, the > speed of the packets must increase, so some "magic" method must be > invented to provide such an increase in the energy of the light packets. > If packets of light have energy proportional to their frequency and > independent of their speed, then no "magic" is required and the > situation is the same as for context (A). > > In any case the intensity and total energy of the beam is reduced by the > medium, as in (A). > > As the implicit goal of ballistic theories is to relate light to > Newtonian mechanics, it is not clear how a light packet could have an > energy independent of its speed, in which case such "magic" is indeed > required. Agreed. > >> Even in a laser, neither speed nor energy is gained by the light >> passing through, only intensity. > > Again that is context (A), not (B). And the total energy of the beam is > most definitely increased, as it is related to intensity; but the energy > of individual photons is unchanged as you said. I hoped to be clear that energy refered to individual 'packets' and intensity a function of the number of packets. By intensity I meant total energy of all the packets passing through an area during a specific instant of time. > > You must be more careful in stating "energy of what", and also what > theoretical context you are using. Agreed. And we appear to be basically in agreement. What do you think of my contention that the process of bringing c+v and c-v 'packets of light' to c represents a decrease in the 'entropy of the light' and that such a decrease in entropy would require _additional_ energy besides that required to simply 'average out the energy and bring all packets to c' alone. I see a major problem [for advocates of the ballistic theory] with all the different wavelengths involved in light from a star and the different velocities of those c+v and c-v 'packets'. The logistics of properly moving the excess energy from, for example, a 455 nm 'packet-ton' traveling at c+35 km/s to a 455 nm 'packet-ton' traveling at c-35 km/s that started out hours or days earlier from the same side of the same star, traveling toward our telescope along a slightly different path.... Well, it just seems overwhelming to me. So much 'magic' must be involved in order to make sure that the energy doesn't go to a 454 nm 'packet-ton' and speed it up too much. So much 'magic' must be involved in order to make sure that the light doesn't get split up into different colors, with each being sent along a different path, scattering the image so as to make it undetectable here on earth. :) ..... > > Right. This is Henri Wilson's failure (as well as other advocates of > ballistic theories, or people like John Kennaugh who advocate c+v). As I > said above, this depends on how the energy of individual light packets > behaves; I can imagine it is possible, but the devil is in the details, > and it seems likely to me that no such "magic" can be self > consistent.... But advocates of theories involving c+v do not seem to > understand the need for this theoretical justification for such > theories. Agreed. And I doubt that they ever will. ..... >> That[speeding of slow light{when transiting from vacuum to denser medium >> was what I meant to say}] has NEVER been demonstrated. > > It is demonstrated with lenses all the time. Think of the refraction > caused by air bubbles in water for the other case (less dense "lens" > immersed in a denser medium). Or soap bubbles.... > > I agree that nobody has described a sensible mechanism to account for a > speed c/n in a medium, for light that traveled with c-v in vacuum before > entering the medium, with c-v being slower than c/n (all speeds relative > to the medium). Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for saying it clearly. And even if they did, from analogy with what happens to c light when it exits back into space from a medium, I would expect the c-v light to go back to crawling along at c-v when it exits any normal medium into the vacuum of space. Of course, we don't have any of the magic medium to run our tests upon, nor do we have any way to make any c-v light 'packet-tons'. >> Slowing down by the medium HAS been but speeding by the medium has not. >> Simultaneous slowing and speeding have not. > > Sure they have all been demonstrated, using variations of less and more > dense mediums. But yes, it has not been described or demonstrated for > the case that distinguishes ballistic or c+v theories from SR. Thanks for helping me be more clear in what I say. I hope I am learning. -- 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: Dr. Henri Wilson on 20 Nov 2007 16:49 On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:39:24 -0800 (PST), Dono <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Nov 20, 3:50 am, John Kennaugh >> Getting back to my point. The ballistic theory was the simplest theory >> consistent with the facts in 1905. There is no evidence against that >> theory worth considering until the 1960s and DeSitters evidence was >> flawed with or without extinction. >> >> -- >> John Kennaugh > >Wrong: the ballistic theory is falsified by several experiments: > >-Ives-Stilwell >-Sagnac Wrong!!! Sagnac is fully and very simply explained by the BaTh. >Sorry to disappoint you :-) Sorry to disappoint you >http://www.movv.com/prvupload/uploads/super_retard_stfu.jpg Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 20 Nov 2007 17:16
