What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 25 May 2010 16:13 On May 25, 4:03 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 5:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 21, 6:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > With the advent of electromagnetism, they were very certain that the > > > Aether existed back then. > > > That was the prevailing thought, yes. But then again, so was strict > > determinism. Both were wrong. > > They were never wrong. <shrug> > > > > The MMX was meant to find the drift speed > > > of the earth relative to the stationary background of the Aether not > > > to prove or disprove the principle of relativity. > > > Don't be ridiculous. If the aether had been found, this would have > > explicitly demonstrated that Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics do not > > respect the principle of relativity. > > Electromagnetism does not satisfy the principle of relativity anyway. > The ridiculous thing is to mathemagically fudge the Maxwells > equations to satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug> > > > This was not lost on the folks of the day. > > The only ones got lost are the self-styled physicists in the past 100 > years. <shrug> > > > > Anyhow, this is > > > irrelevant. The real issue is the valid way to interpret the null > > > results of the MMX. What Voigt and Larmor came up with are valid, but > > > what Poincare came up with is not. The MMX failed to find the drift > > > speed of the earth relative to the stationary background of the > > > Aether, but it certainly proves the existence of the Aether. > > > This is a remarkable statement. Failing to find something proves that > > it exists, simply because one conceptually has to posit its existence > > in order to design the test for it? > > Failing to find so means a re-tweak of the mathematical model. In any > case, all mathematical models show a breakdown in the principle of > relativity. <shrug> > > > I have an idea. Let's generate a test for angels. We'll posit their > > existence in order to devise a test to look for their trails. Then, > > when the search for their trail shows no positive results, we can > > nevertheless assert that the test proved the existence of angels, > > because we had to posit their existence even to perform the test. > > You are getting insane as a grumpy old man. Is it the unemployment > thing, grand kids not visiting, or just old age? <shrug> > > > > In doing > > > so, it leads to new laws of physics. <shrug> > > > > The drift speed of the earth relative to the stationary background of > > > the earth was discovered through the Doppler shift in CMBR. <shrug> > > > Nah. It shows the drift speed of the earth relative to the radiative > > horizon that GENERATED the CMBR. > > When seen divine signs, you still refuse to recognize Christ. Just > repent. <shrug> > > > > I meant what Poincare came up with is not valid. You need to get over > > > with that. <shrug> > > Finally, you got over with that. <shrug> > > > > There are actually a infinite numbers of models that will explain the > > > null results of the MMX, yes. <shrug> > > Understand? > > > > However, the only mathematical model that satisfies the principle of > > > relativity is the ballistic theory of light and none else. <shrug> > > > Don't be silly! > > Who? Me? Not. > > > Relativity is not ballistic and it also satisfies the > > principle of relativity AND it also accounts for the results of the > > MMX. ============= > > Again, the ballistic theory of light satisfies the Galilean transform > and the principle of relativity. It also explains the null results of > the MMX. You need to get over with that as well. <shrug> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment Sue... > > > More importantly, it also accounts for a huge number of results > > other than the MMX. > > What are those again? > > > > Relativity seems only to hold at low speeds. Name one experiment to > > > test relativity at high speeds. <shrug> > > > You're joking, right? > > No. <shrug> > > So, no experiments actually prove the validity in the principle of > relativity. > > > > But one single experiment can prove a conjecture invalid. <shrug> > > > This is true, but the MMX certain did not prove relativity invalid, > > did it? > > No, if you accept the ballistic theory of light. Yes, if you dont. > <shrug> > > > If you have 5 models that all support an experimental result, this > > fact does not present any proof that any on of them is invalid. > > Whats that again? <shrug> > > > > So, if the Lorentz transform were found to be invalid, would that also > > > invalidate electromagnetism? > > > Yes, it would. Because those laws would only apply in one frame. And > > there would have to be *different* laws of electrodynamics in other > > frames. > > > This would be the point, you see. > > See the reply I gave to Paul Stowe. > > > > This is just not true. The Lorentz transform as you know of which > > > came from Poincare is a special case to Larmors Lorentz transform. > > > The special case is when the two observers/frames are moving in > > > parallel to each other. Larmors Lorentz transform explains the null > > > results of the MMX but does not satisfy the principle of relativity. > > > <shrug> > > > What???? > > The Lorentz transformation certain satisfies the principle of > > relativity. > > Yes, the Lorentz transform (Poincares version) does satisfy the > principle of relativity, but it is only valid in a very special case. > In