GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: sean on 21 Aug 2007 13:05 On 15 Aug, 08:35, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > 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 messagenews: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. I based my interpretation of Ritz on your claims that he gave light momentum. It seems his light gets momentum from waves in a particulate aether rather than as a particle so yes, thats a bit different from what I initially thought. But the fact still remains that my model is not the same as Ritz. So please, desist from making that erroneous comparison. Note he still accepts that the aether is particulate and like water waves imparts momentum to the wave. Im saying something comletely different. Im saying that MMx showed us that the aether was **NOT** particulate and that the aether could **NOT** impart momentum to the wave. Hence MMx observes that the speed of light is always at c relative to the source. > > 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. .... Sagnac did not disprove it in 1913. THats your mistake. As Ive shown with mathematically correct sagnac simulations at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb The mistake sagnac made was to incorrectly assume that his rotating source was not the same as the rotating source in the MMx experiment. He and others like Einstein incorrectly assumed that the MMx source was not rotating around the earths axis. But it is. Both sagnac and MMx sources are rotating around a cebtral axis. And if MMx source is observed to have light propagating away from the source at c then the same must apply to the sagnac source. And one way to test this would be to put a small MMx setup onto a rotating table in a lab. And rotate that setup in a circle in the lab. If this was tried then either the small MMx setup wouldnt give a null result, in which case you could say that yes light doesnt travel at c relative to a source OR... The rotating MMx setup WOULD still give a null result. In which case I could say to you... light does always travel at c relative to a source. I bet the results would confirm my argument and refute yours. > > 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. Well no actually . Im still saying something distinctly different from Ritz still. He gives the medium mass. I dont. That means he gives the light momentum. I dont. Hence I can correctly claim that light propagates away from the source always at c. As far as I can tell he cant. He has the light propagating away from the source at c+-v. Which is a strange conclusion for him to reach after MMx. Seeing as MMx definitely shows us that light is always propagating away from a source at c, and that the medium has no mass. > > ( I dont know ,Maybe not.) > I couldn't see what that comment referred to. ? Typo? > > > > 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. I dont think youve ever said it wasnt particle based. All youve ever said was that his theory had light as having momentum. Any rational interpretation of that must lead to the conclusion that if you say Ritz proposed light had momentum, then he must also be proposing that light had mass. And light can only have mass if it is either a particle,... or ..the medium had mass. Which MMx proved doesnt have mass.(ie the aether) But yes I accept now that Ritz wasnt proposing a particulate model of light. Whats not so clear is: did he propose that the aether medium had to be particulate? He seems to be as I cant see how else he can give light momentum. But Im not proposing that the aether medium has mass Therefore to summarize: I cant very well be proposing a Ritzian model if my model is fundamentally different from Ritz can I? > > ... 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. No youve made an erroneous assumption that light has particle like properties. Where in nature does light exhibit particle like properties??? Nowhere that Im aware of. The only times when it `appears` to have particle like properties are where we dont measure the light directly with our eyes but with instruments that convert the wave light into data packets.Ie particles. And that particle nature is only an artifact of the mechanism that measures it. As Ive shown on the thread ` what evidence photons` this sort of data can be better interpreted as wave only . Even QT cannot model the data as well as a wave only model can in the so called "classic" Grangier coincidence experiment. Other examples of the apparent particle nature of light comes in particle accelerators. Here exposures give us second hand info about light. It appears as lines on the data. yet in fact even this can be easily explained as waves. Take two overlapping wavefronts as they propagate out in concentric circles. Displace them slightly and you get exact replicas of particle paths being traced out by the confluence of two or more wavefronts. In other words particle paths are overlapping wvaefronts#radiating out from a central source. Not particles. > > > 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. It doesnt apply to light if light is not a particle or if light is a wave in a medium that isnt particle based > > Since when did I say that light had to be a particle? > > I never suggested you did. Then youll have to accept that I also never suggested that the medium had to be particle like. Once you make that intellectual leap of understanding youll realize that my model does not allow light to have momentum. How could it? It doesnt allow light to have mass. > > 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. How do you KNOW that light is a particle? The truth is that all examples of the so called particle nature of light can also be explained as waves as Ive suggested above. In other words yours is an interpretation of wave data as particles not an observation of particles. > 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. > Thats true in water. Water is particulate. So when the boat moves , the water doesnt and in a sense `imparts` momentum to the expanding wave because Your problem is that you make the gross mistake of assuming that the aether or vacuum has the same properties as water or any other particle like medium. It doesnt. And in fact MMx proves it doesnt. The aether doesnt have mass nor does the mechanism by which the aether propagates the wave resemble the mechanism by which the water propagates the bow wave. The light propagates through the aether using a `mechanism` best described by magnetism. And magnetic movement isnt a physical motion of an atom. It is a rotational movement of a theoretical single point in space of a magnetic field. In other words one point in space dosnt move physically in 3-d to propagate the emr wave like water waves. Its magnetic field rotates on the **spot** in 360 degrees . > > 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. Rubbish. MMx told us that the medium,.. the vacuum or aether, does *not* determine the speed of light. MMx showed us that the source, not the aether determines the speed of light. If the medium determined the speed of light in MMx we wouldnt get a null result. > > 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. This is one of the many false claims made by relativistas. and a good example of how you actually make up evidence to support your arguments. Where is your proof that the atmosphere of the sun is not sufficient to bend the light by refraction as observed? Where? Nowhere. You made it up. Evidence is obvious by the fact that you cannot, have not nor will ever be able to supply any acceptable testable measurement of the suns atmosphere made in situ. For that matter you cant even supply any accurate measurement of the suns atmosphere near the earth. As shown by the recent tests of the solar wind which confounded experts predictions of its composition. > > 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. Yes, MMx gives a null result. That means that in MMx,... light, whatever it is,.. is moving away from the source at c. Regardless of the motion of the setup relative to the earth or the galaxy etc. > 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. Wrong. Light doesnt obey Newtons law after it leaves the MMx source. How could it ? If it did then it would slow down and **NOT** give a null result > > Therefore emr must not be > > particulate. > > Sorry Sean, particles emitted at c relative to the source > work as well as waves for the MMX. No they dont. A particle would slow as it moves away from the earth /source due to gravitational pull. > > 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. Why have I abandoned Newtons first law? It only applies to particles. EMR is a wave only and not a particle. > 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. Your mistake is to think that the medium that emr travels through (aether/vacuum) is the same as a particulate water like medium. THis is a gross misunderstanding on your part > 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. Who cares what they think. Im arguing only with what is observed. Not withy waht is assumed like Henri or Albert or Ritz. And light in MMx and sagnac is observed to travel at c relative to the source. And emr is observed to be a wave . THats what I argue . And thats not what Henri, Albert or even Ritz seem to be arguing > > 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. On this point then it seems in fact SR does not rule out what Im argueing... That light travels at c relative to a source. Why then are you saying this is not possible, when in fact you agree that even in SR terms , this is possible? > 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). Wheres your proof that light does not travel at c relative to a source? Youve even agreed above that in SR this is acceptable. > > (**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 If this is the same simulation as before then you cannot very well argue that it is not possible as in fact what your simulation models is ... the MM experiment. Are you suggesting the MMx experiment did not show that light travels away from a source always at c? You are wrong if you pretend anything else. Sean www.gammarayburst.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: George Dishman on 21 Aug 2007 18:30 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1187715936.387181.14280(a)w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 15 Aug, 08:35, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> 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 >> > > > > messagenews: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. > > I based my interpretation of Ritz on your claims that he gave > light momentum. I don't believe I sid that. AFAIK Ritz merely said light was emitted at c relative to the source. Of course we know now that light carries momentum but I'm not sure if Ritz knew it. > It seems his light gets momentum from > waves in a particulate aether rather than as a particle so yes, > thats a bit different from what I initially thought. > But the fact still remains that my model is not the same as > Ritz. So please, desist from making that erroneous > comparison. I know they are different and I wasn't suggesting they were they same. You seem to have a knack of reading far more into my posts than is intended. > Note he still accepts that the aether is particulate and like water > waves imparts momentum to the wave. No, he said nothing on the subject, only that the light moved at a certain speed. > Im saying something comletely different. Im saying that > MMx showed us that the aether was **NOT** particulate > and that the aether could **NOT** impart momentum to the wave. > Hence MMx observes that the speed of light is always at > c relative to the source. The MMx says nothing about momentum or whether light is particulate, it only tells us that the speed in the two arms is the same. >> > 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. > ... > Sagnac did not disprove it in 1913. He disproved _Ritz's_ version > THats your > mistake. As Ive shown with mathematically correct > sagnac simulations at... > http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb Even with your alternative, I think if you do the calculations you will find it also predicts a null result but I'll leave that as an excercise for you. Your simulations are flawed as I pointed out before so don't give an answer one way or the other. > The mistake sagnac made was to incorrectly assume that > his rotating source was not the same as the rotating source > in the MMx experiment. He and others like Einstein > incorrectly assumed that the MMx source was not rotating > around the earths axis. Rubbish, that motion is one factor that the experiment tries to meaure. Michelson's early attempts weren't sensitive enough but were easily good enough to measure the orbital speed of the Earth round the Sun. > But it is. Both sagnac and MMx sources are rotating around > a cebtral axis. And if MMx source is observed to have light > propagating > away from the source at c then the same must apply to the sagnac > source. That's waht you expect but it doesn't, if the speed was c relative to the source, the fringes in the Sagnac would _not_ shift but in fact they do. > And one way to test this would be to put a small MMx setup > onto a rotating table in a lab. And rotate that setup in > a circle in the lab. If this was tried then either > the small MMx setup wouldnt give a null result, in which case > you could say that yes light doesnt travel at c relative to a source > OR... > The rotating MMx setup WOULD still give a null result. In which case > I could say to you... light does always travel at c relative to a > source. > I bet the results would confirm my argument and refute yours. The result would be that the centrifugal force would distort the arms and wreck the experiment, you need to find a more practical method. >> > 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. > > Well no actually . Im still saying something distinctly different from > Ritz still. He gives the medium mass. I dont. No, he does nothing of the kind, he only said what the speed would be, that's all. > That means he gives the light momentum. I dont. > Hence I can correctly claim that light propagates away > from the source always at c. As far as I can tell he cant. > He has the light propagating away from the source at c+-v. No he had it move at c initially exactly the same as you but then move in accordance with Newton's First Law, that's the difference. > Which is a strange conclusion for him to reach after MMx. Seeing as > MMx definitely shows us that light is always propagating away from > a source at c, and that the medium has no mass. No, you are jumping to an unjustified conclusion. It tells you only that the time taken to travel along the arm and back is equal for both arms. >> > ( I dont know ,Maybe not.) >> I couldn't see what that comment referred to. > ? Typo? It just seemed isolated from everything else. If you can't remember, I'll ignore it. >> > > > 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. > > I dont think youve ever said it wasnt particle based. All youve ever > said was that his theory had light as having momentum. No, all I have ever said was that his had the same initial speed as your and that I think he would have viewed it as a wave theory but I'm not sure about that. > Any rational interpretation of that must lead to the conclusion > that if you say Ritz proposed light had momentum, I didn't say that. > then he must > also be proposing that light had mass. And light can only have > mass if it is either a particle,... or ..the medium had mass. None of that follows. Quantum theory says photons carry momentum and have zero mass. > Which MMx proved doesnt have mass.(ie the aether) Not true, it proved something quite different. > But yes I accept now that Ritz wasnt proposing a particulate > model of light. Whats not so clear is: did he propose that > the aether medium had to be particulate? I have not seem any proposal of his, but it didn't matter, what he said was that the speed was c relative to the source to explain the MMX, but the later experiment conducted by Sagnac to test Ritz's idea contradicts that. > He seems to be as I cant see how else he can give light momentum. > But Im not proposing that the aether medium has mass > Therefore to summarize: I cant very well be proposing a Ritzian > model if my model is fundamentally different from Ritz can I? Your model differs from his in one respect only, you abandon Newton's First Law, he did not. >> > ... 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. > > No youve made an erroneous assumption that light has particle > like properties. Where in nature does light exhibit > particle like properties??? > Nowhere that Im aware of. Again I wish you would read my posts, I just gave examples of the black-body curve and the photo-electric effect as experiments where light exhibits particulate behaviour. However, we are getting away from the topic so I'll decline to reply to the next bit. .... >> > > 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. > > It doesnt apply to light if light is not a particle or > if light is a wave in a medium that isnt particle based You have to be careful where there is a medium because variations in that medium can cause refraction. However, that is controlled by the medium through which the light is passing, not the motion of the distant source as you suggest. >> > Since when did I say that light had to be a particle? >> >> I never suggested you did. > > Then youll have to accept that I also never suggested that the > medium had to be particle like. Well you say a lot about it above but that's not the problem. The part I object to is your abandoning Newton's Law. > Once you make that intellectual > leap of understanding youll realize that my model does not > allow light to have momentum. How could it? > It doesnt allow light to have mass. Then it is wrong, we know light carries momentum from radiometer tests and observation of the effects of radiation pressure. >> > 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. > > How do you KNOW that light is a particle? From the black-body radiation curve to start with then the photo-electric effect. We can manipulate individual photons in modern experiments, quantum computing developments allow data bits to be coded onto individual photons and so on. > The truth is that all examples of the so called particle nature > of light can also be explained as waves as Ive suggested above. The truth is that there are vastly more experiments to be explained than you are aware of. > In other words yours is an interpretation of wave data as particles > not an observation of particles. >> 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. >> > Thats true in water. > Water is particulate. But what I said is true of water _in_bulk_ which acts like a continuous material. > So when the boat moves , > the water doesnt and in a sense `imparts` momentum to the > expanding wave because > Your problem is that you make the gross > mistake of assuming that the aether or vacuum has the same > properties as water or any other particle like medium. No, the problem is that the fact that water is actually made of particles is of no consequence but unfortunately everything there are no simple examples of anyhting that isn't particulate that I can use as an analogy. Life is awkward at times. > It doesnt. And in fact MMx proves it doesnt. > The aether doesnt have mass nor does the mechanism > by which the aether propagates the wave resemble the > mechanism by which the water propagates the bow wave. > > The light propagates through the aether using a `mechanism` > best described by magnetism. And magnetic movement isnt > a physical motion of an atom. It is a rotational > movement of a theoretical single point in space > of a magnetic field. > > In other words one point in space dosnt move physically > in 3-d to propagate the emr wave like water waves. > Its magnetic field rotates on the **spot** in 360 degrees . Yes, that is the classical description of the magnetic half of a circularly polarised wave. >> > 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. > > Rubbish. MMx told us that the medium,.. the vacuum or aether, > does *not* determine the speed of light. Then it isn't a medium. That's what the word medium means - the substance that is doing the waving, and the speed is determined by the mechanical parameters of that substance. > MMx showed us that > the source, not the aether determines the speed of light. > If the medium determined the speed of light in MMx > we wouldnt get a null result. Right, so there is no medium. >> > 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. > > This is one of the many false claims made by relativistas. It is a statement of fact, the actual bend angle is double what Newtonian physics predicts and Eddington is credited with being the first to make the measurement. > and a good example of how you actually make up evidence to > support your arguments. Where is your proof that the > atmosphere of the sun is not sufficient to bend the light > by refraction as observed? The proof is the fact that refraction varies with frequency while the measured angle does not, and the fact that measurements at other frequencies where refraction _is_ the main effect tell us what the electron density is from which we know that at optical frequencies the refraction is order of magnitude less than the gravitational effect. > Where? Nowhere. You made it up. No, it is solidly proven and Craig Markwardt gave you all the references you needed to check that for yourself, but again we are drifting off the subject. ... >> > 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. > > Yes, MMx gives a null result. That means that in MMx,... > light, whatever it is,.. is moving away from the source at c. > Regardless of the motion of the setup relative to the earth or > the galaxy etc. Yes but don't take it too far, a slight curve in the path after emission, as would be caused by the rotation of the earth, is too slight to be detected and remember the experiment was designed to cancel that out, it was looking for linear motion. The Sagnac experiment was designed to look at rotation. >> 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. > > Wrong. Light doesnt obey Newtons law after it leaves > the MMx source. How could it ? If it did then it would slow > down and **NOT** give a null result Not, because of the way the equipment is designed it gives a null in both cases, it just isn't sensitive. The amount of fringe shift depends on the enclosed area which is large for Sagnac where the light goes round the path but zero for the MMx since the light returns along the same arm. >> > Therefore emr must not be >> > particulate. >> >> Sorry Sean, particles emitted at c relative to the source >> work as well as waves for the MMX. > > No they dont. A particle would slow as it moves away from > the earth /source due to gravitational pull. Both the MMx and the Sagnac experiment must be performed in the horizontal plane generally to avoid mechanical stresses. Michelson floated a marble slab in a bath of Mercury to achieve that. >> > 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. > > Why have I abandoned Newtons first law? http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_Planets.html The paths should be straight lines, not the curves shown in the applet. > It only applies to particles. Not true. > EMR is a wave only > and not a particle. The law still applies. >> 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. > > Your mistake is to think that the medium that emr travels > through (aether/vacuum) is the same as a particulate > water like medium. THis is a gross misunderstanding on your > part No, your mistake is to take my analogy too far. In fact I make no assumption about whether light is particulate or not, nor any properties of any medium you might be considering, all I am saying is that after the light ahs been emitted, it is obvious to me that moving the source cannot affect it since the two are not connected by anything. The light just goes on its way regardless. >> 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. > > Who cares what they think. Im arguing only with what is observed. No, you are going far beyond what each experiment tells us. It takes the combination of many experiments to come to a conclusion. > Not withy waht is assumed like Henri or Albert or Ritz. > > And light in MMx and sagnac is observed to travel at c > relative to the source. And emr is observed to be a wave . > THats what I argue . And thats not what Henri, Albert or even Ritz > seem to be arguing > >> > 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. > > On this point then it seems in fact SR does > not rule out what Im argueing... That light > travels at c relative to a source. Why then are you saying > this is not possible, when in fact you agree that even > in SR terms , this is possible? I have not said it is impossible, again your reading of my posts is badly flawed. SR says the speed of light is c in _every_ inertial frame. >> 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. Try to think about that analogy, it isn't an easy concept to grasp but it might stop some of the misunderstandings if you had a better idea of how SR works, it is quite different to how I think you view it. >> > 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). > > Wheres your proof that light does not travel at > c relative to a source? > Youve even agreed above that in SR this is acceptable. It is in fact required if you express the speed in inertial coordinates (i.e. for an observer who is not being accelerated)! >> > (**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 > > If this is the same simulation as before .. Yes, I have never changed it since our first discussion of this point. > .. then you cannot very well > argue that it is not possible as in fact what your simulation models > is ... the MM experiment. Are you suggesting the MMx experiment > did not show that light travels away from a source always at c? No. You are not following the argument at all. I think what I need to do is a second applet that shows Ritz's version so you can see the difference. > You are wrong if you pretend anything else. I'll add another post after I do another applet and then maybe you will grasp the argument, at the moment we are mostly arguing past each other. George
From: George Dishman on 21 Aug 2007 18:35 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:ptfhc3pa7593cf68abm3qdgoj29if09ftn(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:26:21 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:b6qec3dg4nkf9lses1v3stns1acfrq338c(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:01:01 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>> You haven't examined many at all George. I've looked at hundreds... >>>> >>>>You have looked at hundreds - and always modelled >>>>the temperature variation wrongly thinking it was >>>>that caused by ballistic effects. >>> >>> YOU certainly do not know the true temperature variation. >> >>I'm not a professional astronomer, but they DO know >>and I can understand the papers. Typically the >>variation is ~1000K. > > :) > Calculated from brightness changes and Planck curve mode shift. Calculated from _relative_ changes hence any ballistic effects cancel, the temprature determine by that method is equally valid for ballistic theory. >>>>> and they are >>>>> mainly ADoppler derived. >>>> >>>>Model the velocity curve then compare with the >>>>radius curve and you will find every one is VDoppler >>>>only. You have been producing worthless matches to >>>>the wrong parameter for all these years. >>> >>> Keep whining and whingeing George. I'll just keep on with the >>> discoveries.. >> >>You're the one claiming to be able to model the >>curve Henry, I'll just keep pointing out that >>you cannot do so without proving that the cause >>is VDoppler, not ADoppler which is why you always >>refuse to make the attempt. > > George, if I thought it would be of any use, I would try to explain > ADoppler to > you..... but I see you mind is closed. You forget it was I who had to tell you the ADoppler equation, you couldn't work it out for yourself. I know the effects far better than you. George
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Aug 2007 19:33 On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:50:15 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:19:26 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:vfqec31dbiumolbb3uig9i0l5gmcaf8a3h(a)4ax.com... >> >> >>>In fact I have been allowing you to infer a wave-like >> >>>nature for the signal but pedantically your equations >> >>>don't even describe that so technically you don't have >> >>>a model that can even explain simple interference. One >> >>>day you should try that, you'll find it harder than >> >>>you expect. >> >> >> >> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe >> > >> >I'm not interested in exe files - where do I see >> >your mathematical derivation? >> >> This is an animation. >> The computer does the maths.That's what computers are for George. > >The computer can only calulate the equation you type in. >I repeat, there is nothing that describes a wave in your >equation so writing a program that draws a sine wave >proves nothing. Solving Maxwell's equations would give >you a sine wave but as you know they do not apply in >ballistic theory, and in QED you have the wave equation >but in ballistic theory you have no equivalent so my point >stands. George, I know this is all far too hard for you but that's no excuse for your constant whinging. >> None of my old programs will run on Windows Vista...it needs >> msvbvm50.dll...which I will place on he website. > >I will continue to use XP for some time, at least until they >fix the networking problems or I buy a new router for other >reasons. I've been having all kinds of trouble with my new laptop and Vista. . Now the bloody battery charger has packed it in... >George www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Aug 2007 19:43
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:42:44 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:17:31 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:v50fc3tgrn8pc2gsrjgl5rh9oqbivl10vi(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:39:11 -0700, George Dishman >... >> >> ..because it requires an estimate of the 'length' of a >> >> photon, (number of wavelengths) >> > >> >Not a problem, if you are treating it as a particle >> >it has no length. >> >> George, to change the subject slightly, I was thinking yesterday as I was >> fixing a microwave oven, "what role do photons play in a 1000mhz .. > >Did you really mean 1Hz ? Capitals are important in >specifying units so I'll gues you really meant MHz. I meant what I said. ...a 1000 mhz AC EM signal between two electrrodes. I'm asking what role 'photons' play in this. >> .. 10KV AC field >> between two electrodes?" There seems little similarity between a single photon >> arriving on Earth from a very distant star and the wave nature of any AC field. > >Indeed, but every photon from a distant star will by >reflected by a grating with lines ruled on it and a >microwave beam will be reflected off a grid of wires >and the equation relating the angle to the spacing >is identical, Maxwell's Equations apply equally well >to both, both have electric and magnetic components >that can be detected individually and the absoption of >microwaves by molecules to heat the food obeys the >rules of quantum mechanics, so whatever their nature, >we know they are the same thing. QED merges the >wave and particle views and predicts all of the above >effects and every other known behaviour of photons >perfectly. Complete nonsense.... >> I think this highlights how little we really know about the physical nature of >> EM and 'fields' in general. > >It highlights how little you know perhaps, but all of >the above are completely understood using QED. > >Henry, I have gone through all your other replies >in this thread and there is no real physics in any >of them, just more of your silly trolling so I'm only >going to reply to this one. This is typical of what I >mean: > >> >> I think you are interested George...because you know that there is no >> >> current >> >> explanation that works. >> > >> >Don't try to troll Henry, you're not smart >> >enough. SR works perfectly, as you well know. >> >> It never worked. >> .....but until OWLS from a moving source is directly measured, Einstein shall >> probably remain a hero rather than the villian he is. > >Sagnac did that measurement and the result was >that the speed is the same whather the source is >moving or not. Denying it is pointless Henry, >everyone who looks at the experiment and applies >your equation to it will get a null shift perdiction >while applying SR gives the formula we discussed >which is empirivcally verified. Until you change the >equations of your theory, nothing you can say will >alter that outcome, it is just pure maths. Paulm Andersen has repeatedly provided the formulae...which clearly say tb = 2.pi.r/(c+/-v) So what do these two velocity terms describe George? >George www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell. |