GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: John Kennaugh on 5 Dec 2007 15:46 Tom Roberts wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:21 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: >>> if there were actual indications that a ballistic approach was >>>needed, physicists would respond to them. >> There is no indication that any approach OTHER THAN the ballistic >>one is >> needed. > >That is HOPELESSLY naive. If I may say so you are the one who takes everything you read as being correct. >How does your "ballistic theory" of light explain the need for >relativistic kinematics in particle interactions that do not involve >light at all? Very simply. Study Waldron. Again as always you assume that if something is explained by relativity it cannot be explained by anything else. Basically it comes down to a choice. Either as per Einstein you assume the validity of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics and come up with a theory which distorts space and time, or you assume space and time are undistorted and make the necessary modifications to electrical theory. The result is the same. As Maxwell's electrodynamics depended on an aether which no one now believes in, and as Maxwell's wave in aether theory was seriously compromised by the fact that light is made up of particles not waves the latter would seem the logical choice. Especially as the basis of Maxwell - Faradays relationships - had been derived in low speed experiments. It is an article of faith that force on a charged particle caused by a potential gradient will be the same when the charged particle is moving at high speed. Heed the words of Fox. "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." [my emphasis] He looked into it. You haven't. I accept that he knew a damn sight more about it than I do. In the end he decided narrowly in favour of relativity based mainly I believe on Alvaeger et al. I assume that the rest of relativistic physics at that date came under "the VAST QUANTITY of phenomena" which could equally well be explained by Ritz's theory. Can you not get it into your head that it is a very close run thing and relativity might come out on top for no other reason than the total lack of effort which has gone into trying to make the far simpler ballistic theory work and the fact that Ritz died prematurely in 1909 leaving a clear field for Einstein. Waldron discusses the Alvaeger Nilsson and Kjellman experiment of 1963. The basis of the experiment was that both carbon and oxygen nuclei when bombarded with alpha particles absorb the particle and re-emit it at a lower energy - the difference is emitted as a photon. The carbon re-emits the photon while the nucleus is still recoiling from the impact and therefore constitutes a moving source while the delay in the case of the Oxygen is sufficient for the recoil motion to have ceased. "From their observations Alvaeger et al concluded that the invariance postulate was verified. However they published a set of typical observations and my calculations from these indicated a difference in the times of flight from the fixed and moving sources. This supports the ballistic theory and contradicts the Lorentz- Einstein theory. The reason for this opposed conclusion is not clear and correspondence with Dr Alvaeger has failed to clear up the discrepancy" Waldron 1977 It is clear that Alvaeger set out to prove the invariance postulate. It is not clear whether he would be interested in publishing anything which gave the 'wrong' answer. Would he perhaps keep modifying his set up until it gave the answer he wanted to publish. It is easily done without any intent to be fraudulent. In his later, more famous experiment there appears in the experimental set up a totally unexplained lead collimator about 1m long with a 5mm hole in it which the gamma photons are expected to negotiate. The question one has to ask is firstly what was it doing there and secondly how did his paper pass peer review with a part of the apparatus unexplained? On can assume that the collimator had an effect on the results otherwise it wouldn't have been inserted. There are a whole load of other question re Alvaeger which allow far too much wiggle room for anyone criticising it. It would of course convince anyone wanting to be convinced :o) -- John Kennaugh
From: John Kennaugh on 5 Dec 2007 15:59 Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:29:56 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >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. They have no mass or charge, but do interact >>electromagnetically with charged particles. > >If a particle has no internal structure, it cannot possibly posssess properties >that would make it any different from 'empty space'. How can anyone possibly know that a photon has no internal structure? It is an article of faith. Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can make no claims as to the structure of a photon. Tom is the ideal believer. If he reads it in a text book he will believe it and defend it. -- John Kennaugh A mighty oak is just a nut that stood its ground.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 5 Dec 2007 17:09 On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:59:42 +0000, John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >>On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:29:56 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >>wrote: >> >>>John Kennaugh wrote: >>>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. They have no mass or charge, but do interact >>>electromagnetically with charged particles. >> >>If a particle has no internal structure, it cannot possibly posssess properties >>that would make it any different from 'empty space'. > > >How can anyone possibly know that a photon has no internal structure? It >is an article of faith. > >Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can >do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you >know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can >make no claims as to the structure of a photon. It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be considered as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind. This fits in with the BaTh explanation of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena. The nature of that oscillation is not known but I suspect it could be a rotating +/- charge pair or something like a standing wave running along the length of the photon 'envelope'. Photons also have effective 'cross section and length', which explains the double slit experiment. Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it slowly lose energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift). I am also of the opinion that generated EM signals like RF, are just variations in photon density. The frequency of the 'signal' is probably not directly related to the broad range of intrinsic oscillations of the photons themselves. >Tom is the ideal believer. If he reads it in a text book he will believe >it and defend it. It seems all supporters of relativity fit into that category. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 5 Dec 2007 17:18 On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:46:33 +0000, John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >Tom Roberts wrote: >>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:21 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >>How does your "ballistic theory" of light explain the need for >>relativistic kinematics in particle interactions that do not involve >>light at all? > >Very simply. Study Waldron. Again as always you assume that if something >is explained by relativity it cannot be explained by anything else. >Basically it comes down to a choice. Either as per Einstein you assume >the validity of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics and come up with a >theory which distorts space and time, or you assume space and time are >undistorted and make the necessary modifications to electrical theory. >The result is the same. > >As Maxwell's electrodynamics depended on an aether which no one now >believes in, and as Maxwell's wave in aether theory was seriously >compromised by the fact that light is made up of particles not waves the >latter would seem the logical choice. Especially as the basis of Maxwell >- Faradays relationships - had been derived in low speed experiments. It >is an article of faith that force on a charged particle caused by a >potential gradient will be the same when the charged particle is moving >at high speed. > >Heed the words of Fox. > >"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." >[my emphasis] > >He looked into it. You haven't. I accept that he knew a damn sight more >about it than I do. In the end he decided narrowly in favour of >relativity based mainly I believe on Alvaeger et al. I assume that the >rest of relativistic physics at that date came under "the VAST QUANTITY >of phenomena" which could equally well be explained by Ritz's theory. I have now extended that 'vast quantity' to include binary star curves and the Sagnac effect, two of the favorite arguments used against BaTh. >Can you not get it into your head that it is a very close run thing and >relativity might come out on top for no other reason than the total lack >of effort which has gone into trying to make the far simpler ballistic >theory work and the fact that Ritz died prematurely in 1909 leaving a >clear field for Einstein. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Androcles on 5 Dec 2007 17:53
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:ai6el3t853kau7vkbc8g556q8nino24o70(a)4ax.com... : On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:59:42 +0000, John Kennaugh : <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: : : >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: : >>On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:29:56 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> : >>wrote: : >> : >>>John Kennaugh wrote: : : >>>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. They have no mass or charge, but do interact : >>>electromagnetically with charged particles. : >> : >>If a particle has no internal structure, it cannot possibly posssess properties : >>that would make it any different from 'empty space'. : > : > : >How can anyone possibly know that a photon has no internal structure? It : >is an article of faith. : > : >Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can : >do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you : >know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can : >make no claims as to the structure of a photon. : : It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be considered : as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind. Wow! After nearly nine years the dingbat Wilson is finally catching on to the obvious! : This fits in with the BaTh explanation : of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena. : The nature of that oscillation is not known Bullshit, of course it is known, it is just not known by Wilson. E = -dB/dt. Hanson caught on right away once it was explained to him. > [hanson] > Another way to look at photon representation via a sinusoidal EM > parameter display would be by citing/using the **fundamental** > observation that/of > > "A collapsing E-field generates an expanding M-field & visa > versa and these first principles / conservation laws say that > > 1) If there is no field of neither M nor E: Nothing happens > 2) If there is a field present but no change: Nothing happens. > 3) If there is a Magnetic Field that starts to collapse, an E field > arises. > 4) If M becomes zero, the E will be max+ at pi/2, then > 5) E starts to collapse at p/2 down to 0 at pi while > M rises from 0 at pi/2 to max at pi... ...etc & analog to/till 2pi http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm#hanson : but I suspect it could be a : rotating +/- charge pair or something like a standing wave running along the : length of the photon 'envelope'. Rubbish, too complicated. : Photons also have effective 'cross section and length', which explains the : double slit experiment. : Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation : frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its : source? Of course, idiot. w = c/f. .....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless Yes, it is. : or does it slowly lose : energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift). It doesn't lose any energy at all, what it does is gradually increase its cross-sectional area and spreads the energy over a greater area. That's what explains galactic red shift. : I am also of the opinion that generated EM signals like RF, are just variations : in photon density. No, you are guessing. Radio is a truly coherent wave. If you want to create a low frequency photon you first need a parabolic dish to give it direction and stop it broadcasting in all directions or the energy will quickly dissipate over a large area. Then you need a low frequency source such as a radio transmitter, then you need to interrupt the wave after a single cycle and voila! you have a photon. A TRAIN of photons all synchronized is a wave on a beam. A mishmash of traffic unsynchronized is a just a beam, but each photon has the same frequency as in a laser, out of phase with the others. (Or a beam may be a mixture of frequencies as in a beam of white light.) : The frequency of the 'signal' is probably not directly : related to the broad range of intrinsic oscillations of the photons themselves. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Signals carry information by modulation and one can modulate waves or photons beams equally easily. : >Tom is the ideal believer. If he reads it in a text book he will believe : >it and defend it. : : It seems all supporters of relativity fit into that category. Well, that's what you expect from non-engineers. |