general, it is not. Thus, it does not explain the null results of > the MMX. However, Larmors version where every observation is > dependent on the stationary background of the Aether does explain the > null results. <shrug> > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587f... > > > > But the Lorentz transform is not valid. > > > That is determined by whether it matches experimental results. Period. > > So far, it does. > > No, it does not. <shrug> > > > > You are indeed very ignorant and remain ever so mystified that even > > > you dont realize you are totally mystified. <shrug> > > > Ah, the old "Well, if I'm mystified, then you should be mystified, and > > if you're not, then you don't even realize that you're mystified, > > because I am omniscient and therefore it's patently obvious that you > > can claim to understand something I don't" argument. > > You got that all wrong again. It is If I (PD) am mystified, I > certainly would not know that I am indeed mystified myself. The > moral of the story is that ignorant people like PD just dont know > they are ignorant. <shrug>
From: PD on 25 May 2010 18:17 On May 25, 3:03 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 5:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 21, 6:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > With the advent of electromagnetism, they were very certain that the > > > Aether existed back then. > > > That was the prevailing thought, yes. But then again, so was strict > > determinism. Both were wrong. > > They were never wrong. <shrug> Wrong means inconsistent with experiment. Determinism is inconsistent with a number of experiments. > > > > The MMX was meant to find the drift speed > > > of the earth relative to the stationary background of the Aether not > > > to prove or disprove the principle of relativity. > > > Don't be ridiculous. If the aether had been found, this would have > > explicitly demonstrated that Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics do not > > respect the principle of relativity. > > Electromagnetism does not satisfy the principle of relativity anyway. Ah! So in that case there are at least two forms for the laws of electromagnetism: one for the aether frame, and a different form for any inertial reference frame in which the aether is in motion. 1. Do tell what the two different forms of the laws of electromagnetism are. 2. Show that both forms agree with experimental results in the appropriate frame. > The ridiculous thing is to mathemagically fudge the Maxwells > equations to satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug> Maxwell's equations are not fudged in any way. They are invariant regardless of inertial reference frame. Applying the Lorentz transformation to show that they are invariant under that transformation does not "fudge" them. You are the one that just said that Maxwell's equations should not be expected to satisfy the principle of relativity. You therefore have to provide the modified form of Maxwell's equations in other frames. You do know what the principle of relativity means, don't you? > > > This was not lost on the folks of the day. > > The only ones got lost are the self-styled physicists in the past 100 > years. <shrug> > > > > Anyhow, this is > > > irrelevant. The real issue is the valid way to interpret the null > > > results of the MMX. What Voigt and Larmor came up with are valid, but > > > what Poincare came up with is not. The MMX failed to find the drift > > > speed of the earth relative to the stationary background of the > > > Aether, but it certainly proves the existence of the Aether. > > > This is a remarkable statement. Failing to find something proves that > > it exists, simply because one conceptually has to posit its existence > > in order to design the test for it? > > Failing to find so means a re-tweak of the mathematical model. Ah, so what you are proposing is DEMANDING the existence of the aether, regardless of evidence for it or against it, and instead tweaking the model to explain why the aether is undetectable. That is, posit the existence of gremlins, but then also posit that all evidence for their existence is unattainable. > In any > case, all mathematical models show a breakdown in the principle of > relativity. <shrug> > > > I have an idea. Let's generate a test for angels. We'll posit their > > existence in order to devise a test to look for their trails. Then, > > when the search for their trail shows no positive results, we can > > nevertheless assert that the test proved the existence of angels, > > because we had to posit their existence even to perform the test. Oh, sorry, angels, not gremlins. Forgot. > > You are getting insane as a grumpy old man. Is it the unemployment > thing, grand kids not visiting, or just old age? <shrug> > > > > In doing > > > so, it leads to new laws of physics. <shrug> > > > > The drift speed of the earth relative to the stationary background of > > > the earth was discovered through the Doppler shift in CMBR. <shrug> > > > Nah. It shows the drift speed of the earth relative to the radiative > > horizon that GENERATED the CMBR. > > When seen divine signs, you still refuse to recognize Christ. Just > repent. <shrug> > > > > I meant what Poincare came up with is not valid. You need to get over > > > with that. <shrug> > > Finally, you got over with that. <shrug> > > > > There are actually a infinite numbers of models that will explain the > > > null results of the MMX, yes. <shrug> > > Understand? > > > > However, the only mathematical model that satisfies the principle of > > > relativity is the ballistic theory of light and none else. <shrug> > > > Don't be silly! > > Who? Me? Not. > > > Relativity is not ballistic and it also satisfies the > > principle of relativity AND it also accounts for the results of the > > MMX. > > Again, the ballistic theory of light satisfies the Galilean transform > and the principle of relativity. It also explains the null results of > the MMX. You need to get over with that as well. <shrug> Yes, it does, but it does NOT explain the multitude of OTHER experimental tests that distinguish between the ballistic theory and relativity. Once again, if you have two theories, theory A based on one set of assumptions and theory B based on another set of assumptions, and both theory A and theory B account for the results of a single experiment, you have not disproven theory A by virtue of theory B also working. All you've done is focus attention on the experiment that does not distinguish them, thereby wasting time. Instead, one looks at DIFFERENT experiments, where the predicted observations of theory A and theory B are DIFFERENT, and you pay attention to those. You may want to check a number of experiments devised to test the ballistic theory of light. In the event you look at those and insist that there is some yet unidentified theory that reproduces all those results and STILL satisfies the Galilean transform, the call to action is for you to produce it. > > > More importantly, it also accounts for a huge number of results > > other than the MMX. > > What are those again? Seriously? You believe there have been no tests of relativity since the MMX? http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html That's for starters. > > > > Relativity seems only to hold at low speeds. Name one experiment to > > > test relativity at high speeds. <shrug> > > > You're joking, right? > > No. <shrug> > > So, no experiments actually prove the validity in the principle of > relativity. Be careful, there is a distinction between testing the principle of relativity and proving the principle of relativity. In science one compares a theory's predictions against measurements -- that is called a test. If those are consistent, then the experiment *supports* the theory. It does not prove it. The theory that succeeds in surviving the most tests wins. So far, relativity has done that better than any competing theory. So it wins, despite the theory not being proven. If you have a theory that you think competes as well in all those tests, then produce it. Ballistic theory ain't it. > > > > But one single experiment can prove a conjecture invalid. <shrug> > > > This is true, but the MMX certain did not prove relativity invalid, > > did it? > > No, if you accept the ballistic theory of light. Yes, if you dont. No, it does not prove relativity invalid. Where was the disagreement between relativity's result and the measured result? That's the only proof of invalidity available. > <shrug> > > > If you have 5 models that all support an experimental result, this > > fact does not present any proof that any on of them is invalid. > > Whats that again? <shrug> > > > > So, if the Lorentz transform were found to be invalid, would that also > > > invalidate electromagnetism? > > > Yes, it would. Because those laws would only apply in one frame. And > > there would have to be *different* laws of electrodynamics in other > > frames. > > > This would be the point, you see. > > See the reply I gave to Paul Stowe. > > > > This is just not true. The Lorentz transform as you know of which > > > came from Poincare is a special case to Larmors Lorentz transform. > > > The special case is when the two observers/frames are moving in > > > parallel to each other. Larmors Lorentz transform explains the null > > > results of the MMX but does not satisfy the principle of relativity. > > > <shrug> > > > What???? > > The Lorentz transformation certain satisfies the principle of > > relativity. > > Yes, the Lorentz transform (Poincares version) does satisfy the > principle of relativity, but it is only valid in a very special case. ?? I don't know what special case you're referring to. > In general, it is not. Thus, it does not explain the null results of > the MMX. Yes, it does. The laws of electrodynamics plus the principle of relativity (via the Lorentz transform) predict exactly the behavior observed. This match is sufficient for explanation. > However, Larmors version where every observation is > dependent on the stationary background of the Aether does explain the > null results. <shrug> > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587f... > > > > But the Lorentz transform is not valid. > > > That is determined by whether it matches experimental results. Period. > > So far, it does. > > No, it does not. <shrug> Which result is inconsistent with the predictions of relativity? > > > > You are indeed very ignorant and remain ever so mystified that even > > > you dont realize you are totally mystified. <shrug> > > > Ah, the old "Well, if I'm mystified, then you should be mystified, and > > if you're not, then you don't even realize that you're mystified, > > because I am omniscient and therefore it's patently obvious that you > > can claim to understand something I don't" argument. > > You got that all wrong again. It is If I (PD) am mystified, I > certainly would not know that I am indeed mystified myself. You are a hoot. So anyone who claims to understand something does not in fact understand it, but fails to understand that he doesn't understand it. Aha. You being the exception of course, because if YOU claim to understand it, then it's simply not possible that you do not understand it but fail to understand that you don't understand it. It's possible for mortals but not for you. > The > moral of the story is that ignorant people like PD just dont know > they are ignorant. <shrug>
From: BURT on 25 May 2010 18:22 Science can know only the odds. But God knows every outcome. As Einstein said "He does not play dice." The universe was designed for forever. Mitch Raemsch
From: spudnik on 25 May 2010 18:35 look up Dayton C. Miller's refinements of M&M's work, to see that there are no "null results," as is oft said. not, however, that it rquires any aether, than the medium of space, itself -- it ain't Pascal's vacuum, nor is it any other theoretical physicists absolute vacuum. (also, "surfer" has a nice graph of osme of these non-null results, inter-compared .-) > > Again, the ballistic theory of light satisfies the Galilean transform > > and the principle of relativity. It also explains the null results of > > the MMX. You need to get over with that as well. <shrug> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment thusNso: there are lots of folks on the nets (sik), who apparently are second-generation Americans, and who are not really literate in two languages. what I'm saying is, you'll never grok English, til you *try* to read Shakespeare -- which is all anyone can do, especially the God-am British. (see, "Why the British Hate Shakespeare," http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf ... of course, probably, one'd also have to "get classical" in one's mother tongue, two, ultimately .-) thusNso: there is no problem with using four dimensions, in two ways: a) a 3D movie; b) homogenous coordinates for ordinary space. unforunately, the British Psychological Society muddied the waters with monsieur A.A. Skwared -- as if the pythagorean theorem had anything to do with skwares, or even with 2D shapes, alas. thusNso: there was once a thing, actually a decade or two ago, called the U.S. Climate Reference Network, that was just a dataset of the 28 continental weather stations that had not been "incorporated" by the urban heat island effect -- then understood only in terms of manmade changes of albedo & evapotraspiration. when I tried to search it online, a while ago, I found that it had mysteriously been allowed to, well, not be just a dataset, and there were plans for starting a new one, some time. > Here's some data from Iowa State University > http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html thusNso: "case" is every thing, in this context, and I stand by what I mean by it (a little calculation of a long time ago, inspired by Bucky saith .-) anyway, your say-so is rather nonsensical, since everyone else comprehends them to be two forms of the *same* thing, only one of which "has" mass. you pretty-much tossed your whole cookie, by "transforming the equation into maether." > Your 'm' refers to mass. That is inaccurate. Both aether and matter > have mass. Both aether and matter are different states of mæther. > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, or: M=A/c^2. > Change your lowercase 'm' to an upper case 'M' and you've got it. thusNso: there are lots of effects that are not neccesarily taken into account by the UNIPCC, such as subsidence of land due to erosion from agriculture & deforestation (even though there really is no discernible world-around "rise of sea level," excepting in computerized simulacra, as with so much else). thusNso: there are plenty of questions, probably most of which've been answered in the literature. like, given the redshifting of light through the medium of space (sik), are those shifts continuous with distance, or just very subtle? the whole idea of a rock o'light, aimed at your eye from a star, doesn't seem absurd if those rocks are aimed everywhere; still, the particle is not needed, if one accepts that a (spherical) wave can be a quantum. certainly, it would get rid of the conundrum of a massless/momentumless & volumeless "point of light" a la Dubya. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html > Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there > is stray light coming in from another source. That's how, > We didn't really go to Moon! thusNso: you have slightly misconstrued. the wave-energy seems to be adequately tuned to the electromagnetic property of the atom, and *that* is the "particle" into which it "collapses," not the quantum-called-photon. the photon is nothing but a coinage for a unit of light-energy, as-and-when "detected" by a device or cone of the eye (the rods & cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-) nothing in Planck's analysis requires a rock o'light, and probably not really in Einstein's; so, there. > > > > > > > Decide a photon propagates as a wave and is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > That is what you are suggesting in all of your quotes above, > > > > > > > "Light collapsing into a particle" e.g.. --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other! http://wlym.com
From: Koobee Wublee on 29 May 2010 01:04
On May 25, 3:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 3:03 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > With the advent of electromagnetism, they were very certain that the > > > > Aether existed back then. > > > > That was the prevailing thought, yes. But then again, so was strict > > > determinism. Both were wrong. > > > They were never wrong. <shrug> > > Wrong means inconsistent with experiment. Determinism is inconsistent > with a number of experiments. They were actually correct. The error lies in the self-styled physicists in the past 100 years as I have already explained. <shrug> > > Electromagnetism does not satisfy the principle of relativity anyway. > > Ah! > So in that case there are at least two forms for the laws of > electromagnetism: one for the aether frame, and a different form for > any inertial reference frame in which the aether is in motion. > 1. Do tell what the two different forms of the laws of > electromagnetism are. > 2. Show that both forms agree with experimental results in the > appropriate frame. The only mathematical model that satisfies the principle of relativity is the ballistic theory of light. That is the good old Galilean transform. It is true, and try to get over with that. <shrug> And since the Galilean transform is not compatible with electromagnetism, there is no valid mathematic model that can intermarry electromagnetism and the principle of relativity. <shrug> > > The ridiculous thing is to mathemagically fudge the Maxwells > > equations to satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug> > > Maxwell's equations are not fudged in any way. That is correct. <shrug> > They are invariant > regardless of inertial reference frame. A statement like that is called fudging. <shrug> > Applying the Lorentz > transformation to show that they are invariant under that > transformation does not "fudge" them. The Lorentz transform as you know of is not valid. It is a mathemagical representation of Larmor's transform. <shrug> > You are the one that just said that Maxwell's equations should not be > expected to satisfy the principle of relativity. That is correct. <shrug> > You therefore have to > provide the modified form of Maxwell's equations in other frames. Why? I like Maxwell's equations the way they are. <shrug> > You do know what the principle of relativity means, don't you? Yes. > > The only ones got lost are the self-styled physicists in the past 100 > > years. <shrug> Amen! > > Failing to find so means a re-tweak of the mathematical model. > > Ah, so what you are proposing is DEMANDING the existence of the > aether, regardless of evidence for it or against it, and instead > tweaking the model to explain why the aether is undetectable. That is, > posit the existence of gremlins, but then also posit that all evidence > for their existence is unattainable. The null results of the MMX demand a stationary background of the Aether. The stationary background of the Aether was found through the Doppler shift of the CMBR. What more do you want? > > In any > > case, all mathematical models show a breakdown in the principle of > > relativity. <shrug> > > > > I have an idea. Let's generate a test for angels. We'll posit their > > > existence in order to devise a test to look for their trails. Then, > > > when the search for their trail shows no positive results, we can > > > nevertheless assert that the test proved the existence of angels, > > > because we had to posit their existence even to perform the test. > > Oh, sorry, angels, not gremlins. Forgot. Same nonsense from you. <shrug> > > You are getting insane as a grumpy old man. Is it the unemployment > > thing, grand kids not visiting, or just old age? <shrug> Too confused to tell? > > Again, the ballistic theory of light satisfies the Galilean transform > > and the principle of relativity. It also explains the null results of > > the MMX. You need to get over with that as well. <shrug> > > Yes, it does, but it does NOT explain the multitude of OTHER > experimental tests that distinguish between the ballistic theory and > relativity. That is correct. > Once again, if you have two theories, theory A based on one set of > assumptions and theory B based on another set of assumptions, and both > theory A and theory B account for the results of a single experiment, > you have not disproven theory A by virtue of theory B also working. No, you got that wrong. Only one of the theories satisfy the results of that experiment. The rest is just purely nonsense from you as ususal. <shrug> > > What are those again? > > Seriously? You believe there have been no tests of relativity since > the MMX? > http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > That's for starters. Wait! SR is the result of misinterpretations to that experiment that I have explained so thoroughly so. Any experiment to prove SR is by default more nonsense. Sure enough, each one is flawed. <shrug> > > So, no experiments actually prove the validity in the principle of > > relativity. > > Be careful, there is a distinction between testing the principle of > relativity and proving the principle of relativity. Give me your best then, and stop giving me bullshit. Name an experiment to prove/test the principle of relativity at high speeds. <shrug> > > No, if you accept the ballistic theory of light. Yes, if you dont. > > No, it does not prove relativity invalid. Then, you must accept the ballistic theory of light. <shrug> Since you don't, you are really confused. That is expected from a grumpy old man complaining why his grand children don't come to visit any more. <shrug> > > See the reply I gave to Paul Stowe. So, you don't understand basic mathematics. There is no need to continue. The rest of your nonsense is snipped. <shrug> |