Re: The seven deadly sins of SR.
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/02/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS"
- Previous message: Patrick Reany: "Re: The difference between Weston and Reany."
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Reply: Eric Gisse: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:44:40 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:c8sg02-ua4.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
| wrote
| on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:00:03 GMT
| <Tn0Zc.130$z43.1879179@news-text.cableinet.net>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
| > message news:oebd02-202.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| > | <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
| > | wrote
| > | on Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:07:58 GMT
| > | <iltYc.1304$%81.16027779@news-text.cableinet.net>:
| > | >
[snip old material with no further corrspondence]
|
| And you have disproved it. Congratulations!
Thank you.
| What is your theory replacing it?
My theory? The world already works well enough.
What do you want me to say? For every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction? Newton already said that. We made rockets go to the moon on that.
What's missing?
Ah...let me see.
You want a postulate or two. Well, I can borrow ONE from Einstein.
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a
sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the
places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is
stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the
neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy,
but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases
discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those
produced by the electric forces in the former case.
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has
already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for
which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture
(the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of
Relativity'') to the status of a postulate."
It was a little longwinded, I suppose, but I guess that is what you wanted.
You can summarize it with w = u+v.
Here's another, but it only says the same thing as the first, which is
completely reconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is dependent of
the state of motion of the emitting body.
I needed to change "apparently irreconcilable" for "completely reconcilable"
and "independent" to "dependent" because Einstein's "apparently" turned out
to be "actually".
That comes down to w = c+v, so it really is the same as the first. The more
postulates you can get rid of the better, I say.
Now you want some equations? Ok.
Linear Translation:
t' = t.
x' = x + vt. (Galileo)
Doppler:
f' = f (c+v)/c (Doppler)
Kinetic Energy:
E= 1/2 mv^2 (Newton)
Mass equivalence:
E = mc^2. (Langevin)
Hmm... You might want to see that derived.
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.
==========================================
None of this is MY theory. I don't have one.
Apparent time compression and dilation:
dtau/dt = hmm... you can have that one if you like.
I'm no glory seeker. Call it Ghost's equation.
I'll tell you how to work it out.
A small change in tau at tau divided
by a small change in t at t gives dtau/dt, right?
You'll need to do some research though.
Here's a picture of a quadrilateral with two parallel sides, the
length of which represent t (bottom) and tau (top)
and the other two sides .... well, you work that out.
The slopes are c+v1 and c+v2. (it's a simple distance/time graph)
but you'll need to include distance in the equation. Something
like dtau/dt * D where D is the distance.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm
You'll need Kepler's equation, M = E-e.sin(E), so that we'll
know what part of the ellipse dtau/dt applies to. So you'll
need e, the eccentricity of the ellipse for that.
Since x' = x * sqrt(1 - e^2) (x' the minor axis and x the major)
looks a lot like
t' = t * sqrt(1-v^2) you should be in familiar territory.
You'll also need the longitude of perihelion and the attitude
of the ellipse, because if we are looking at it face on rather
than edge on, dtau/dt will equal 1.
Once again, this is not MY theory, Henri Wilson realized apparent
time compression and dilation before me, and independently
of Sekerin
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
but Sekerin beat Henri to it.
So produce the equation, verify it, name it for yourself.
Henri will be glad to help, I'm sure. Tell him I sent you.
How about E = E0 + KE ?
E = mc^2 + 1/2 mv^2
E^2 = (mc^2 + 1/2 mv^2) * (mc^2 + 1/2 mv^2)
= m^2c^4 + m^2c^2v^2 + 1/4 m^2v^4
Setting p = mv,
= m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 + 1/4 m^2v^4
its slightly different from the relativist's
E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2
because they don't know what a square is.
Their's has a corner missing.
When I went to school,
(a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2 but relativists think
(a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab
It's so they can divide p by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), I suppose,
and get it nearly right.
Anything else I can help with? I really don't have a theory,
everything belongs to someone else. What I have is a discovery.
There are enormous planets that cause stars to wobble, delta
Cepheus is one, Algol is another. Now someone else has found
a nearer one, by directly observing the wobble.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html
I found mine by observing a variation in the speed of light.
How much theory do you want?
I have more than enough to be going on with.
| [snip for brevity]
|
| > | > | it must be derivable from the theory.
| > | > | However, 7 is an *observation*.
| > | >
| > | > No experiment has ever been carried out to measure the
| > | > speed of light in a vacuum from a moving source.
| > | > Name one that has, and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
| > |
| > | How about GPS satellite detuning? The first GPS satellite had
| > | a flip-switch; on it compensated for theoretical SR+GR effects.
| > | Off it didn't. They had to flip it.
| > |
| > | What's wrong with that experiment?
| >
| > The orbit of the Earth about the Sun defines the unit of time we call
| > 'year'. If a mutiple of our seconds are not exact to the year,
| > we add leap seconds.
| > The orbit of the satellite about the Earth defines a hitherto unnamed
| > unit of time that I will call a satyear. One satyear is the same unit
of
| > time on Earth, Mars or the satellite. If the clock on the satellite
records
| > a different satyear from the clock on the ground, then either
| > one of the clocks is faulty or the satellite, after some number of
| > orbits, will be looking down on Africa while we are looking up at it
| > from Hawaii. Since that is absurd, a satyear is the same on Earth as
| > it is on the satellite. When I see a satellite make more or less than
| > one orbit per satyear, I'll accept that time is relative.
| > I suggest a technician investigates what went wrong with the clock
| > as to why it doesn't record an exact satyear rather than attempting
| > to bolster up some crazy theory that time is relative and the satellite
| > is over Africa when seen from Hawaii.
| >
| > You do realize, I hope, that the forward velocity (xi / tau)
| > of the satellite has to be different for the satellite than it is from
Earth
| > (x/t) if tau <> t?
| > Let's imagine tau = 2t for some v.
| > To have the same v, that would require xi = 2x. Since both would use
| > the same value for pi, I really don't think the satellite is twice as
far
| > from
| > Earth as the Earth is from the satellite. Surely someone would notice
| > the delay in the signal? Perhaps you do.
|
| OK, dumb question. What about the Sun's motion around the
| Galactic core (estimated to be about 7 * 10^-4 c to 1.3 * 10^-4 c,
| if memory serves)? What about the Galaxy's movement relative to
| the Local Group? What about the Local Group's movement
| relative to ... whatever?
What do you want me to say? It does? Ok, it does.
|
| > |
| > | Compton light scattering from high-energy particles looks
| > | eminently doable -- and has probably been done quite
| > | a number of times; I'd have to look. (Sometimes the
| > | obvious is right in front of one's nose!)
| > |
| > | What's wrong with *that* experiment?
| >
| > Yes, I noticed somebody suggest that to you. When you've taken
| > a look, then bring it up.
| > I'll repeat,
| > No experiment has ever been carried out to measure the
| > speed of light in a vacuum from a moving source.
| > Name one that has, and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
| > I'm not going to speculate on the result of an imagined
| > experiment you cannot supply.
|
| Good point.
|
| > |
| > | Laser beams are routinely fired from the Earth to the
| > | Moon through a telescope. There are some issues in
| > | the firing, mostly because the beam spreads out; the
| > | telescope is lucky to get a few photons back. However,
| > | the Earth-Moon distance is very accurately measurable
| > | that way.
| >
| > Since the Earth - Moon distance is constant
| > (or nearly so, only changing over a period of a month)
| > what does this have to do with
| > No experiment has ever been carried out to measure the
| > speed of light in a vacuum from a moving source.
| > Name one that has, and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
| > I didn't ask you to name one that is irrelevant, did I?
| > To make it relevant, shoot the moon with a laser from the ISS.
| > That way we WILL have a moving source, and it will test
| > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
| > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
| > However, it has not been done yet.
| > Name an experiment that has measured the speed of light
| > from a moving source, and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
| >
| > | I'm not sure what power of laser would be needed to bring
| > | aboard the ISS but I for one wouldn't worry too much about
| > | an ISS->Moon firing destroying theories; I'd find it rather
| > | interesting, in fact. However, there's not that much of
| > | a need, if one thinks about it; Compton high-speed particle
| > | scattering looks a lot cheaper as accelerators are in
| > | a number of spots.
| > Tell me how you will detect a moving photon as it passes
| > the start line and the same photon as it crossed the finish line,
| > all done in a vacuum.
|
| Not possible. A photon is destroyed the moment it is detected.
| The best one can do is set up conditions whereby a bunch
| of photons of similar energy gather together to make a long trip.
| Some are lost at the starting gate, generating an electrical
| pulse; the rest make the trip and are lost at the ending gate.
