GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 15 Aug 2007 03:35 sean wrote: > On 6 Aug, 08:44, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > On 5 Aug, 13:45, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4 Aug, 18:02, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:0jd7b31i2ov9ql32vjg4e9c73mr57r30vr(a)4ax.com... .... > > A minor point Sean, "classical theory" should probably > > be considered to be Maxwell's Equations, what we are > > talking about here is a theory suggested by Ritz about > > 50 years after Maxwell. > > Maybe what you want to talk about is Ritz. But Im not > and never have. Thats your disinformation at work as usual. Just trying to give you a bit of background. You won't make so many mistakes if you learn a little of the history. > Ritz was just another failed theorist like Lorentz or > Einstein so why should I promote his failed concept > of light being a particle? The idea of light being a particle had been around for centuries in philosophical terms but during the late 19th century, Maxwell's Equations treated it purely as a wave phenomenon. Planck started the modern particulate view in December 1914. Ritz's theory was published in 1908 and was, like yours, wave based. It was disproven by Sagnac in 1913 so there was no overlap between Ritz and the particle based model. > Like SR it doesnt explain MMx > or sagnac. It explains MMX, which is what prompted it, but not Sagnac. > What Im talking about is a model of light that is > based on all the classical *wavelike * observations > of light... thats wave...not a particle! Yes, that's the same as Ritz, he simply said light was emitted at c relative to the source. > ( I dont know ,Maybe not.) I couldn't see what that comment referred to. > > > So its not me speculating > > > this rod effect > > > you pretend exists. Its the obvious interpretation of > > > classical. > > > > No, the obvious interpretation is light being launched > > as you say but therefter obeying the basic laws of > > mechanics. What Ritz suggested was that light left the > > source at c but after Newton's First Law applied, the > > Your obvious interpretation of a flawed theory like Ritzs > maybe. But Im not suggesting that light should have particle > like properties arent I? Nor did Ritz. > Why dont you try reading my posts > for a change. .. Why don't you read mine? I am fairly sure I have told you before that Ritz's theory was not particle based, and if you had taken the hint that I was giving you a pointer to information you would find useful, you could have looked up Ritz's theory on the web and found out for yourself. > ... How many times have I said that all the > observations of light point to it being wave like and > as having a propoagation speed always at c relative to the > source? > I never said its particle like . None of the evidence > points to it having mass or particle like properties. Thats > your delusion. No, that's the black-body curve, the photoelectric effect and many modern experiments where individual photons are manipulated. All the evidence points that way, but note that all particles have wave-like properties. Reality is somewhere between the two that has no counterpart in our macroscopic view of the world. > > light would travel in a straight line at constant > > speed, the speed and direction having been determined > > by the conditions at the time of emission. Your version > > does away with that and has the light moving in a curved > > path so that it _looks_ straight from the source, even > > if the source changes its motion - the light also has to > > change to match the motion of the source. > > > > ... So your soi called incorrect sim you took 3 weeks to > > > understand is actually correct. What it took you 3 weeks to realize > > > that sirius doesnt move in the universe just because it doesnt move in > > > your imaginary sim? > > > > No, I just couldn't believe that you were abandoning > > Newton's First Law, I gave you the benefit of the > > doubt and assumed I was misunderstanding your posts. > > It turned out I wasn't, you really did mean what you > > were saying, at which point there was no way to > > continue the conversation scientifically since you > > have discarded the basis of all mechanics. > > Im not abandoning Newtons first law. Newtons first law > applies to mass or particles. No, it applies to anything that has momentum which includes light. > Since when did I say that light had to be a particle? I never suggested you did. > I would only be abandoning newtons first law if I claimed > light was a particle and travelled at c relative to its source > What Im saying is that light is a wave and travels > at c relative to its source. > I wonder what it is you dont understand. Do you > think that a wave is a particle? So when a wave crashes > on to a shoreline you must think each little water molecule > travelled on its own across the ocean to reach you? No. We now know that light is particles but that's a separate matter. To use you analogy, if a wave starts moving across a deep and uniform ocean from west to east, then it will continue moving in that direction until it reaches a shore. What I (and Ritz) would say is that the wave continues its progress in that manner even if it was a bow wave from a ship and the ship chenged course after the wave had left it. > This definitely isnt the case. > > Henry understands Ritz's basic theory, although he > > has some trouble with the concept of a 'frame' so > > I'll leave it to him to try to explain how light > > moves thereafter, you and he should be on the same > > side so he should have more successs than I could. > > Just because henri doesnt like SR doesnt mean we argue the same > `side`. In fact he is closer to you than me. Like you, he argues > the fantasy that isnt supported by observation that light is a photon. > Note I always have argued the exact opposite.. > I say light is not a particle or photon but a wave only . > Theres a crucial difference between particles and waves you dont > understand. > Or at least you dont understand the crucial difference between the > non particulate medium that light travels through and other > particulate mediums like water that also exhibit waves. > Look at MMx . What did it tell us? It told us that the model of light as a wave in a medium whose speed is determined by that medium (as for example the speed of sound along a metal bar is determined by the natre of the metal) together with Galilean Relativity does not work. > It told us that the aether or vacuum medium allows the passage > of light but does not seem to impede the speed of it . You don't seem to understand that what is called a "medium" for propagation defines the speed. > This means > that it is not a particulate medium. The vacuum seems to not > have mass. > The other thing the experiment tells us is that light also > does not have its speed impeded by the presence and distribution > of other mass. The refractive index tells us that the speed is affected by the presence of matter. > Or at least the effect of other mass through gravity. Light is bent round the Sun by gravity, Eddington's measurement of that effect was the first clear test of GR because the bending is double what Newtonian theory predicts. > How could it ?** MMx would not give a null result if emr obeyed > the same properties as other particles. If the particles (or waves, it doesn't matter which) were emitted at c relative to the source in the MMX then it would give a null result. The rotation of the Earth doesn't affect the fringes so the light can obey Newton's Law after emission without any problem. That was Ritz's model. > Therefore emr must not be > particulate. Sorry Sean, particles emitted at c relative to the source work as well as waves for the MMX. > And seeing as it does appear to exhibit wave like > properties and doesnt seem to exhibit particle like properties.. > Its not unreasonable to assume light is not a particle, but rather > a wave isnt it? And seeing as this apparent wave like phenomena > seems to also be observed to always travel at c only relative to > a source(MMX) then why should it be unreasonable to thus assume > that light is a wave that always travels at c relative to > its source only? Because you have to abandon Newton's first law. I think it is unreasonable to think that a wave moving due east approaching Africa which started as the bow wave of ship sailing north east near Florida will change direction if the ship changes course a day after the wave was launched. That is what you are saying. Ritz and Henry say the wave wa launched exactly the same way that you believe but that it then travels on its path regardless of any subsequent changes of motion of the source. > Thats what the observations tell us. > SR makes up the need of light to travel at c in other frames but > not the source??? No, SR says it travels at c as viewed from the source but that the geometry is such that it travels at c as measured in other inertial frames too. It is hard to explain unless you know the particular geometry but the nearest analogy I can give is that all objects above your head have an eleavation above the horizon of 90 degrees regardless of their altitude. Objects farther away (say 100m ahead of you) will have a different elevation for different altitudes. > This is ridiculous and ignores all the observations. > ALL the observations tell us it only travels at c relative to > the source, not at c in other frames. Wrong way round, all the observations confirm SR (or more accurately GR including gravity). > (**Although as we do know mass does effect the speed of light > depending on the density of the medium. But I dont think that > you could argue that the diferent speeds of light in different > mediums was due to light observing Newtons first law.) No, I only argue that waving the source around _after_ the light has been emitted cannot influence the path of the light. I know (and I hope you do too) that refractive index changes the speed and can change the direction such as in a prism but that is another matter and probably not contentious. It is your suggestion that the motion of the source continues to influence the motion of the light when it is long gone (as shown in the applet) that I consider bizarre. http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_Planets.html George
From: gb6726 on 15 Aug 2007 04:03 > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL CORRECTNESS in Einstein's relativity: > Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body ". > > All bodies are 4 dimensional. > > Bodies spin. > > If a body is to release a photon, then it will do so with the result > being the photon traveling across empty space at the velocity of c. > > When a body is in motion across space, it is being rotated within > Space-Time. The faster it moves across space, the more it extends > across Time, and the less it extends across Space. This gives the > appearance of there being a spatial length contraction. > > Also during such an event, the axis of a spinning body also begins to > extend more across Time, and less across Space, for it too is being > rotated across Space-Time. This then effects the velocity of a photon > released from such a spinning body. The change of the photons spatial > velocity is proportional to the spatial velocity of the moving body. > > Ex. in the forward direction, the photons velocity becomes c - v. This > is then combined with the velocity of the moving body that released > that photon. > > ( c - v [photon] ) + ( v [moving body] ) = c. > > Therefore, no matter what the velocity is of a moving body, it will > still release a photon in such a manner that the photon will be in > motion at a c velocity relative to an open space. > > http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm I like the name THE_ONE. Michael Jackson sang it in Billy Jeans. "She said I AM THE ONE. In a dance. In the floor..." "She said I AM THE ONE. In a dance. In the floor..." Nice to see Michael Jackson fans.
From: gb6726 on 15 Aug 2007 04:09 Humanitarian crimes to fascist somebody in terroristic psychological forms. You don't know him how he is in real life. You cannot fascist- terrorize people, it is what people in Abu Ghraib did, aimed toward personal destruction. Are you like that in real life, telling co- workers that they are mental psychopaths? You would be fired for cruelty. In fact it is you who displays mental illness and terroristic qualities of fascist nature in subliminative supremacy, dominating terrorizing criminal of mind supremacy and torture. American or British, rarely others, go figure a nazi deathcamp of what people say to those raising negative discussion on Einstein. Incredible people online. When I was first talked to like that I actually ended up in a mental institute for a week, but not before. The power of online.
From: gb6726 on 15 Aug 2007 04:17 > Humanitarian crimes to fascist somebody in terroristic psychological > forms. You don't know him how he is in real life. You cannot fascist- > terrorize people, it is what people in Abu Ghraib did, aimed toward > personal destruction. Are you like that in real life, telling co- > workers that they are mental psychopaths? You would be fired for > cruelty. In fact it is you who displays mental illness and terroristic > qualities of fascist nature in subliminative supremacy, dominating > terrorizing criminal of mind supremacy and torture. American or > British, rarely others, go figure a nazi deathcamp of what people say > to those raising negative discussion on Einstein. Incredible people > online. When I was first talked to like that I actually ended up in a > mental institute for a week, but not before. The power of online. I never in my life experienced anything like that. I actually feared going online for months after that.
From: gb6726 on 15 Aug 2007 04:24
On Aug 15, 2:17 am, gb6726 <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Humanitarian crimes to fascist somebody in terroristic psychological > > forms. You don't know him how he is in real life. You cannot fascist- > > terrorize people, it is what people in Abu Ghraib did, aimed toward > > personal destruction. Are you like that in real life, telling co- > > workers that they are mental psychopaths? You would be fired for > > cruelty. In fact it is you who displays mental illness and terroristic > > qualities of fascist nature in subliminative supremacy, dominating > > terrorizing criminal of mind supremacy and torture. American or > > British, rarely others, go figure a nazi deathcamp of what people say > > to those raising negative discussion on Einstein. Incredible people > > online. When I was first talked to like that I actually ended up in a > > mental institute for a week, but not before. The power of online. > > I never in my life experienced anything like that. I actually feared > going online for months after that. We hear of psychos like the Texas chainsaw massacre and killers in horror movies, but that kind of psycho that you are talking about for somebody doing who knows what refutung einstein is literal humanitarian terrorism. You can't do that to anybody and you should go to jail for criminal psychotic stalking yourself. It means that the only psycho attacking people violently here is you and if you do that to an unaware person, he gets very scared and molested criminally. |