GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: bz on 20 Nov 2007 15:06 John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:zgEewvRHGzQHFwS0(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk: > Ritz theory is not accessible to me. http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm -- 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: bz on 20 Nov 2007 18:36 John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:0b2veLDNosQHFwg6(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk: > bz wrote: >>John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in >>news:34Ef2bI7ftPHFwrC(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk: >> >>> bz wrote: >>>>John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in >>>>.... >>>> >>>>Fox was wrong. You are wrong. >>> >>> Fox is far more qualified than either you or me. >> > > You said > > "Emission theory was disproved by .....De Sitter." > > Fox showed that DeSitter's evidence is useless. NO. Fox proposed a theory that would make DeSitters evidence moot. Fox says that binary stars do not appear to offer evidence for or against Ritz. However, he then goes on to say that there IS data that indicates Ritz was wrong. > You said 'fox was wrong'. You are not qualified to say that. You are certainly free to to hold any opinion you like. You have shown that you are neither an expert on thermodynamics nor eggs. You have failed to show that you are qualified to express an opinion on my qualifications. >>Does he still claim that Ritz is right? > > Your question is not relevant to the discussion. You are right _because_ Fox does NOT support Ritz. He concluded that although Ritz was interesting, the theory is not viable. [quote]Despite various misunderstanding in the interpretation of past experiment, we still have good reason to reject the emission theory.... Over the years, a number of people have objected that the theory of special relativity was incorrect. None of the objections has withstood criticism. [unquote] > I am not interested in your ramblings. I have explained the basics of > extinction namely that provided the frequency remains constant your > carping that energy is needed is wrong, as is the idea that a force is > necessary to change the speed of a massless particle. You explained your understanding of a process you call extinction. > I have not studied extinction in detail so am not going to spend more > time trying to argue with you. Good. > Find someone who has studied it to argue > with. I doubt that someone who has studied it would argue with what I said, but I am always glad to learn. > IF you can show me some paper in the literature which questions > Fox's assertion that extinction is theoretically possible (not whether > it does or doesn't take place) I would be interested in it. Otherwise I > will assume that you are the only person in the entire world who thinks > it is impossible. You are free to assume anything you want. You do know the hazards of assuming, don't you? > > 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. And I am free to disagree with your assertions about the ballistic theory being the simplest theory. And I am free to disagree with your assertions about the ballistic theory being consistent with the data available after Ritz and before Fox. By the way, I provided you with a reference for Ritz. It was easy to find via a google search. I notice that it seems to be 'less physical' and 'more math' than what you seem to be seeking, but perhaps you will still find it interesting. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu -- 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: Pentcho Valev on 21 Nov 2007 02:08 On Nov 20, 5:30 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > bz wrote: > >TomRoberts<tjroberts...(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 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. > > 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. The hypnotist advances a red herring, startles, sings "Divine Einstein" and goes into convulsions, followed by his zombies. Roberts Roberts since the constancy/inconstancy of the speed of photons is at stake, your first task is to show how exactly the speed of photons varies with the gravitational potential. You have already started this: Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > Pentcho Valev wrote: > > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? > Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can > also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the > standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated > observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in > Minkowski spacetime). > Tom Roberts tjroberts(a)lucent.com Roberts Roberts, as the speed of photons varies with the gravitational potential, does it do so in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) or would you offer another equation? (Note that any equation should be consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 confirmed by Pound and Rebka). Give the correct equation Roberts Roberts! Then Roberts Roberts you have a second task: by applying Einstein's equivalence principle, you will have to convert Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer, in the absence of a gravitational field. If c'=c(1+V/c^2) is correct, then c'=c+v is correct and vice versa. Do you agree Roberts Roberts? And that would be all Roberts Roberts. These two tasks will demonstrate that you are, if not the cleverest hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult (John Norton is cleverer than you), at least the most honest hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult. Sounds good doesn't it. Pentcho Valev
From: John Kennaugh on 21 Nov 2007 16:19 bz wrote: >John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in >news:zgEewvRHGzQHFwS0(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk: > >> Ritz theory is not accessible to me. > >http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm Thank you. I would suggest that you study the experiments which Fox claims *do* provide evidence against ballistic theory rather than trying to claim that experiments which have been shown to be consistent both with SR and ballistic theory somehow disprove Ballistic theory because you want them to. That is a dead end. "You have undertaken an ambitious project in translating the long 1908 paper of W. Ritz. Although I believe that experimental evidence is against Ritz's theory, I also believe that there are a number of interesting critical ideas in his paper. Furthermore it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory." Fox. You may indeed take comfort from the statement "I believe that experimental evidence is against Ritz's theory" and rightly so but if I was a relativist I would be concerned that a theory was buried/ignored for 60 years which without development or modification over that period still "comes so close to describing correctly the vast quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory." I believe that any science works better when there are opposing view points. To take a political analogy effective opposition keeps the party in power on its toes. What you had in physics for nearly a century is the equivalent of a one party state where what is published, what is financed, is in the hands of the party faithful not because there was no alternative to relativity - there very clearly was. Crushing opposition is not good for science, nor is it good for politics. -- John Kennaugh
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 21 Nov 2007 17:04
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:19:17 +0000, John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >bz wrote: >>John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in >>news:zgEewvRHGzQHFwS0(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk: >> >>> Ritz theory is not accessible to me. >> >>http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm > >Thank you. > >I would suggest that you study the experiments which Fox claims *do* >provide evidence against ballistic theory rather than trying to claim >that experiments which have been shown to be consistent both with SR and >ballistic theory somehow disprove Ballistic theory because you want them >to. That is a dead end. > >"You have undertaken an ambitious project in translating the long 1908 >paper of W. Ritz. Although I believe that experimental evidence is >against Ritz's theory, I also believe that there are a number of >interesting critical ideas in his paper. Furthermore it is of interest >for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's theory, so different >in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, could come so >close to describing correctly the vast quantity of phenomena described >today by relativistic electromagnetic theory." Fox. > >You may indeed take comfort from the statement "I believe that >experimental evidence is against Ritz's theory" and rightly so but if I >was a relativist I would be concerned that a theory was buried/ignored >for 60 years which without development or modification over that period >still "comes so close to describing correctly the vast quantity of >phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory." ....and having now taken the ballistic theory a lot further than Ritz or Fox ....or indeed anyone else, I have now filled in most of the gaps and answered the difficult questions. Unfortunately, neither Ritz nor Fox had access to fast computers.... BaTh now fully explains Sagnac, most variable star curves, diffraction and gravitational redshift....as well as any other phenomenon associated with light. A photon may be regarded as an intrinsic oscillator, the period of which represents an absolute time interval when measured in the source frame. Photon 'wavelength' is the distance it moves in one period. As I have now shown elsewhere, that wavelength has the same value in all frames. Like all lengths, it is absolute and invariant. It must be pointed out however that BaTh operates 100% effectively only in pure vacuum. Surrounding any large mass, there exists a 'sphere of EM control' that may act like a weak 'local aether'. In the case of close binary pairs, the 'spheres' tend to cancel one another out, which is why contact binaries generally show little or no brightness variation. see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe >I believe that any science works better when there are opposing view >points. To take a political analogy effective opposition keeps the party >in power on its toes. What you had in physics for nearly a century is >the equivalent of a one party state where what is published, what is >financed, is in the hands of the party faithful not because there was no >alternative to relativity - there very clearly was. Crushing opposition >is not good for science, nor is it good for politics. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |