Re: Why Only Yanks now Believe in Einstein?
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 08/18/04
- Next message: Albert: "Re: The Emptiness of Theology"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: The Principle of Least Action and God."
- In reply to: Christophe Major: "Re: Why Only Yanks now Believe in Einstein?"
- Next in thread: Christophe Major: "Re: Why Only Yanks now Believe in Einstein?"
- Reply: Christophe Major: "Re: Why Only Yanks now Believe in Einstein?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:40:31 GMT
"Christophe Major" <cmaj10@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd2ca785.0408171342.4bfd76e3@posting.google.com...
[snip]
| Well Androcles, I started out my first paragraph with "I think ...",
| and in my second paragraph I meant "But 'I think' that SR is
| unattackable". I thought it was bad style to repeat that phrase, but
| it only caused confusion. I guess it sounded like I was pontificating
| the non-believers. I sincerely think you are banging your head against
| a wall, but that's a perfectly acceptable activity as long as you
| bring rational arguments forward.
I know I'm not banging my head against a wall, since I have for the most
part kill-filed those with the greatest density and do not write for their
benefit. I still find a large number of correspondents with some sense with
whom to debate.
|
| I'm actually very open-minded on all attacks on SR, and I even read
| parts of your web site with interest. Your discussion on the rotating
| clocks at the equator caught my attention. What's the official
| explanation for the failure of that experiment?
>From the SR standpoint, do you mean? First name an official.
I don't think it has been entered in to the FAQ list of nonsense, but I
don't check that often.
Amusingly, nTaul Andersen came up with dtau/dt = 0 < 1. Apparently he thinks
time stops.
|
| That being said. I wonder how you reconcile the falsity of SR with the
| fact that nuclear bombs are largely based on that theory; and they
| work much too well.
Sure.
J.G.Fox writes in the American Journal of Physics, Volume 33 #1 Jan '65.
==========================================
The essence and the proven utility of the photon model consists in its
simple representation of the energy and momentum of radiation. It is more
than likely that any optical phenomenon which can be explained by making use
of the momentum of a photon can also be explained rigorously with an
electromagnetic theory which properly accounts for this property. For the
rest of this discussion it is assumed that the Ritz theory an indeed take
proper account of the energy and momentum of light and that what can be
proved with the photon model could also be proved rigorously with that
theory.
It may be objected that the photon is a very relativistic particle, i.e., it
is very closely related to special relativity, and therefore it cannot be
used to obtain results in support of a theory which denies special
relativity. In reply, it can be remarked that it was discovered or invented
before and independently of special relativity and that the ratio of its
energy and momentum prescribed by electromagnetic theory.
The idea of the inertia of radiant energy, while generally attributed to
special relativity, also has a certain independence of its own. Hasenohrl
derived it for blackbody radiation in a moving cavity entirely on the basis
of electrodynamics before the advent of special relativity. Furthermore, it
is proved for the familiar photon-in-a-box on the basis of the conservation
of momentum for the system.
Another proof, more closely related to the present discussion, may be made
by the following modification of a demonstration due to Langevin. Consider
a source which is at rest with respect to an observer O and which radiates a
simultaneous, oppositely directed pair of equal quanta, hu, e.g.,
annihilation radiation. While the total energy radiated is E = 2hu [u
represents the greek nu here, which I cannot reproduce], the total momentum
radiated is zero, so the source remains at rest with respect to O.
Now, consider this phenomenon from the point of view of an observer O' who
moves with respect to O with the constant velocity v = bc along the line
defined by the radiation. On account of the first-order Doppler effect O'
observes two quanta with the frequencies hu(1 + b) [b= beta] and hu(1 - b).
He thus concludes that a net amount of momentum hu(1 + b )/c - hu(1-b)/c =
2hub/c is emitted in the direction in which the source and O appear to move
with respect to him. From the conservation principle for momentum he
concludes that the source loses this same quantity of momentum. Now the
velocity of the source with respect to O' does not change since it remains
at rest with respect to O, as has been seen. Thus O' is forced to conclude
that the mass of the source has decreased by an amount Delta.m, where
(Delta.m)u = 2hub/c. Thus, Delta.m = Delta.E/c^2.
==========================================
Thus we find E = mc^2 is applicable without reference to Einstein or SR.
Androcles.
- Next message: Albert: "Re: The Emptiness of Theology"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: The Principle of Least Action and God."
- In reply to: Christophe Major: "Re: Why Only Yanks now Believe in Einstein?"
- Next in thread: Christophe Major: "Re: Why Only Yanks now Believe in Einstein?"
- Reply: Christophe Major: "Re: Why Only Yanks now Believe in Einstein?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
