 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / January 20052005 is Einstein Year
100 years ago, in June 1905, Albert Einstein, who IMO was the greatest brain that ever lived, produced his Theory of Special Relativity, which showed that the speed of light is approx. 186,000 miles per second, measured from any observer, regardless of how fast that observer is moving. This had a disturbing ramification in that if you move at a speed approaching that of light, time becomes distorted. http://tinyurl.com/5vutz http://tinyurl.com/4du8q http://tinyurl.com/4sgna Regards Mike.  SignatureNorth Wales should be independent from South Wales. Let 2005 be then the year of learning and discovery. Politicians please note. Mabon Dane > 100 years ago, in June 1905, Albert Einstein, who IMO was the greatest > brain that ever lived, I heard that his brain still exists. > produced his Theory of Special Relativity, which > showed that the speed of light is approx. 186,000 miles per second, > measured from any observer, regardless of how fast that observer is > moving. Which was well known at that time and not shown but used by him - you have it upside down... Harald > This had a disturbing ramification in that if you move at a > speed approaching that of light, time becomes distorted. > http://tinyurl.com/5vutz > http://tinyurl.com/4du8q > http://tinyurl.com/4sgna > Regards Mike. Harry writes >> 100 years ago, in June 1905, Albert Einstein, who IMO was the greatest >> brain that ever lived, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> measured from any observer, regardless of how fast that observer is >> moving. >Which was well known at that time and not shown but used by him - you have >it upside down... You are as bad as he is at scrambling the facts. It was not 'well known' it was 'widely believed'. It had been 'widely believed' for 200 years because it was a property of the ether as in 'the speed of light is constant w.r.t the ether so cannot be affected by the speed of the source'. Referred to as 'source independence'. MMX represented a T-junction. There were two possible ways to go. 1/ Conclude that there is no ether, therefore a source (in vacuum) is surrounded by nothing which can affect the speed of light, so the only thing which can determine it, is the physical processes taking place in the source. Conclusion - the speed of light adds to that of the source as other velocities add. This is by far the simplest explanation of MMX. There was no experimental evidence to rule it out#. This idea was taken up by Walter Ritz in his 'emission theory'. Unfortunately Ritz died in 1909 so his battle with Einstein was cut short. The idea is given a boost when light was found to be made of particles as there is no conceivable reason why the speed a particle exit a source should not be relative to the source. 2/ Conclude that despite the MMX result the wave ether theory is too good a theory to abandon. Light does indeed give a very convincing impression that it is waves. Lorentz found a 'fix' for it. What Lorentz said was that light was waves travelling in the ether at c as per Maxwell but because of interaction between the ether and ponderable matter - which expressed mathematically gave the Lorentz transforms - it appeared to an observer that the speed of light is always c. Enter Einstein. He said in effect - let us assume that it appears to an observer that the speed of light is always c. [and not worry about why]. Hardly surprising that he got the same maths as Lorentz did. SR and LET share the same maths. Note that the second postulate of relativity is simply a combination of the first and 'source independence' and in effect says that 'the speed of light is constant w.r.t the observer observing it'. If you study Einstein's 1905 paper the first thing which should strike you if you are awake is that he makes no attempt to justify the idea of 'source independence' (the second postulate). Einstein was one of those who 'widely believed' it but there was no experimental justification for that belief# and no philosophical justification for it other than the ether yet there is a widely held view that Einstein somehow got rid of the ether. Now you have probably been told that relativity is called relativity because it is based on the principle of relativity - the PoR. I have to tell you however that Ritz's theory is perfectly consistent with the PoR as is Ritz's assumption of source dependence. What makes relativity fundamentally different to Ritz theory is the second postulate - the belief in source independence - so it is more accurate to say that the theory is based on that rather than the PoR. In fact in his 1905 paper Einstein himself said the second postulate/source independence is 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR. Many seem to think that it follows from it. Quite the contrary. What Einstein did is to set about mathematically reconciling the 'apparently reconcilable'. In order to do this he had to ditch two axioms of physics - universal time and universal distance. At this point you may wish to ask yourself whether it was sensible to turn physics on its head and junk two axioms of physics just to retain a property of the ether - source independence - in view of the fact that no relativist believes in the ether these days. Mathematically what he did was to give a frame of reference (a mathematical abstraction) the properties that light always travelled in it at c. This is fine mathematically but it doesn't translate into the physical world. Light is a real physical energy which requires a real physical process to get it from A to B and to determine what speed it travels at. A frame of reference defines a volume of space which if empty (no ether) can have no properties so cannot have the physical properties the maths is describing. If one examines attempts to deal with this, one sees that in 1920 Einstein was playing with alternative ether concepts. An ether without the immobility of Lorenz's. He was very clear that he didn't like Lorentz's ether but totally vague when it came to any alternative. Later he 'solved' the problem by declaring that relativity is a 'principle theory', a sort of mathematical model, which makes no attempt to answer questions relating to physical properties. This means that it has nothing to say on the subject of whether there is or there isn't an ether nor whether Lorentz's ether is the physical interpretation to go with SR maths. That does not prevent relativists sneering at anyone who suggests there might be an ether which is absurd as the theory they believe in was based originally on a property of the ether. You may think that Einstein's theory might with hindsight have been too readily accepted only because it maintained a widely held, but no longer sustainable belief. When in trouble and thrown a life belt one does not examine the life belt too closely. But now we can with the advantage of hindsight. As few these days believe in the ether it does not seem that Einstein was justified in throwing away two axioms of physics in order to retain a property of it. We do not know what the outcome would have been if Ritz theory had been accepted which logically it should have been. It was the simplest explanation and you are supposed to accept the simplest explanation at least until it proves untenable. Unfortunately we are back to square one. Just as back then they had accepted source independence for 200 years and built their science upon it and were therefore reluctant to give up their belief, we are now in a position that relativity has been accepted, and built on for 100 years and despite the obvious absurdity of its origin there is a reluctance to give up that belief. Ways have been devised to present the theory from a different stand point from which its absurd origins are not obvious in order to find an alternative reason for believing in it. Bilge for instance will tell you that discussions as to history have no place in this NG. That relativity is not a theory about light or relative motion, that it is geometric space-time theory and that I don't understand relativity. From a modern perspective I accept that to be true but the above is a perfectly valid historical perspective and from my point of view I cannot believe sound science could possible evolve from such an absurd provenance. Physics could have taken a different direction and we do not know where it would have led. # Note that the first experimental evidence of source independence was that of De Sitters observation of double stars which was about 8 years? after Einstein's 1905 paper and confirmed what was 'widely believed'. It was eventually discredited in 1965 by Fox. SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal > Harry writes > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > matter - which expressed mathematically gave the Lorentz transforms - it > appeared to an observer that the speed of light is always c. The MMX null result does not rule out the existence of an aether....and Lorentz's explanation is too ad hoc and artifical. The correct explanation of the MMX null result by a correct aether theory is as follows: The MMX apparatus is moving (absolute motion) in the vertical direction wrt the defined plane of the horizontal light rays. This means that the light path lengths will remain the same for all the orientations of the horizontal arms and thus the null result (no fringe shift). This also mean that the design of the MMX is not capable of detecting absolute motion. To detecting absolute motion using the MMX apparatus the apparatus must be oriented in the same vertical direction as the direction of absolute motion of the apparatus. With such a set-up different orientation of the arms will produce different light path lengths and thus fringe shift (non-null result). The emission theory which you advocated have been refuted by experiments. Ken Seto kenseto writes >The emission theory which you advocated have been refuted by experiments. Which experiment would that be then? SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal > kenseto writes > > >The emission theory which you advocated have been refuted by experiments. > > Which experiment would that be then? All emission theories.....including Ritz's. Ken Seto >> kenseto writes >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >All emission theories.....including Ritz's. Ken, anyone who believe the MMX apparatus always moves vertically is as clueless as a GRian who believes the Earth is always accelerating radially outwards. >Ken Seto HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm "If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush > Ken, anyone who believe the MMX apparatus always moves vertically is as > clueless as a GRian who believes the Earth is always accelerating radially > outwards. What should we say about the two persons who believe that according to GR, "the Earth is always accelerating radially outwards" ? I know you think one of them is clueless. What about the other? Paul > > Ken, anyone who believe the MMX apparatus always moves vertically is as > > clueless as a GRian who believes the Earth is always accelerating radially [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that according to GR, "the Earth is always accelerating > radially outwards" ? Whoever makes this statement is clueless. In this case Henri.:-) > I know you think one of them is clueless. > What about the other? > > Paul > >> kenseto writes > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > clueless as a GRian who believes the Earth is always accelerating radially > outwards. Hey idiot....I said that the light rays are defined as moving horizontally in all experoimental locations then the apparatus must be moving vertically wrt to these horizontal light rays to get the null result in all experimental locations. Get these through your stupid head: the light rays are defined as always moving horizontally in all experimental locations. Ken Seto > > >> kenseto writes > > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > experimental locations. Get these through your stupid head: the light rays > are defined as always moving horizontally in all experimental locations. Absolutely, it is called "The Ken Seto Law of Isotropy of Verticality" http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IsoVert.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Vertical2.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Vertical2.html Dirk Vdm >> kenseto writes >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >All emission theories.....including Ritz's. The question was which experiments are you referring to not which theories. SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal > >> kenseto writes > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The question was which experiments are you referring to not which > theories. Gamma ray from decaying pions moving at speed .999c still measured to be c. The speed of light was measured to be isotropic. These results refute all the emission theories but they validate the structured aether concept of the E-Matrix.. Ken Seto kenseto writes >> >> kenseto writes >> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Gamma ray from decaying pions moving at speed .999c still measured to be c. I assume you refer to the experiment performed by Alvager T., Farley F., Kjellman J., Wallin J. Physical Letters. - 1964 which I was previously pointed to as being the most convincing. One of the problems of disproving a theory is that you have to be sure about what the theory you are disproving says before you can disprove it. In the ballistic theory, c is not the speed of propagation in a medium as is the case in such theories as LET and SR but is the speed a photon exits matter and represents a natural relationship between photons and matter. If therefore a photon encounters matter travelling at a speed different to c this is an unnatural relationship and there will be a tendency for the natural relationship to be restored. One theory along those lines is the extinction theory which says that differences from c get removed when photons pass through matter and calculations show that even with the sparse density of inter stellar matter that the c+v and c-v components of double stars would be extinguished (both become c) within 1 light year. One therefore has to be very careful in the design of any experiment. The only thing one can say for sure in The Alvager et al experiment is that high energy particles hit a beryllium target and the result was gamma photons travelling at c relative to the beryllium target. The interpretation of the experiment is that an interim stage exists - a pion was created and this is what decayed into gamma photons so constituting a moving source. A pion, if it exists at all and is not simply the result of applying wrong theory, exists for only 8.4 x 10^-17 s which means that when it decays it does so within the atomic structure of the beryllium target not in free space. I don't think we know enough to say what interaction will take place between the photons and the atomic structure of the Beryllium before it exits. The speed of the pion, if it exists at all, cannot be measured it does not live long enough, so the supposed speed is the result of applying theory. So it is trying to prove ballistic theory is wrong but assumes SR is correct in order to interpret what is taking place. I know that in the late 1970s-80s the number of 'fundamental particles' was rising at an alarming rate until they decided to rationalise and describe the result of some interactions as 'resonances' rather than 'particles' - How do you define a particle? Is a pion a 'real' particle? Is it simply two photons which have not yet disentangled from each other? If we had the faintest idea what a photon is we might be able to answer that. I have not the original paper but a search on the Internet gave some information. The apparatus is described as follows: " Generation of neutral pi-mesons was performed using bombardment of immovable beryllium target by protons having, after acceleration, the momentum of 19.2 GeV/co. In the experiment they used gamma quanta flying at an angle near 6deg to the direction of protons flight. Across the path of gamma quanta flying out from the beryllium target two deflection magnets were installed near the beryllium target and one deflection magnet was installed at a distance near 50 m from the beryllium target." [In my view a strong magnetic field will cause extinction i.e. the photon speed would become c relative to the field. Maxwell's equations have got to mean something so a photon must have something to do with electromagnetism. An electric field may not normally have much affect on a photon (I think it can affect polarisation so there is interaction) but if the photon is travelling at anything other than c relative to the field it is a highly unnatural state] "These magnets were intended for deflection of charged particles generated during bombardment of the target by protons from trajectory of gamma quanta flight. Before the third deflection magnet a leaden collimator with diameter of 5 mm was placed." [the original article apparently does not state the purpose of the lead collimator. Judging from the scale it is about 2m long. This has raised the suggestion that all gamma quanta coming to the detector are secondary gamma quanta retransmitted by the interior surface of the lead collimator pipe. ] "After the third deflection magnet gamma quanta passed through a window in concrete wall, which had thickness of 6 m, and hit a detector of gamma quanta." Now here I have a problem. 'Window' to me implies something transparent, e.g. glass. On a previous thread I pointed out that light travelling at >c entering a solid transparent medium would exit at c relative to the window independent of the speed it enters at. I had the following from Franz Heymann: "That [the window] was simply a small hole in a concrete shielding wall. I have seen that hole myself. It was an empty hole in the shield wall to let the photons through. High energy photons like those in that experiment cannot penetrate much by way of matter without generating a shower." But in the article I am quoting from, it refers to it as "the window of the vacuum chamber of the accelerator'. I am at a loss to understand how a hole can retain a vacuum. You see I don't ignore evidence I try and follow it up. Here you have an experiment which is unconvincing because of its complexity. OTOH You might like to have a look at: http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html "...the 1961 interplanetary radar contact with Venus presented the first opportunity to overcome technological limitations and perform direct experiments of Einstein's second postulate of a constant light speed of c in space. When the radar calculations were based on the postulate, the observed-computed residuals ranged to over 3 milliseconds of the expected error of 10 microseconds from the best fit the Lincoln Lab could generate, a variation range of over 30,000%. An analysis of the data showed a component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean sense." B G Wallace Wallace obtained a copy of T. D. Moyer, Celes. Mech., 23, 33(1981). of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He says "The paper reports the methods used to obtain accurate values of range observables for radio and radar signals in the solar system. The paper's equation and the accompanying information that calls for evaluating the position vectors at the signal reception time is nearly equivalent to the Galilean c+v equation. The text refers to it as "Newtonian light time"". Here therefore it would appear that JPL get more consistent results if they assume light is ballistic. Henri and Androcles will tell you about double stars. They certainly have some interesting results. I have heard of another group working on the same thing and a Russian Physicist. I'm not saying it is conclusive evidence but it is at least as strong and certainly more direct than that for source independence. Note that no one is likely to fund a project which is likely to show source dependence. Evidence for it has appeared either from amateurs or by accident when no one was actually looking for it - and when it was found it was seen as a source of embarrassment. See the link I gave you. What makes Wallace convincing is that if his analysis was wrong - it would have been easy to show it. If by analysing more data it could be shown it was a statistical anomaly, that would have been done - more data was withheld. Of course the relativists view will no doubt be that there is no need to take anything like that seriously unless it is published in one of the better quality peer reviewed publications. It is interesting to speculate as to what chance an article would have of appearing in 'Physics Letters', if the purpose of part of the apparatus e.g. a 2m long lead collimator was not even stated - if the article was critical of relativity rather than supporting it? - absolutely nil SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal > kenseto writes > > [quoted text clipped - 158 lines] > long lead collimator was not even stated - if the article was critical > of relativity rather than supporting it? - absolutely nil Your long winded explanation of the Pion experiment is an ad hoc epicycle to the ballistic theory. IOW, the Pion experiment refuted the ballistic theory so you came up with an ad hoc explanation to make the results of the experiment agree with the ballistic theory. This is what is wrong with current physics. For example: when they find the anormalous rotational curves of galaxies they invented the dark matter to explain it. Another example: GR failed to predict the accelerated expansion of the universe they invented the existence of dark energy to explain it. A theory is in trouble when it rely on ad hoc epicycle to explain anormalous results. Another problem of the ballistic theory is that it failed to explain the double-slit experiment. Another problem with the ballistic theory is that it assumes that a source will emit a photon like a bullet fired from a gun. This anology is faulty. Why? Because a bullet will have the velocity of the gun before it is fired from the gun. Whereas a photon does not exist before it is emitted from the source. Ken Seto [...] > North Wales should be independent from South Wales. If North Wales were to agree always to go faster than light, and South Wales slower, they would exist in separate demesnes, and thus satisfy the desire. > 100 years ago, in June 1905, Albert Einstein, who IMO was the greatest > brain that ever lived, produced his Theory of Special Relativity, > which > showed that the speed of light is approx. 186,000 miles per second, > measured from any observer, regardless of how fast that observer is > moving. Saying it doesn't show it, and what he actually said was "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity." Reference : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Androcles. > > 100 years ago, in June 1905, Albert Einstein, who IMO was the greatest > > brain that ever lived, produced his Theory of Special Relativity, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Saying it doesn't show it, Well spotted. But I'm not amazed :-) > and what he actually said was > "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Androcles. For an obnoxious bigot "To play a part" is the same as "To be": http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PlayPart.html Dirk Vdm >> > 100 years ago, in June 1905, Albert Einstein, who IMO was the greatest >> > brain that ever lived, produced his Theory of Special Relativity, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Saying it doesn't show it, >Well spotted. >But I'm not amazed :-) >> and what he actually said was >> "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Androcles. >For an obnoxious bigot "To play a part" is the same as "To be": > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PlayPart.html I have often pointed out that Androcles keeps equating these two different concepts. I have explained that what Einstein meant was that the speed of light is the unattainable supremum for attainable speeds for material bodies in special relativity, just as infinite speed is the unattainable supremum for attainable speeds for material bodies in classical mechanics. The first or second time that I made this particular point was when Androcles kill-filed me for the foul deed of suggesting that he was acting with the maturity of a one-year old. Both before and after Androcles kill-filed me for such a foul deed, he has let forth a torrent of invective and insult upon others, behaviour much worse than the mere suggestion that he was acting with the maturity of a one-year old. As my offending post in which I made that comment on the maturity with which he was acting also made some serious challenges to his approach to mathematics and physics, I can only conclude that Androcles did not have an answer to my challenges, and locked onto the comment about his maturity as a means of "justifying" ignoring of me, and thus minimize, in his own mind, the extent of the challenge to his world view. In other words, it is just an example of his sticking his head in the sand. David ----- > >> > 100 years ago, in June 1905, Albert Einstein, who IMO was the greatest > >> > brain that ever lived, produced his Theory of Special Relativity, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > David I have seen these interchanges between you and Androcles. Best thing is not to take him seriously. As soon as you think you can actually explain something to this excuse for a living being, you're on the wrong track. I know, because I've been there, more than once actually ;-) It should be clear that Androcles is a combination of a super troll and a mega-imbecile. If he was just an imbecile and no troll (like Seto and Gaasenbeek), I wouldn't be very interested. These people are boring. If he was just a troll and no imbecile (like Mingst and Stowe), I wouldn't be very interested either. Boring as well. It is the combination that makes them so funny, and of course Androcles is the Super Star of http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html Dirk Vdm > 100 years ago, in June 1905, Albert Einstein, who IMO was the greatest > brain that ever lived, produced his Theory of Special Relativity, which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://tinyurl.com/4sgna > Regards Mike. I'd love to see Newton's score in an IQ test. > 100 years ago, in June 1905, Albert Einstein, who IMO was the greatest > brain that ever lived, produced his Theory of Special Relativity, which [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > North Wales should be independent from South Wales. And it's the "Year of Physics" too, according to "Nature": http://tinyurl.com/5aemm although whether this means anything more than a few articles reminiscent of "People" magazine in the beginning, and continued expansion of genetics and ribbon diagram articles, remains to be seen. Nobody proclaimed "year of physics" in 1905, did they. CHeers - > 100 years ago, in June 1905, Albert Einstein, who IMO was the greatest > brain that ever lived, produced his Theory of Special Relativity, which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://tinyurl.com/4sgna > Regards Mike. There's a significant body of evidence to suggest that Einstein was actually quite a mediocre student in his younger days...and that he was nothing more than a quite clever plagiarist. I'd privide links but they're easy enough to find. I'm not stating it as a difinitive truth....just saying that there are many whose beliefs about Einstein are very different to stated history! >> 100 years ago, in June 1905, Albert Einstein, who IMO was the greatest >> brain that ever lived, produced his Theory of Special Relativity, which [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I'm not stating it as a difinitive truth....just saying that there are many >whose beliefs about Einstein are very different to stated history! In Sir Edmund Whittaker's The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity, published in 1953, there is apparently a chapter on relativity, entitled, "The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz." Einstein isn't mentioned until the thirteenth page of that chapter and is credited only with adding the Doppler and aberration equations. I am not clear what it is which Einstein is supposed to have done in respect of SR. Lorentz found a 'fix' for the wave ether theory - that light was waves travelling in the ether at c as per Maxwell but because of interaction between the ether and ponderable matter - which expressed mathematically gave the Lorentz transforms - it appeared to an observer that the speed of light is always c. Einstein said - let us assume that it appears to an observer that the speed of light is always c. [and not worry about why] and derived the same maths as Lorentz did. It is termed 'reverse engineering' where I come from. Light doesn't travel at c in the ether it travels at c in a FoR. How can a FoR have properties if it defines a portion of space which contains nothing which can have properties? SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal > I am not clear what it is which Einstein is supposed to have done in > respect of SR. Lorentz found a 'fix' for the wave ether theory - that > light was waves travelling in the ether at c as per Maxwell but because > of interaction between the ether and ponderable matter - which expressed > mathematically gave the Lorentz transforms - it appeared to an observer > that the speed of light is always c. Einstein modified the laws of mechanics so they would be Lorentz invariant. Prior to Einstein there was a discontinuity between electrodynamic laws (which are inherently Lorentz invariant) and the laws of mechanics which are Galilean invariant.k In addition he generalized the quantum of energy to apply to electromagnetic radiation (light) and explained the photoelectric effect. That is what he got the Nobel for. His paper on the Brownian motion pretty well nailed the case for the atomic hypothesis (in 1905 there were physicists who did not yet believe atoms existed). Einstein also came up with a more general derivation of Planck's radiation law. All in the same year, 1905. Not a bad year at all. Bob Kolker >> I am not clear what it is which Einstein is supposed to have done in >> respect of SR. Lorentz found a 'fix' for the wave ether theory - that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >electromagnetic radiation (light) and explained the photoelectric >effect. and very good work, too. >That is what he got the Nobel for. His paper on the Brownian >motion pretty well nailed the case for the atomic hypothesis (in 1905 >there were physicists who did not yet believe atoms existed). Einstein >also came up with a more general derivation of Planck's radiation law. >All in the same year, 1905. Not a bad year at all. That doesn't mean his SR was correct. What Einstein's version of relativity did was effectively provide every observer with his own 'personal aether'. Then he replaced distances with 'ct' so that objects could be judged as being 'seconds away' rather than 'kilometres'. Thus an object '1LY' away becomes '1 year away'. That's all very well. It fits the psychological notion that we construct the 3D form of space in our minds and we judge everything as being relative to ourselves. In effect, each of us is the centre of our own universe. But it doesn't work like that. The universe was there long before humans evolved. SR is an egocentric theory. 'Every SRian believes he is the centre of the universe'. When we use instruments to measure things, the fallacy of that approach reveals itself. >Bob Kolker HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm "If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:40:23 -0500, "robert j. kolker" > <nowhere@nowhere.net> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > "If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert > Bush Actually, H, it boils down to this. You send a ray of light from A to B, a distance of 2 ly. Then you put your skates on and hurtle toward B at half the speed of light. The light reaches B and comes back again, meeting you at A= 1 ly. Now Einstein says that the time at which you meet the returning ray is twice the time it takes for the light to reach B. 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c. (tau0 + tau2)/2 = tau1 So tau(3)/2 = tau(2) and something is missing to make that correct. Oh, we need to borrow some distance to make the equation balance. tau(A, 3)/2 = tau(B, 2) A = 0, B = 2, so tau(0, 3)/2 = tau(2, 2) In the frame of the light, A was not always 0, but that doesn't matter. We are doing this in the frame of A. So the coordinate 0 becomes 2, and the time 3 becames 2 by the Lorentz transforms. x' = (x-vt)/sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) x' = (2-0.5*2)/sqrt (1- 0.25) = 0. t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt (1- 0.25) = (2 - 0.5*2)/ sqrt (0.75) = 1/0.866 = 1.15 So the light reaches A =0 at time 1.15 since it left, so A's clock is running slow, the time in the stationary frame is 3. (0, 1.15) = tau(0, 3) coordinate(moving) = tau( coordinate (stationary)) Clever, isn't it? Of course if B came to A at 0.5c it would be slightly different, the light would meet B with a closing velocity of 1.5c at 2/1.5 = 1.33 ly, and tau(0, 2.66)/2 = tau(1.33, 1.33) Androcles. >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:40:23 -0500, "robert j. kolker" >> <nowhere@nowhere.net> [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] >coordinate(moving) = tau( coordinate (stationary)) >Clever, isn't it? It is consistently circular and meaningless. >Of course if B came to A at 0.5c it would be slightly different, >the light would meet B with a closing velocity of 1.5c at >2/1.5 = 1.33 ly, and > tau(0, 2.66)/2 = tau(1.33, 1.33) > >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm "If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush > John Kennaugh wrote: > > I am not clear what it is which Einstein is supposed to have done in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > mathematically gave the Lorentz transforms - it appeared to an observer > > that the speed of light is always c. > Einstein modified the laws of mechanics so they would be Lorentz > invariant. Prior to Einstein there was a discontinuity between > electrodynamic laws (which are inherently Lorentz invariant) and the > laws of mechanics which are Galilean invariant. Not if "prior to Einstein" includes the papers by Lorentz and Poincare. Einstein is one of the greatest scientists of all times even without SR. Thus, there is no reason to give only him credit which belongs to Lorentz and Poincare too. It should be noted that there are differences between Poincare/Lorentz and Einstein/Minkowski. But these differences are metaphysical. Ilja Ilja wrote: > It should be noted that there are differences between Poincare/Lorentz > and Einstein/Minkowski. An obvious similarity is that they're all dead, and are now used to artificially create a dichotomy which doesn't exist today in the physics community. > But these differences are metaphysical. True. Interesting that the two men in your artificial Einstein/Minkowski distinction are the ones bashed by many neo-etherist crackpots on this forum. Reasonable people have no need to bash any of these great men. ---Tim Shuba--- > Ilja wrote: > > It should be noted that there are differences between > > Poincare/Lorentz and Einstein/Minkowski. > An obvious similarity is that they're all dead, and are now used > to artificially create a dichotomy which doesn't exist today in > the physics community. The physics community today follows Einstein/Minkowski, which is quite natural given the success of GR and the fact that my GLET is not known in the physics community. > > But these differences are metaphysical. > > True. Interesting that the two men in your artificial > Einstein/Minkowski distinction are the ones bashed by many > neo-etherist crackpots on this forum. Reasonable people have no > need to bash any of these great men. I think the difference between Poincare/Lorentz and Einstein/Minkowski is metaphysical, but not artificial. The Einstein/Minkowski version is the non-gravity limit of GR, the Poincare/Lorentz version that of my GLET. This is already a physical difference. There is certainly no need to bash Einstein. I have a very high opinion of many of Einsteinäs views, even views which are not popular today, like those of the EPR paper. Ilja >> I am not clear what it is which Einstein is supposed to have done in >>respect of SR. Lorentz found a 'fix' for the wave ether theory - that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Einstein modified the laws of mechanics so they would be Lorentz >invariant. Please explain the term 'Lorentz invariant' Please explain why anyone at the time would want the laws of mechanics to be Lorentz invariant. > Prior to Einstein there was a discontinuity between electrodynamic >laws (which are inherently Lorentz invariant) > and the laws of mechanics which are Galilean invariant.k The discontinuity followed from a belief in the ether. If one accepts that MMX showed there to be no ether, then there is no reason to keep believing that light is source independent. That came from: "If the speed of light is constant w.r.t the ether it cannot be affected by the speed of the source". If you reject belief in the ether then a source is surrounded by nothing which can affect the speed of the light so light has to be source dependent because there is nothing else physical it can depend upon. If light is source dependent then there is no discontinuity between electrodynamic laws and the laws of mechanics. The speed of light adds to the speed of the source just like the rest of mechanics. Lorentz was justified in retained source independence because his theory retained the ether as does Lorentzian maths. As far as I can see all Einstein did was to derive the Lorentzian maths by postulating that the answer they gave was true. He discarded two axioms of physics in order to retain a property of the ether - source independence - as per the second postulate. The myth is that he somehow dispensed with the ether. What relativity does is to give the properties of a stationary ether to a FoR - implicit in the second postulate. However a FoR defines a region of space which, if there is no ether, cannot have physical properties which affect light. >In addition he generalized the quantum of energy to apply to >electromagnetic radiation (light) and explained the photoelectric >effect. The honours must be shared. Planck made the break though in realising that light generation must be quantized. Einstein explained the photo electric by applying Planck's quantization. His discovery seems to have had little affect on his thinking. The sequence goes: Maxwell's em theory was at odds with black body radiation. Planck showed BB radiation was the result of quantization. Einstein showed that light remained quantized. Surely the logic is that light is fundamentally particulate and *appears* to be waves rather than *is* waves. That Maxwell's equations have limited application and do not represent the fundamental