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:30:30 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >bz wrote: >> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in >> news:TFE%i.22137$lD6.20414(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net: >> bz wrote: >It's not clear that photons are appropriate; certainly (B) does not >include QED (which is the theory that defines photons). So I'll say >"light packet" in context (B) where I would say "photon" in context (A). > >If individual packets of light have energy related to their speed, then >as light propagates from a more dense medium to a less dense medium, the >speed of the packets must increase, so some "magic" method must be >invented to provide such an increase in the energy of the light packets. >If packets of light have energy proportional to their frequency and >independent of their speed, then no "magic" is required and the >situation is the same as for context (A). > >In any case the intensity and total energy of the beam is reduced by the >medium, as in (A). > >As the implicit goal of ballistic theories is to relate light to >Newtonian mechanics, it is not clear how a light packet could have an >energy independent of its speed, in which case such "magic" is indeed >required. This is plain nonsense. A photon may be regarded as an 'intrinsic oscillator' of some as yet unknown kind....maybe a rotating pair of charges... Its energy is associated with that oscillation, the frequency of which is normally doppler shifted in frames other than that of the source.. So speed enters only indirectly into the energy equation. >> Even in a laser, neither speed nor energy is gained by the light passing >> through, only intensity. > >Again that is context (A), not (B). And the total energy of the beam is >most definitely increased, as it is related to intensity; but the energy >of individual photons is unchanged as you said. > >You must be more careful in stating "energy of what", and also what >theoretical context you are using. > > >> light enters a medium from a vacuum and slows down. This has been observed. >> It does NOT speed up. > >When light enters a less dense medium from a more dense medium, it does >indeed speed up. The inner face of eyeglasses refracts the light, too. > >But yes, advocates of c+v need to discuss a mechanism for light to speed >up when transitioning from a less dense to a more dense medium (for the >case when c-v from the source is less than c/n of the medium). This does >indeed require some sort of "magic".... _I_ do not advocate such a >theory, and the burden is on such advocates, not me. An intrinsic oscillator such as a spinning pair of charges will have a 'natural' or equilibrium speed of propagation in any dielectric medium. Hence the speed of light relative to that 'medium' will vary depending on the properties of that medium. This is basically what Maxwell's said. > >>> 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). >> >> One might. I have yet to see any one do so. > >Right. This is Henri Wilson's failure (as well as other advocates of >ballistic theories, or people like John Kennaugh who advocate c+v). As I >said above, this depends on how the energy of individual light packets >behaves; I can imagine it is possible, but the devil is in the details, >and it seems likely to me that no such "magic" can be self >consistent.... But advocates of theories involving c+v do not seem to >understand the need for this theoretical justification for such theories. There are no theoretical problems associated with BaTh. E=h.nu holds.....where nu is the doppler shifted frequency. >>> 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. > >It is demonstrated with lenses all the time. Think of the refraction >caused by air bubbles in water for the other case (less dense "lens" >immersed in a denser medium). Or soap bubbles.... > >I agree that nobody has described a sensible mechanism to account for a >speed c/n in a medium, for light that traveled with c-v in vacuum before >entering the medium, with c-v being slower than c/n (all speeds relative >to the medium). > > >> Slowing down by the medium HAS been but speeding by the medium has not. >> Simultaneous slowing and speeding have not. > >Sure they have all been demonstrated, using variations of less and more >dense mediums. But yes, it has not been described or demonstrated for >the case that distinguishes ballistic or c+v theories from SR. BaTh only applies 100% in truly empty space. If a medium is involved, other factors must be considered. >Tom Roberts Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |