Re: Einstein's logic

From: John Kennaugh (JKNG_at_kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 07/06/04 

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 06:06:12 +0100

Androcles writes
>
>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:g71s7eEtLb5AFwkh@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>| Androcles writes
>| >
>| >"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>| >news:Zuly+uJoud4AFwql@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>| >| Robert W. McAdams writes
>| >| >"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
>| >|
>| >| It is not a property of waves it is a property of 'waves propagated in
>a
>| >| medium' which have a speed which is not dependent on the velocity of
>the
>| >| source *because* it is constant w.r.t the propagating medium.
>| >|
>| >| If you accept that MMX showed there is no medium then light is not a
>| >| propagated wave and if it is a wave of some sort then we are in totally
>| >| unknown territory.
>|
>| >
>| >Why? I have no objection to radio waves.
>|
>| By unknown territory I mean there is no convenient mechanical analogy
>| as there is with propagated waves. What Robert was saying was that
>| 'source independence' is a property of waves. I pointed out that it is
>| the property of a propagating medium. Take that away and conceive of a
>| wave without a propagating medium and you have to go back to first
>| principles. Inevitably if you have no propagating medium you conclude
>| that the source must be the controlling influence because there isn't
>| anything else.
>
>Agreed. However, analogies CAN be useful, and physics is largely unknown
>territory anyway. I think the point here is that the medium is stationary on
>the x-axis and oscillates in the y-axis (AM) or stationary on the y-axis and
>oscillates on the x-axis (FM). In reality, water waves show both, the
>shoreline has pebbles, ground by FM waves, the amplitude being readily
>observable. Nevertheless the energy's velocity is finite and source
>independent, the velocity being a function of the viscosity and depth of the
>water.
>For light, the analogy fails and another is needed for the transfer of
>energy, since no medium was discovered.

One would think would one not that one of the highest priorities in
physics would be to answer the question 'what is light' but that has
become an 'improper question' so we have no better understanding now as
to what it is which travels from the transmitter to our aerial or from
the sun to warm our back than we did a century ago.

>
>|
>| > They have a higher amplitude at the
>| >transmitter, they consist of alternating electric fields and magnetic
>| >fields. If you want an aether and a wave in it, then the magnetic field
>is
>| >the aether and the electric field waves in it. Moving the transmitter
>moves
>| >the 'aether' along with it, aether is the track on a caterpillar drive,
>it
>| >gets picked up again and moved forward.
>| >I would not call that "totally unknown".
>| >The concept of a material substance "existing" (aether) in nothing is
>far
>| >more foreign to me than the concept of a magnetic field existing in
>nothing.
>|
>| Is an electrostatic field 'real' or is it simply a means of mapping
>| action at a distance? If there had been no such thing as a bar magnet
>| (or any sort of permanent magnet) we would have to explain everything in
>| terms of charge and the relationship between electrostatic and
>| electromagnetic might be better understood.
>
>Now you are entering the unknown territory. One might as well ask if the
>force we call gravity is real.

that wasn't the question. Gravity is real in the sense that the force
itself is real although we have to be careful we don't get carried away
by man's own invention i.e.

   Q - What makes the earth go around the sun?
   A - Gravity
   Q - What is gravity.
   A - Gravity is what we call whatever it is which makes the earth go
around the sun.

What is real is that a force exists between two masses. We can do
experiments and we know the mathematical relationship. If you put a
small mass a distance away from a larger mass you can determine the
strength and direction of the force. If we do that at enough points we
can plot the gravitational 'field' of influence of the larger mass. If
that is all it is, the field is not real it is abstract. For it to be
'real' some *thing* must exist at a point even when our test mass isn't
there. The question is - is there something already there which our test
mass detects or is there nothing there until our test mass is present to
set up an AAAD force between it and the large mass. I think the latter.

The same argument applies to a charged object and the field of influence
detected around it.

We agree that one has to set aside ones conditioning caused by living in
the macro world and accept AAAD as being perfectly natural without the
need for any 'connecting rods' 'invisible messengers' or 'ether' by
which force is transmitted. The next step you want to take is that AAAD
force can exist in empty space as a self contained entity when there is
no charge to cause it, and for it to carry energy. For me that is a step
too far. If one reintroduces an ether then your field could be a stress
in that ether and the energy could be stored in that stress but I don't
want to go there. I am looking for a theory where dark, empty space
contains nothing and therefore has nothing which can store energy. I
think if you want a field in empty space then either empty space isn't
empty or your field must have charges causing it because 'field' is just
another name for AAAD. That is why my suggested model of a photon has a
+ve and -ve charge rotating to generate the fields.

> I have to ins

>ist it IS real, in the sense
>that I am not drifting away from the Earth but quite firmly stuck to my
>chair. Likewise the magnetic and electrostatic fields, they are detectable.
>WHAT they are is "action at a distance", but even that only describes
>behaviour, not their substance. The set of natural forces we collectively
>call AAAD are the electric force, the magentic force and gravity. The weak
>and strong interactions at the atomic level are deduction, not direct
>observation, so I cannot be as certain of their existence.

Agreed. They could simply be indicative that we have failed to
understand something fundamental.

>The rules change
>when we move from the macroscopic to the microscopic, yet we infer the
>macroscopic is a direct consequence of the microscopic, but we must be
>careful. The fog over the water doesn't carry a macroscopic ripple on the
>surface, but it is water nonetheless.
>
>
>| >When we "push" an object, at the atomic level there is no contact.
>Electrons
>| >of the hand press against the electron of the pen.
>|
>| That is not what you meant to say. You meant that Electrons
>| of the hand repel electron of the pen. Essentially all force is action
>| at a distance and it is our own prejudice based on experience at the
>| macro level which has us searching for 'connecting rods' through which
>| force is applied. This led us to invent the silly idea of the ether and
>| the even sillier idea of virtual particles. Why physicists can't simply
>| accept that we are prejudice and that all force acts at a distance I
>| don't know. What is the point of a connecting rod if the matter it is
>| made of is 99% empty space?
>
>Exactly. And so we are compelled to conclude that "forces" are action at a
>distance and axiomatic.

agreed.

> We cannot look "inside" them to see what they are
>made of. Physics is a study of their behaviour, not of what they are "made
>of". We can ask what matter is made of, though, and ultimately it reduces to
>points that interact at a distance. Imagining aether, a substance and
>therefore some sort of "matter" for the transfer of energy by "touch" is a
>wholely macroscopic concept born of everyday experience and serves no useful
>purpose.

Agreed.

>The sun shines because it loses matter. What is matter? What is energy? One
>and the same, as far as I can tell. If the sun loses mass, then it also
>loses gravity. Since gravity is AAAD, and since the sun is made of atoms,
>the atoms (or part of them) are turning into the energy we call photons.
>Hence gravity is carried away by photons. Therefore light SHOULD bend in the
>presence of a material mass as it passes by, it is action at a distance. Yet
>we claim photons have no "mass".

As mass = energy photons have mass - fine.

> How do we detect "mass"? Only by the
>observation of forces. Stand on your bathroom scale, and you claim your mass
>only by the force of compression of the spring. AAAD.
>|
>| >When too much local force
>| >is applied, whole atoms get ripped off and we call that "wear".
>| >
>| >
>| >| A wave without anything to be a wave in, is not
>| >| something we have any experience of
>| >
>| >Sure we do. Radio is something we have a lot of experience in. Of course
>the
>| >magnetic field has a mean strength of zero, but so does your electricity
>| >supply.
>| >
>| >
>| >| so we should not make any
>| >| assumptions about it. You are nevertheless correct in your assumption
>| >| that Einstein carried over the belief of source independence from wave
>| >| ether theory when the theory itself had gone way past its sell-by-date.
>| >
>| >Yep.
>| >
>| >|
>| >| If there is no medium, no ether, then a source is surrounded by
>nothing
>| >| which can effect the speed of light therefore the only thing the speed
>| >| can be constant w.r.t is the source. There is nothing else. Apart from
>| >| which light is made up of particles. Particles do not need a
>propagating
>| >| medium. Why on earth should the speed of a particle ejected by a source
>| >| not be at a speed constant w.r.t the source emitting it?
>| >
>| >The word "particle" implies mass.
>|
>| Does it?
>Yes. See above.

OK it has energy, it has mass. I'll buy that.

> A photon carries off the gravity of the emitting body.
>If we are to agree on mass/energy conservation, then the electric, magnetic
>and gravitational "forces" of the photon must be conserved, no matter how
>tiny. Since we observe the bending of light, the photon has "mass" by which
>I mean that "mass" is a measure of the force that produces the bending, or
>AAAD.
>
>|
>| > I see no reason why a "particle" that is
>| >an forever oscillating electric field, combined with a forever
>oscillating
>| >magnetic field, shouldn't be a carrier of energy just as a wave is, or
>| >should need any mass or aether to simply 'be'.
>| >
>| >|
>| >| >> When
>| >| >> Einstein says 'For, like every other general law of nature, the law
>of
>| >the
>| >| >> transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of
>| >| >> relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body
>as
>| >when
>| >| >> the rails are the body of reference' he includes in the law of
>| >transmission
>| >| >> of light in a vacuum the fact its speed does not depend on the speed
>of
>| >the
>| >| >> source.
>| >|
>| >| No the principle of relativity and the first postulate simply say that
>| >| there is no such thing as absolute speed therefore the laws of physics
>| >| must be consistent for all observers. In other words whatever the law
>is
>| >| which relates the speed of light and the speed of the source, it must
>be
>| >| the same for all observers. If the law is that the speed of light adds
>| >| to the speed of the source that is fine so long as that is the same for
>| >| all observers. In fact it is more in keeping with the principle of
>| >| relativity. i.e. All speed is relative including the speed of light.
>| >|
>| >| It is not the principle of relativity nor the first postulate which
>| >| defines what for relativity that law is but the second postulate. It
>| >| says that the speed of light is constant w.r.t the observer observing
>| >| it.
>|
>| >As such, that is subjective, not objective.
>|
>| It is a postulate, an assumption. The question is what justifies that
>| assumption. As far as I can see some pretty dodgy thinking.
>
>Exactly. Your main objective, then, is to induce rational thinking in the
>face of dogma. No matter what the subject, this is always the objective of
>the philosopher.
>"Thinking" is the process of accepting certain evidence and reaching a
>conclusion from it in a logical fashion. If this is done correctly and an
>absurdity is reached or invalid assumption is made, then return and think
>again, or reject any invalid interpretation of the evidence.

  In a sense ones worth as a relativist is measured by ones willingness
to embrace absurdity. If one doesn't it is considered a failure to
understand the deeper truth. What you see as a vice they see as a
virtue. In the NG if you do start to induce rational thinking someone is
bound to pop up to say 'don't believe that rubbish that blokes an idiot
and doesn't know what he is talking about'. Like alcoholics anonymous -
a buddy on hand to stop anyone from being tempted to think by the demon
heretic :o).

>| >| It requires that everywhere in an observers FoR that light travel at
>| >| c. If you want to put a physical interpretation on that it is that
>every
>| >| observer is stationary w.r.t his own personal propagating medium.
>| >| Imagine you are in a balloon floating over a lake. It is misty and you
>| >| cannot see the shore. How can you tell if you are moving relative to
>the
>| >| lake? Drop something in and watch the ripples. If you are stationary
>| >| then they will travel in all directions at the same speed.
>|
>| >
>| >But if you are moving at the same velocity as a river, the ripples ring
>| >remain directly beneath you.
>|
>| Again you are stationary w.r.t the FoR of the river.
>
>Yes.
>
>| Remember the lake
>| is whizzing around the earth at 465m/s. If there is no relative motion
>| between you and a propagating medium then what is propagated will
>always
>| move at the same speed determined by you, independent of the motion of
>| the source. 'Every observer is stationary w.r.t his own ether' would
>| result in the second postulate.

>Actually, the second postulate, "light is always propagated in empty space
>with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
>the emitting body" leads to the conclusion 'Every observer is stationary
>w.r.t his own ether', not the other way around, although I suppose you could
>say they were equivalent.

Chicken and egg. What came first the postulate or Einstein's thought
process? Einstein's thought process of course - (unless he pinched it
from Lorentz which is a possibility). I see 'Every observer is
stationary w.r.t his own ether' as in some way representing Einstein's
thought process. If you read his 1920 lecture with this in mind it makes
sense that he thought somewhere along those lines. He obviously saw the
need for some sort of ether but not the single immobile ether of
Lorentz. That leaves either every observer with his own ether, or a
magical ether which every observer is stationary w.r.t.

>Remember that Einstein claims the second to be "only apparently
>irreconcilable with the first".
>So what IS the first?
>Is it described by
>a) V = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), or
>b) V = u+v?
>He has an equation in the form
>½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/V' +x'/V'')] = tau(x',0,0,t + x'/V')
>where V' = c-v
>and V'' = c+v.
>Hence he is using b), not a).
>To emphasize, he claims "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point
>of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that
>x'/(c-v) = t."
>This is not the same 't' as the 't+' used in the former equation, but that
>is a triviality of Einstein's sloppy terminology and can be overlooked. What
>cannot be overlooked, however, are the times (x-vt)/V' and (x-vt)/V'', which
>are clearly different.
>They are the equivalent of claiming
>[1/3 + 2/3] /2 = 1/3, because we are not sure at what time the light reaches
>the mirror even though it is given as 1/3 the total, so we'll ASSUME it is
>1/2 the round trip.
>And yes, he declares this to be an assumption you are expected to accept
>without proof when he says:
>"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
>
>2AB/ (tA-t'A) = c."
>
>Later he claims:
>"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
>composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
>V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
>It seems strange to me that anyone would accept any argument that was in the
>form:
>If rule b) applies, then rule a) replaces it.
>If rule a) applies, then rule b) replaces it.
>How that is apparent "reconciliation" is beyond me.
>
>[remainder snipped, no further comment]

One of these days I will have to expend the necessary time to understand
what you are on about :o).

>Androcles.
>
> 

-- 
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
Quantcast