laws of nature but describe the symptom not the cause. If one accepts this then it puts the ether question into perspective. Particles don't need an ether and one would assume their speed is relative to whatever ejects them. What else can determine the speed if space is empty of any physical entity which the speed could otherwise depend upon? As far as I can see everything pointed to source dependency. The idea was taken up by Walter Ritz who was too good a physicist to have done so had there been any convincing evidence ruling it out. Shankland reports the following 1950 interview with Einstein. "... he had thought of, and abandoned the [Ritz] emission theory before 1905. He gave up this approach because he could think of no form of differential equation which could have solutions representing waves whose velocity depended on the motion of the source. In this case, the emission theory would lead to phase relations such that the propagated light would be all badly "mixed up' and might even 'back up on itself.' He asked me, 'Do you understand that ?' I said no and he carefully repeated it all. When he came again to the 'mixed up' part he waved his hands before his face and laughed, an open hearty laugh at the idea!" In 1952 Einstein wrote: "Moreover this theory [Ritz's] requires that everywhere and in each fixed direction light waves of a different velocity of propagation should be possible. It may well be impossible to set up an electromagnetic theory that is in any way reasonable and accomplishes such a feat. This is the principle reason why, even before the special theory of relativity, I rejected this way out, which is intrinsically conceivable." As I say his discovery of the photon had no affect on his thinking. To him light was still waves *in* something and you cannot have waves propagating at different speeds in the same 'something'. That is why he was attracted by Lorenz's theory and what he did followed on from it -source independence included - a property of the ether. It was unfortunate that Ritz died in 1909. It was unfortunate that in 1913 De Sitter produced 'evidence' of source independence which inhibited others from taking up the idea. That evidence was discredited in 1965 by Fox. This leaves an avenue largely unexplored. Logic suggests that is the route which should have been followed and that the reasons for taking the SR route owe more to long held, but by then no longer justifiable, beliefs. > That is what he got the Nobel for. His paper on the Brownian motion >pretty well nailed the case for the atomic hypothesis (in 1905 there >were physicists who did not yet believe atoms existed). Einstein also >came up with a more general derivation of Planck's radiation law. All >in the same year, 1905. Not a bad year at all. One day in the future 1905 may be looked upon as the year physics took a seriously wrong direction which was not corrected for more than a century - and counting. "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." "We must be very careful indeed to differentiate between the physical world and the metaphysical world." Dr Scott Murray SignatureJohn Kennaugh "Conformity may even bring you a university chair, but all advance comes from non conformity. If there had been no troublemakers, no dissenters, we should still be living in caves" - A J P Taylor (Historian) > >> I am not clear what it is which Einstein is supposed to have done in > >>respect of SR. Lorentz found a 'fix' for the wave ether theory - that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Please explain the term 'Lorentz invariant' Get a textbook on SR and study it. Something you should have done long ago. Rest snipped. Bill >> >> I am not clear what it is which Einstein is supposed to have done in >> >>respect of SR. Lorentz found a 'fix' for the wave ether theory - that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Get a textbook on SR and study it. Something you should have done long ago. I would suggest that you put away your text books for a while and get the basics sorted out. As it happens I do have a text book and I have studied it but it was written by Einstein so does not contain modern 'relativity speak'. I suspect that the statement: >> >Einstein modified the laws of mechanics so they would be Lorentz >> >invariant. is merely saying that Einstein got the same maths as Lorentz which he was bound to do because both theories assume the PoR is experimentally true (for whatever reason) and both assume light is source independent (for whatever reason) and maths by its very nature cannot distinguish. The question which no one has an answer for is why Einstein believed that light was source independent if he didn't believe in the ether and I cannot understand is why people like you have an unshakeable faith in a theory which is based on a property of the ether (source independence), when you don't believe in the ether and you can give me no alternate reason for Einstein's assumption of source independence other than its origin as part of ether theory. Einstein isn't logical. If you don't believe in the ether then a source is surrounded by nothing which can play a physical part in getting the real physical energy we call light from source to destination in a vacuum. If there is nothing with physical properties surrounding the source then the source and only the source can determine the speed of light. So what did Einstein believe? No ether? - no that logically leads to source dependence as per Ritz. Ether as per Lorentz? - No, if that were the case SR is LET and Einstein cannot claim the theory was his. Ether but different to Lorentz's? - Apparently so. Read his justification for the second postulate given in 'The Evolution of Physics'. "Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether. The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it and its velocity can only be effected by the source if the movement of the source causes movement of the medium. Aether drag experiments, passing light close to heavy rotating flywheels has shown that they had no effect on the light passing close to them hence the speed of light cannot be effected by the speed of the source." Read his 1920 lecture. "..... the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility." "..... careful reflection teaches us, ... that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must ... by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it." " The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity." ".... space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there .... would be no propagation of light.." Look at the maths. The only way something propagating in a medium is observed to do so at the same speed in all directions is if the observer is stationary w.r.t the propagating medium. The maths therefore implies that each observer has his own medium. The mathematical 'observers FoR' translates physically into 'the observers ether'. But experiment shows that light intensity is not inversely proportional to the number of observers. So the maths implies not only that an observer has his own ether which he is stationary w.r.t, but that all the light in the universe travels in that ether at c. Likewise another observer travelling relative to the first has his own ether which he is stationary w.r.t, and in which all the light in the universe travels at c. This requires that each observer has his own universe where he is stationary w.r.t the ether in which all light travels. That then is where Einstein's 'ether without the immobility of Lorentz's' leads. It is therefore understandable that Einstein declared his theory to be a 'principle theory' a sort of mathematical model which does not attempt to address questions about physical interpretation. I, like Scott Murray believe that until we again insist on the physical reality of the physical world, physics will become ever more metaphysical. Light is not a mathematical wave equation which gets from A to B in a mathematical abstraction (FoR) in a particular way because Einstein postulated that it does so. Light consists of real physical energy and getting from A to B involves real physical processes and it is a perfectly valid question as to what these are. IF SR is correct then either there are an infinite number of universes or Lorentz's ether exists. I'm not keen on either so I would be interested in giving Ritz's emission theory a spin before being forced to accept either. SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal > " The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is stationary w.r.t the propagating medium. The maths therefore implies > that each observer has his own medium. This is not true. Each observer measures the same speed of light because they all use "different duration" second (second that contains different amount of universal time) to measure light speed. The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows: Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the duration (universal time) of a clock second co-moving with the rod. This new definition for light speed makes SR compatible with the ether concept. In fact it turns SR into an incomplete ether theory. Ken Seto >> " The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to >> consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >they all use "different duration" second (second that contains different >amount of universal time) to measure light speed. Life would be much easier if that were true. Unfortunately it isn't. If there was an aether, where would it end? Is it held up by elephants like flat-eathers believe? >The speed of light is a >constant math ratio in all frames as follows: >Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the duration (universal time) of a >clock second co-moving with the rod. >This new definition for light speed makes SR compatible with the ether >concept. In fact it turns SR into an incomplete ether theory. that's the truest thing you have ever said, Ken. >Ken Seto HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm "If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush > >> " The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > >> consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Life would be much easier if that were true. Unfortunately it isn't. > If there was an aether, where would it end? Hand waving is not an arguement. What you said is content free. I am not surprised coming from you Henri. Ken Seto > Is it held up by elephants like flat-eathers believe? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush >> " The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to >> consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >they all use "different duration" second (second that contains different >amount of universal time) to measure light speed. You are missing the point. What you are trying to argue is why *different* observers get the same value of c for the same light which is not what I am discussing (my argument would hold even if they didn't) The basis of relativity is that for a single observer the speed of light is everywhere in each and every *direction* the same. If light is a propagated wave that means the observer is stationary w.r.t the propagating medium. If you were hovering in an airship above a lake and due to poor visibility were not able to see the shore you could tell if you were stationary w.r.t the lake by dropping something into it. If you remain at the centre of the expanding circle you are stationary w.r.t the lake. i.e. if the wave travels in all directions at the same speed you are stationary w.r.t the propagating medium. That is what the second postulate describes as being an observers relationship with light. > The speed of light is a >constant math ratio in all frames as follows: >Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the duration (universal time) of a >clock second co-moving with the rod. >This new definition for light speed makes SR compatible with the ether >concept. In fact it turns SR into an incomplete ether theory. SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal > >> " The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > >> consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > propagated wave that means the observer is stationary w.r.t the > propagating medium. No this is not true with a structured medium such as the E-Matrix as described in the following link: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf The E-Matrix transmits light isotropically in all directions independent of the motion of the detector or the source. > If you were hovering in an airship above a lake and due to poor > visibility were not able to see the shore you could tell if you were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stationary w.r.t the propagating medium. That is what the second > postulate describes as being an observers relationship with light. This analogy is faulty. A structured medium such as the E-Matrix does not transmit light as you described. Ken Seto >>> I am not clear what it is which Einstein is supposed to have done in >>>respect of SR. Lorentz found a 'fix' for the wave ether theory - that [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >them. What else can determine the speed if space is empty of any >physical entity which the speed could otherwise depend upon? It wont matter how many times you explain the obvious to them they wont give up their 'faith'. >As far as I can see everything pointed to source dependency. The idea >was taken up by Walter Ritz who was too good a physicist to have done so [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >"We must be very careful indeed to differentiate between the physical >world and the metaphysical world." Dr Scott Murray HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm "If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush John Kennaugh: >>> I am not clear what it is which Einstein is supposed to have done in >>>respect of SR. Lorentz found a 'fix' for the wave ether theory - that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Please explain why anyone at the time would want the laws of mechanics >to be Lorentz invariant. Einstein's first postulate states only that the laws of physics should be the same in any inertial frame. The lorentz transforms are a _consequence_ of the postulate, not the other way around. Go buy a book on relativity, so that at least if you want to continue your personal crusade against it, you can come up with a logical argument. > John Kennaugh: > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Einstein's first postulate states only that the laws of physics >should be the same in any inertial frame. Agreed. If the law of physics is that the speed of light adds to that of the source then the first postulate says that all observers will find that the speed of light adds to that of the source. If it is constant w.r.t the observer observing it, it says that all observers will find it so. It is therefore consistent with both Ritz emission theory and SR. > The lorentz transforms >are a _consequence_ of the postulate Not a consequence of the first postulate. That has nothing to say on the subject of whether light is source dependent or source independent. If light is source dependent then you don't need the Lorentz transforms. In Einstein's paper they are a consequence of the second postulate of relativity i.e. source independence. If you compare the approaches of Lorentz and Einstein then Lorentz believed in the ether which gives him source independence and his problem was to reconcile that with the fact that the laws of physics appear to be the same in any inertial frame (MMX and others). Einstein OTOH thought it a basic truth that the laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame. His problem was to reconcile that with source independence (the second postulate). Einstein got the same maths as Lorentz which he was bound to do because both theories assume the PoR is experimentally true (for whatever reason) and both assume light is source independent (for whatever reason). Mathematics does not reflect whether the PoR is a basic truth (as per Einstein) or simply appears to be true because the laws of physics conspire to make it appear true (as per Lorentz). It is said that you cannot prove a theory you can only disprove a theory. The latter is however an oversimplification. In practice if a theory makes a prediction which proves to be experimentally false there is a choice between modifying the theory or rejecting it. The point which is often missed is that you can only reject an established theory i.e. one which up to then had appeared to work, in favour of an alternative. Lorentz had no alternative. The wavelike behaviour of light had been very convincing and Maxwell had tied it in with electro-magnetism. Everything was nice and tidy until MMX - so Lorentz took the logical step of trying to modify the theory. By the time you get to Einstein things had changed. Maxwell's em theory had failed to correctly predict black body radiation. Planck had shown that light production is quantized and Einstein himself had shown that it remains quantized. Light is particulate. Things are no longer tidy. One of the more obvious interpretations is, as Scott Murray puts it: "that light does not in fact _consist_ of electromagnetic waves but _behaves like_ a system of electromagnetic waves. The distinction here between "is" and "behaves like" is not merely tautological or semantic, but fundamental. It tells us to treat the great electromagnetic theory as an analogy or mathematical model of nature, which reflects some features of physical reality but not necessarily all features." The suggestion is that photons describe light at a more fundamental level. If that be the case then one might naturally bring ones thinking regarding the ether and the speed of light in line with a particulate model of light. i.e. to conclude that the ether is superfluous and that c is the speed of light relative to the source. Against this background Einstein came up with SR. He describes the second postulate as 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR. Now if, as one supposes, he looked upon the PoR as a fundamental truth, one would expect him to only accept something 'apparently irreconcilable' with it with the utmost reluctance. Yet if you look at his 1905 he makes no attempt whatever to justify his assumption of source independence and then proceeds to ditch two axioms of physics to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable. I am sorry but it does not make sense. Ritz was too good a physicist to waste time on a source dependent theory if there was any experimental evidence ruling it out. The only theoretical justification for source independence was the ether and not only had MMX failed to detect it, it is incompatible with a photon model of light which appears to be more fundamental that the wave model anyway. No modern relativist believes in the ether so I ask again why did Einstein assume source independence - a property of the ether - and not even consider it necessary to justify it. If one looks at why relativity was accepted it was: 1/ because it pandered to what everyone believed (although the belief was no longer justified). 2/ because Ritz died in 1905 so there was no heavyweight opposition. 3/ because deSitters double star evidence told everyone what the wanted to hear and dissuaded anyone from carrying on with Ritz's approach - which is a pity because deSitters evidence was discredited in 1965 by Fox. You tell me that the modern space time geometric approach makes perfect sense. I can't comment on that. What I can say is that with the benefit of hindsight what Einstein did and the reasons his theory was accepted both lack credibility and that the theory which most obviously fitted the experimental evidence, Ritz's, was not pursued. That of course is history and you are not interested in history. As it happens I am. The question which most interests me is what if Ritz's theory had been accepted, and developed - where would physics now be. We do not know the answer to that question. Physics took the illogical route and modern physicists believe it was nevertheless the right route. Again I cannot comment because my knowledge of modern physics is inadequate. All I can point out is that considering the provenance it seems highly unlikely that sound science could result and the longer one travels down the wrong road the more reluctant one is to admit the possibility of error. The way you and others keep jumping on my modest contributions and hurling abuse around suggests an underlying insecurity. SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal >In message <slrncug43u.b2f.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, Bilge >If one looks at why relativity was accepted it was: >1/ because it pandered to what everyone believed (although the belief [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >which is a pity because deSitters evidence was discredited in 1965 by >Fox. In fact, the ballistic theory is supported by all credible experimental evidence....plus logic. Fortunately, it makes little or no difference whether c or c+v is used in most practical situations because v is normally small compared to c. Until recently, it has been impossible to compare light speeds from differently moving sources. Until somebody is prepared to risk his career by performing a form of this vital experiment, such as the one I have described, physics will continue to be blighted by Einsteiniana. . >You tell me that the modern space time geometric approach makes perfect >sense. I can't comment on that. What I can say is that with the benefit [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >The way you and others keep jumping on my modest contributions and >hurling abuse around suggests an underlying insecurity. Don't bother about the idiot Bilgey. He seems to think that because 3D space +1D time can be mathematically represented as '4D spacetime', using the most complicated and 'very impressive' maths conventions, something is proved. Any normal Newtonian event can be expressed in 4D after the facts are known. ....but such an alternative representation does nothing to advance the cause of science. It is NOT an explanation or a proof. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm "If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush > In fact, the ballistic theory is supported by all credible experimental > evidence....plus logic. Can you name one experiment where the predictions of the ballistic theory and SR are different, and where the results confirm the ballistic theory and thus falsifies SR? Paul > > In fact, the ballistic theory is supported by all credible experimental > > evidence....plus logic. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and where the results confirm the ballistic theory > and thus falsifies SR? Of course he can't. And you know why, because there is not only an Anti-Globalistic movement, but there is a much more powerful Global Anti-Ballistic Conspiracy ;-) Dirk Vdm >> In fact, the ballistic theory is supported by all credible experimental >> evidence....plus logic. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and where the results confirm the ballistic theory >and thus falsifies SR? You have that the wrong way around. The ballistic theory is by far the simpler theory. It is for you to name an experiment where the predictions of the ballistic theory and SR are different and where the results confirm SR and thus falsifies ballistic theory? I doubt you will be able to do that because no one ever checks whether or not a result is consistent with ballistic theory, or indeed whether ballistic theory will give a better or simpler explanation because establishment physics does not acknowledge that such a theory exists. The assumption tends to be that if something supports relativity then it must disprove ballistic theory which is generally not the case. SR became established for 4 reasons. 1/ It pandered to prejudice. Most physicists believed in source impedance and SR was based on an assumption of source independence. The history of physics is not tidy. There was not a top level summit which decided there was no ether and a review body set up to look at the implications. Things drifted. While we end up with an almost universal lack of belief in the ether, a theory based on a property of the ether is the cornerstone of modern physics. 2/ Ritz died in 1909 so there was no heavyweight to take on the Einstein camp. 3/ De Sitter told everyone what they wanted to hear which discouraged others from following up on Ritz's work which is a great pity seeing as De Sitter is now discredited. 4/Mathematicians were at the time bored having nothing new to get their teeth into and here was a brand new set of challenges. Physics was taken over by mathematicians. The difference between a scientist and a mathematician is that a scientist insists on the physical reality of the physical world. A mathematician does not really care about such things. Take a simple example: A S B-->v If we assume that the space between observers A,B and the light source S contains no physical entity which can affect the speed/progress of light. If we assume that neither A nor B possess magical powers which allow them to affect the physical process taking place at the source. and If we assume the PoR. Then we know that A will determine that the speed of light leaving the source is c - after all measuring the speed of light from a fixed source is standard science. As B is an inertial observer and as he is observing the same light leaving the same source as A he must according to the PoR get the same result namely that the speed of light is c relative to the source which is c+v relative to himself. I doubt you can fault my assumptions and the rest follows from an insistence on the physical reality of the physical world which means that physical effects must have physical causes. I am getting a bit fed up with TV programs insisting that Einstein showed this or that or the other. He didn't. He *assumed* certain things and provided us with the mathematical consequences of those assumptions. The main assumption of SR is source independence - a property of the ether. The mathematical consequences were the loss of sanity in physics - we lost the axiom of universal time and the axiom of universal distance and created a fascinating playground for mathematicians unfettered by any insistence on the physical reality of the physical world. If this insanity had been forced upon us by the overwhelming weight of experimental evidence fair enough, but it wasn't. I ask again the very simple question - why was Einstein justified in assuming source independence - a property of the ether? SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal In sci.physics.relativity John Kennaugh <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > The ballistic theory is by far the > simpler theory. It is for you to name an experiment where the > predictions of the ballistic theory and SR are different and where the > results confirm SR and thus falsifies ballistic theory? Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964) B1071. K. Brecher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 1051. Steve Carlip > In sci.physics.relativity John Kennaugh > <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Steve Carlip I do not have easy access to a library, perhaps you'd explain in a few brief words? Androcles. John Kennaugh: >> John Kennaugh: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Not a consequence of the first postulate. That has nothing to say on the >subject of whether light is source dependent or source independent. If Special relativity isn't about light. I've already told you that, so I'm not going to humor your attempts to digress on your misconceptions about light. It's trivial to derive the lorentz transforms from the first postulate. I've done it at least a half-dozen times on this newsgroup and I believe one of those was times was in response to one of your posts. Find a flaw in the derivation. > John Kennaugh: > >> John Kennaugh: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Special relativity isn't about light. The thread is about the anniversary of Einstein's theory of relativity. *His* theory was based upon a postulate about *light*. Not only a postulate about light but about source independence the only reason for belief in which was because the speed of light was considered to be constant w.r.t the ether and therefore independent of the source. That is fine if you believe that light is a wave in the ether but you don't believe in the ether so have nor reason to accept its validity. Space-time geometry de-coupling relativity from its origins so in it you have found a way of retaining your belief despite the fact that you could not possibly endorse the ether bases theory of light which Einstein came up with. As usual your only way of dealing with my perfectly simple arguments is to snip and put up a smoke screen thus. > It's trivial to derive the lorentz transforms from the >first postulate. I've done it at least a half-dozen times on this >newsgroup and I believe one of those was times was in response to one >of your posts. Find a flaw in the derivation. Now Albert Einstein (genius) required two postulate to derive the Lorentz transforms while Bilge (super genius) requires only one. ### - Hands up those who think Bilge is a super genius - ### Maybe you can spot the flaw in my proof. A S B -->v 1/ 'A' measures the speed of light as leaving source S at c. (as A is stationary w.r.t S that isn't too difficult). 2/ It is rather more difficult for B to measure the speed of light leaving S because he is travelling at v relative to the source but the PoR/First postulate states that as he is an inertial observer he must observe the same laws as A. As he is observing the same source and the same light as A he must therefore also conclude that light is leaving the source at c relative to the source which is c+v relative to himself. This of course assumes that the space separating A and B from S contains no physical entity which can modify the speed of light and that B (or A) does not have magical powers which can affect the physical light producing process taking place at the source. Thus I can prove the ballistic nature of light if I assumes only the first postulate. In your proof you have used Minkowski space time geometry which was built on the Lorentz transforms which were derived by Einstein from the second postulate. Your derivation is not therefore independent of the second postulate. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions and you still keep trotting it out as if it were true. Maybe you will answer a direct question. Why do you think Einstein was justified in assuming source independence if there is no ether and light appears to be particulate?. SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal John Kennaugh: >In message <slrncun35a.gu9.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, Bilge >> Special relativity isn't about light. > >The thread is about the anniversary of Einstein's theory of relativity. Then why are you arguing about the postulates in the context of the present? If you aren't arguing about the present why are you not posting to a newsgroup dedicated to seconf guessing the intentions of people too dead to tell everyone what they really thought? >*His* theory was based upon a postulate about *light*. Not only a >postulate about light but about source independence the only reason for >belief in which was because the speed of light was considered to be >constant w.r.t the ether and therefore independent of the source. That is incorrect, even historically. Einstein provided the second postulate because maxwell's equations were accepted as being correct and choosing the speed of light to be `c' was necessary if the first postulate was to be consistent with maxwell's equations. [...] >As usual your only way of dealing with my perfectly simple arguments is >to snip and put up a smoke screen thus. Deal with it. I made the argument even simpler by eliminating your tortured objections to the second postulate and ending up with an even more general result in which `c' can be a finite number. [...] >Now Albert Einstein (genius) required two postulate to derive the >Lorentz transforms while Bilge (super genius) requires only one. If you consider that ability to consitute genius then why are you arguing with me? [...] >Maybe you will answer a direct question. Why do you think Einstein was >justified in assuming source independence if there is no ether and light >appears to be particulate?. Reference an experiment in which the data are found to be inconsistent with his assumptions. If no such experiment exists, then obviously he was justified, regardless of what you think led him to that assumption by your personal interpretation obtained by reading between the lines. Bilge writes > John Kennaugh: > >In message <slrncun35a.gu9.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, Bilge [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Then why are you arguing about the postulates in the context of the >present? Because the present is built on the dodgy decisions of the past. >If you aren't arguing about the present why are you not >posting to a newsgroup dedicated to seconf guessing the intentions >of people too dead to tell everyone what they really thought? You keep making this totally unsubstantiated allegation. I do not 'second guess' nor 'read between' the lines. I take what Einstein said at face value. "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former." That says that the second postulate of relativity is apparently irreconcilable with the PoR and what he is doing in his paper is to show how it can be reconciled. - I cannot think of an alternative interpretation can you? The logic I put with it goes as follows: The first postulate says that any two inertial observers performing identical experiments will get identical answers. Any two such observers measuring the speed of light from a stationary source in vacuum we know will get c. If you assume source independence then it follows that the value will not change if the source is moving which is what the second postulate says. Conclusion - the second postulate only adds the assumption of source independence to the first so it is the concept of source independence which is 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR which Einstein sets about reconciling - by ditching two axioms of physics. Can you fault my logic? can you fault the conclusion from the logic? I somehow doubt it - it is far easier to snip and accuse me of 'reading between the lines' or 'second guessing'. It doesn't work. The readers of this NG were on to your tricks long ago. Which always brings us back to the question as to why 'source independence' a property of the ether was considered so important and why you still believe in a theory based on a property of the ether when you don't believe in the ether. > >*His* theory was based upon a postulate about *light*. Not only a > >postulate about light but about source independence the only reason for > >belief in which was because the speed of light was considered to be > >constant w.r.t the ether and therefore independent of the source. > > That is incorrect, even historically. No source independence is a natural property of the ether as source independence is a natural property of any disturbance propagated in a medium. It predates Maxwell by more than a century. > Einstein provided the second >postulate because maxwell's equations were accepted as being correct In most of what he wrote he refers to Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. "H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the theory of electricity since Maxwell,..." 1920 lecture. Einstein was following Maxwell *via* Lorentz. Lorentz theory assumed source independence as well it should, because it retained the ether on which the belief of source independence rests. >and choosing the speed of light to be `c' was necessary if the >first postulate was to be consistent with maxwell's equations. There are two things wrong with that. In the first place it isn't true, and in the second place Planck had clearly shown that Maxwell's equations could not be considered as modelling laws of nature because they fail to give the right answer in certain circumstances. Without an ether we have not the faintest idea what Maxwell's equations are describing. Again that was not a problem for Lorentz, he assumed an ether and Einstein followed on from Lorentz. >[...] > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Reference an experiment in which the data are found to be inconsistent >with his assumptions. Describe any conceivable causality which would make his assumptions true. If one insists on the physical reality of the physical world, the PoR leads to the conclusion that light must be source dependent A S B-->v Assumptions: 1/ The space between observers A,B and the light source S contains no physical entity which can affect the speed/progress of light. 2/ Neither A nor B possess magical powers which allow them to affect the physical process taking place at the source. 3/ The PoR. Measuring the speed of light from a stationary source is straight forward so we know that A will determine that the speed of light leaving the source is c. As B is an inertial observer and as he is observing the same light leaving the same source as A he must according to the PoR get the same result namely that the speed of light is c relative to the source which is c+v relative to himself. If one insists on the physical reality of the physical world then there is nothing which can affect the speed of light other than the source. So are you going to point out a weakness in my assumptions, point out a mistake in my logic or simply snip as usual. >If no such experiment exists, then obviously he was >justified, No experiment existed which showed light was not source dependent. If one assumes source dependence you do not need to ditch two axioms of physics and you have completely credible physical causality. It is a basic tenet of science that you take the simplest theory which fits the facts not a far more extreme theory just because it allows everyone to retain their (no longer justified) beliefs. >regardless of what you think led him to that assumption I don't have to think, guess, or read between the lines: "Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether. The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it and its velocity can only be effected by the source if the movement of the source causes movement of the medium. Aether drag experiments, passing light close to heavy rotating flywheels has shown that they had no effect on the light passing close to them hence the speed of light cannot be effected by the speed of the source. Although the speed of light might be expected to vary with the speed of the observer Michelson and Morley had shown that not to be the case so it is a strange but indisputable fact that the velocity of light is constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer." Infeld/Einstein - The Evolution of Physics. SignatureJohn Kennaugh "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message