GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: bz on 28 Nov 2007 21:01 HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in news:2o0sk3ldji7m4so0r7prg92k8osimr39ab(a)4ax.com: > One thing is certain. Light travels across EMPTY space purely > ballistically. How would YOU or ANYONE know as there is NO empty space anywhere in our universe? -- 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 28 Nov 2007 23:25 On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:20:54 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:46:57 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: >>> How does your "ballistic theory" of light explain the need for >>> relativistic kinematics in particle interactions that do not involve >>> light at all? >> >> As far as I can tell, there is always a plausible alternative explanation to >> any so-called 'relativistic phenomenon'. > >Why don't you tell, then? -- to date, NOBODY has proposed "a plausible >alternative explanation" for for relativistic kinematics that is in >agreement with the experiments. > >For starters: please explain how it is that elementary particles never >travel faster than c, no matter how much kinetic energy they have. Hahaha! What about all those atmospheric muons that reach the Earth's surface before decaying? Built into all those typical muon experiments is an assumption that they DO NOT travel greater than c. Muons confined in a ring are subject to huge forces that hold them together. Particles cannot be accelerated to beyond c in an accelerator for the simple reason that the applied field tends towards zero in their vicinity as they approach that speed. The additional energy required goes into the 'local reverse field'. >That, of course, is just a start on the rich topic of relativistic >kinematics.... > > >> For instance the Sagnac effect is fully xplained in purely ballistic terms. > >There's no need for relativistic kinematics in discussing the Sagnac effect. No...but the relativist's long standing claim that Sagnac disproved the BaTh has been put to rest. >> have also put forward an alternative to the 'relativistic mass increase'. > >Why is it that particles never travel faster than c, no matter how much >kinetic energy they have? .....faster than c relative to what? >> The only situations where the LTs might have any relevance might be when local >> fields exist in such a way that they contitute a virtual 'rest medium'. > >You quite clearly don't have a clue. Einstein's reasons for LTs are the same as those of any aether theory. The whole idea is wrongly conceived. >> One thing is certain. Light travels across EMPTY space purely ballistically. > >So you claim. But many experiments refute that claim. <shrug> Not the ones I have investigated. Almost all variable star curves are a direct result of varying c+v as the star orbits. How much more proof do you need? >Tom Roberts Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Tom Roberts on 30 Nov 2007 00:28 Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:20:54 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> > wrote: >> For starters: please explain how it is that elementary particles never >> travel faster than c, no matter how much kinetic energy they have. > > [red herring omitted] > > Particles cannot be accelerated to beyond c in an accelerator for the simple > reason that the applied field tends towards zero in their vicinity as they > approach that speed. The additional energy required goes into the 'local > reverse field'. This does not make sense, and does not correspond to actual observations. In a particle accelerator, the particles continue to increase their kinetic energy but don't speed up by an observable amount once they reach c (within measurement resolution). If the field really "tends toward zero" they would not increase kinetic energy. They do. When particles interact, it is the kinetic energy of the particles that counts, not some imaginary "reverse field". Even if one were to imagine that such a "reverse field" is present, it must be present within a volume of radius <10^-18 cm, which is the radius to which particle form factors have been measured -- that is much smaller than the radius of a proton, and it's not clear how you could possibly distinguish this "reverse field" from the proton itself. You keep basing arguments on your personal ignorance, not on actual facts. That is not a formula for success in science. > [more red herrings omitted] >> Why is it that particles never travel faster than c, no matter how much >> kinetic energy they have? > > ....faster than c relative to what? Relative to any frame used to measure them. Such as the lab frame of Fermilab. Or CERN. Or .... [Think about what that means, and why the earth's rotation, orbit, etc. are not important....] > [still more red herrings omitted] >>> One thing is certain. Light travels across EMPTY space purely ballistically. >> So you claim. But many experiments refute that claim. <shrug> > > Not the ones I have investigated. Unfortunately for you, that is apparently quite true. That is, you keep basing your arguments on IGNORANCE, not facts. As I said, that is not a formula for success in science. [There's no point in continuing this, until you get a clue and STUDY the experimental record.] Tom Roberts
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 30 Nov 2007 01:33 On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:28:03 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:20:54 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: >>> For starters: please explain how it is that elementary particles never >>> travel faster than c, no matter how much kinetic energy they have. >> >> [red herring omitted] >> >> Particles cannot be accelerated to beyond c in an accelerator for the simple >> reason that the applied field tends towards zero in their vicinity as they >> approach that speed. The additional energy required goes into the 'local >> reverse field'. > >This does not make sense, and does not correspond to actual >observations. In a particle accelerator, the particles continue to >increase their kinetic energy but don't speed up by an observable amount >once they reach c (within measurement resolution). If the field really >"tends toward zero" they would not increase kinetic energy. They do. It makes a lot of sense. Bolometer experiments show that the energy of the particles PLUS the surounding 'reverse field bubble' increases as though the particle mass is increasing by 'gamma'. I say it doesn't all go into kinetic energy of the particle. It takes lot of energy to set up a local field in vacuum. A charge moving at high speed between two capacitor plates constitutes a current flowing through an extremely high resistance. That creates a very high 'local' voltage drop with a lot of associated energy. >When particles interact, it is the kinetic energy of the particles that >counts, not some imaginary "reverse field". Even if one were to imagine >that such a "reverse field" is present, it must be present within a >volume of radius <10^-18 cm, which is the radius to which particle form >factors have been measured -- that is much smaller than the radius of a >proton, and it's not clear how you could possibly distinguish this >"reverse field" from the proton itself. I don't think it could be easily distinguished....and I don't see why it has to be present within the volume. I imagine the 'bubble' surrounds the charge and more or less moves with it. >You keep basing arguments on your personal ignorance, not on actual >facts. That is not a formula for success in science. You on the other hand base your arguments on what you want to believe. It stands to reason that a moving - or accelerating - charge MUST create a reactive electric field that opposes the applied accelerating field. >> [more red herrings omitted] > >>> Why is it that particles never travel faster than c, no matter how much >>> kinetic energy they have? >> >> ....faster than c relative to what? > >Relative to any frame used to measure them. Such as the lab frame of >Fermilab. Or CERN. Or .... You're just repeating the unproven second postulate. ..... you're just another religious fanatic. > > [Think about what that means, and why the earth's rotation, > orbit, etc. are not important....] A particle moving at 0.999c here will move at >c relative to a distant star moving towards us. > > >> [still more red herrings omitted] > >>>> One thing is certain. Light travels across EMPTY space purely ballistically. >>> So you claim. But many experiments refute that claim. <shrug> >> >> Not the ones I have investigated. > >Unfortunately for you, that is apparently quite true. That is, you keep >basing your arguments on IGNORANCE, not facts. As I said, that is not a >formula for success in science. I have plenty of facts....in the form of variable star curves. These are the only real test for c+v. > [There's no point in continuing this, until you get a clue > and STUDY the experimental record.] > > >Tom Roberts Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: John Kennaugh on 5 Dec 2007 15:58
Tom Roberts wrote: >John Kennaugh wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> My version of BaTh says that light consists of discreet >>>>particle-like objects >>>> called photons, >>> Use a different word -- that one is already taken, and has a VERY >>>different meaning. >> I always thought it was confounded cheek of Einstein to rename >>'corpuscles' 'photons' but as that is the name used for the particles >>of light Henri is entitled to use it even if you don't care for what >>he thinks they are composed of. > >I think that such PUNs are very confusing, and often completely destroy >an argument or discussion. > > >> Maybe you would care to enlighten us as to what you think they are >>composed of. > >This is not "me", this is the common and well-established meaning of >"photon": In the standard model, photons are elementary particles with >no internal structure. Article of faith - how can anyone possible know. Totally illogical see below. If they have no internal structure then there must be an infinite number of different photons each with a different energy? If they do have an internal structure that could store energy and all photons could be the same, apart from the energy stored in them. The latter I find more attractive. >They have no mass What is your definition of mass? Surely one measures mass either from momentum (which a photon has) or by the effect of gravity - photons are attracted by gravity. So photons have mass it is just that this conflicts with SR which says that anything with mass cannot travel at c and doctrine says SR cannot be wrong. >or charge, but do interact electromagnetically with charged particles. If it does not contain charge how can it "interact electromagnetically with charged particles". If it does not contain charge why do Maxwell's equations, based solely on the interaction of charges work so well? If there is no aether for a field to be a stress in then the alternative is that a field is simply a 'field of influence' of action at a distance force which cannot exist without a source of influence i.e. charge. How can something neutral and without any internal structure have properties related to frequency which is suggestive of a dynamic internal mechanism? It seems perfectly logical to me that a photon, or something within the structure of a photon rotates, the faster it rotates the higher the frequency, the faster it rotates the more energy it stores and as it is associated with electromagnetic fields it seems logical that what rotates is charge. >> Maybe you think he should use a different name for 'light' as his >>ideas as to what it might be differ from yours. > >It is not "me" that matters here, it is the accepted definitions and >usages of such words. The definition of a photon is a particle of light. Henri was using the word according to that definition. What you are arguing about is what its structure is. The structure (lack of) you describe may be accepted theory but that doesn't make it right. In fact it does not explain even the basics I describe above. At some point the impeccable wavelike properties produced by photons en-mass have to be reconciled with the particulate nature of light. When and only when physics can do that will I believe their concept of the photon is correct. I doubt that is possible if you assume that a photon has no internal structure. -- John Kennaugh |