Ok, you've answered your own question. It is very difficult
to measure the speed of light, in a vacuum, from a moving source.
The best we could at this time is an ISS moon shoot.
It has all the distance we need, it's above atmosphere, we have the
clocks, the computers, the GPS, and all we need is to launch the laser.
Oh, and to overcome the protests of the relativists, of course.
They are totally opposed to it, claiming it isn't necessary. Natural,
I suppose, since it is all they know. But not very scientific.
Relativity is now a very real obstacle to the development of the light
accelerator and high speed interplanetary communication.
Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, have to rely on artificial intelligence
to guide themselves because they cannot wait for human intervention.
At least the engineers, mechanical, software and electronic are on the ball,
even if the physicists are not. We'll get the job done anyway we can.
It's no good asking government for help. They know how to kiss babies
and spend money on anyone that knows how to kiss their arse in return,
and relativists are masters at that. They only have to say "Einstein said"
and the dollars come their way. The poor bloody politician doesn't have
a clue, he just hopes something will come out of it that he can add his
name to. He's not going to give me the money to develop the accelerator,
everyone 'knows' it's impossible. Einstein said.
| > The moment you probe it, you affected it.
| > What distance will you use? That's important because it affects
| > the precision of the clock. I need microsecond precision for the
| > Earth - moon experiment, seems to me you need picosecond
| > precision for 400 meters of evacuated tube. Have you got a tube
| > that long and a clock that measures picoseconds for your
| > 'inexpensive' experiment?
| > I'll repeat,
| > No experiment has ever been carried out to measure the
| > speed of light in a vacuum from a moving source.
| > Name one that has, and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
|
| You're right; therefore c' = c+v and all of Relativity must
| of course be wrong and we should go back to Galileo's
| mathematics...
Yes. And I've PROVEN mathematically that Einstein was wrong.
You don't believe it, I know. But then, you cannot prove him right
or wrong, can you? All you have to rely on is the opinion of the
majority. It takes courage to go against the majority.
I dont think you have it. It's too easy to graze with the sheep in
the meadow than risk climbing the mountain to see what lies beyond.
Like Newton before me, I stand on the shoulders of real giants,
Galileo, Newton, Kepler and many others. You stand on the knees
of the dwarf, Einstein, with great men like Gisse, moortel, Anderson
Roberts propping you up and yelling "don't fall off", "Keep the faith".
Give it up. Come climb the mountain.
Henri Wilson is here, Jim Greenfield is here, many others are here.
It's rocky, but the view is magnificient, as is the challenge.
|
| (You do realize there are other effects predicted by SR, I hope.)
Vague. Name one.
| >
| >
| >
| > | > All I have is a very strong coincidence from distant stars,
| > | > cepheids, recurrent novae, flare stars and eclipsing binaries,
| > | > and I don't believe in coincidences.
| > |
| > | There are many more observations that can be done with
| > | binary stars -- in fact, there's one at PSR J1518+4904
| > | that appears to have mildly relativistic characteristics.
| > |
| > | www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v466n2/5241/5241.pdf
| >
| > Relativity doesn't have a darned thing to do with it. Apparent (stress
| > apparent)
| > time dilation is a prediction of emission theory.
| > http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
| > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > | The many observations of
| > | > | lightspeed differ by less than the expected error (namely,
| > | > | 10^-4 c, caused by the Earth's revolution); therefore,
| > | > | we don't have a rigid aether.
| > | >
| > | > There is no aether. How did that come up?
| > |
| > | Michelson Morley. If we were to have a rigid luminiferous aether
| > | that light travelled c thereto (and c+v for any body moving
| > | v with respect to the aether), the time would vary sufficiently
| > | to cause interference shifts, especially if the experimenters
| > | rotate the experiment.
| > |
| > | Of course, if one postulates c'=c+v, then one has to find another
| > | venue where c"=c'-v. If one can somehow measure the lightspeeds
| > | all over the Universe (a difficult task) one should be able to,
| > | using these methods, find the "absolute stillpoint".
| >
| > MMX is evidence there is no aether. How did that come up?
|
| OK, I concede the point; all MMX proves is that light speed
| is source-dependent/invariant.
More than that. It proves there is no aether. But that is all it proves.
The simplest solution is invariably the correct one. You could
roll two marbles along different chutes that leave together and arrive
together. Turning the apparatus in the horizontal plane isn't going
to change that. Open a window nearby and let in the wind
that retards one and assists the other WILL change it.
MMX says there is no aether wind.
Relativity says the wind is there but not really because now it is
called spacetime, the chute got shorter and the slower marble
isn't really slower, it just didn't have so far to go. It's called the
Lorentz contraction. And you can't measure the length of the chute,
your ruler shrank as well. Radar ranging won't work either,
MMX is is own optical ranging system.
That's not physics, that's magic.
Both aetherialists and relativists want magic. Fortunately nobody
takes an aetherialist seriously. That isn't true for a relativist, who
will uphold MMX as evidence that the chute gets shorter because
the marbles didn't change their speed, Einstein said so.
There IS a test for MMX that will prove no contraction, though.
I'll save that for later.
|
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > If one postulates Lorentz,
| > | >
| > | > I've told you what the axioms (or postulates) are. Now you want to
call
| > the
| > | > derivation a postulate, yet you've just said above "7 cannot be an
| > axiom;"
| > | > so we are not going to postulate Lorentz.
| > |
| > | I did say *IF*.
| > Oh, a side alley. Ok, no further response required, then.
| >
| > |
| > | > This is about relativity according to Einstein, not relativity
according
| > to
| > | > "Ghost in the Machine".
| > |
| > | Actually, it's about relativity according to Galileo, AFAICT.
| > Nothing wrong with that, is there?
|
| I'd have to study Mercury. Otherwise, no, there's no real
| difficulties with Galilean relativity apart from such
| little issues as proper operation of GPS satellites.
Kinda funny how you'll nitpick a microsecond but want an exact
match to the curve of V1493 Aql, isn't it? I can match it exactly,
but it is a lot of work for one star, and even if I did most would say
"Coincidence, we KNOW the speed of light is the same in all
inertial frames. Einstein said so".
|
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > | the lightspeed constancy falls out as a mathematical
| > | > | consequence, as does the odd velocity-addition formula.
| > | >
| > | > God made the world. The world exists. Therefore God exists. Great
| > logic,
| > | > but not acceptable. Circularity never is, because circularity is not
a
| > | > proof. If you prove what you assume in the first place, you a
neither
| > | > mathematician nor scientist. This is about science and mathematics,
not
| > | > religion.
| > |
| > | True enough. But what I need from you is your set of axioms.
| > | Is c'=c+v one of them?
| >
| > Actually, that term was not created by me.
| > My single axiom is the PoR of Galileo, w = u+v.
| > I have no special axiom for light.
| > Hmm... on second thoughts, there is one.
| > The velocity of light is medium dependent; in the absence of medium,
| > it is source dependent.
| > This is evidenced by observation.
| > MMX, for example, is entirely consistent with the velocity of light
| > being medium dependent (and source dependent for that matter), since
| > source, medium and detector are all relatively at rest, comoving at
0.0001c.
| > through the frame of the local star system.
|
| OK, so your axioms are that a light emission source emits at c
| (in a vacuum) and that a moving light source would show c'=c+v.
|
| What about a charged particle field impacting the atmosphere?
You've heard of Cherenkov radiation?
What do you think this is?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040613.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031217.html
Ever heard of this?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
That's a lot of energy!
|
| > |
| > | >
| > | > | Of course, Lorentz is not on your axiom-list, so I'm not
| > | > | sure where to go from here at this time.
| > | >
| > | > Where do you want to go? If you want to prove Einstein-Lorentz were
| > right,
| > |
| > | I want to be able to prove them *wrong*.
| >
| > No need. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. Let them prove
| > their claim. Have you seen my post slamming Don Koks' Twin Paradox
| > Doppler?
|
| I can't say from personal experience, but how do you explain
| atmospheric muons?
Wild feral muons descend from the upper atmosphere and reach sea level
before they decay. So they must be travelling faster than c.
That disproves relativity right there. Saying they live longer and
don't have as far to go is no different to saying that MMX shrinks.
If you try to measure their speed, you have to pass them through the
glass of a scintillator. That's like measuring the speed of traffic by
passing it through a tollgate.
If you use relativity to prove relativity you are using a circular
argument.
|
| >
| >
| > The simplest
| > | method by which one does that is to do the following.
| > |
| > | [1] Propose an alternate theory.
| >
| > Ok. The velocity of light in empty space is source dependent.
| >
| > | [2] Derive a result using that theory.
| > V1493 Aql.
| > beta-Perseus.
| > delta Ceheus.
| > | Your observations of a stellar
| > | pair are interesting but you need more data -- specifically, the
| > | numeric quantities and the dates of observation. I would
| > | also need some idea of the configuration of the binary,
| > | to have any hope of an SR/GR computation.
| >
| > Very difficult to obtain data from something that is light years
| > away and which you can only observe in two dimensions.
|
| Not really. A good telescope is all that it takes.
Got one? Resolve a planet at 40 light years. Use HST if you like, that's
the best available.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040901.html
I don't think you grasp just how enormous astronomical distances really are.
40 light years is our own backyard, and you are trying to see a dandelion
seed
landing. If it weren't for the blade of grass with a dewdrop glistening in
the sunlight, you wouldn't see that either. Heck, light travels at 300,000
km/sec
and it takes 40 years to get here! All you can see is a point of light (the
star)
and the tiniest of movements. Mira, at 400 ly, is absolutely enormous.
Here's
the picture from Hubble.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010121.html
|
| > Cast the shadow of a dinner plate on a wall. Looking only at
| > the shadow, is the plate circular or elliptical? A circular plate,
tilted,
| > will appear elliptical. An elliptical plate can appear circular.
| > What you have is a cone, apex the source of light, and a section
| > through the cone, the base of the cone being the wall.
|
| Depending on the orbit orientation the effect should be observable
| if the orbit is fast enough.
It is. That's the whole point. The star appears to vary.
|
| >
| >
| > (I'm not sure
| > | I can do such a computation anyway; I know SR but very
| > | little GR.)
| > | [3] Continue the observations and gather enough data.
| > | [4] Write a thesis.
| > | [5] (Optional) Collect Nobel Prize 30 years later. :-)
| > |
| > | You need more data; one pair of stars isn't going to do it.
| >
| > Only one counter-example is required to knock out relativity.
| > V1493 Aql CANNOT be explained by SR, GR or any other
| > theory, save emission theory. If you want an even easier example,
| > there is Algol. It doesn't fit the eclipsing theory, the geometry
doesn't
| > work.
| > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AlgolEclipse.JPG
| >
| > |
| > | > you cannot. If you want to study Nature as a scientist should, take
a
| > step
| > | > back from what you think is known but only guessed at and start
studying
| > the
| > | > data, not the theory. Heck, you'd be studying Ptolemy and ignoring
| > | > Copernicus, still believing the Earth is the centre of the universe
if
| > you
| > | > lived 400 years ago. We can see the sun cross the sky every day, and
the
| > | > moon every night. And you want us to believe the moon orbits the
Earth
| > as
| > | > we all know, but the Earth orbits the sun? How ridiculous! The
evidence
| > | > clearly point to Ptolemy being right! It's obvious!" But of course
it
| > isn't
| > | > ridiculous at all. Ptolemy was hopelessly wrong.
| > |
| > | So is Einstein, apparently.
| > Yep.
| > The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from
Newton
| > in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
| >
| > This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by
a
| > scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the
ethics
| > and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
| > fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and
history.
| >
| > Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation
claimed by
| > Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
| >
| > [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that
they
| > were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the
theories, he
| > deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
| > claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
| > scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud,
and it
| > is a crime against science and scholarship.
| > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
| >
| > I accuse Einstein of the same crime.
| >
| >
| > | But c'=c+v is easily verifiable in the
| > | lab, as well.
| >
| > I would hesitate to say 'easily'.
| > I've pondered the issue long and hard, and I don't see it as easy at
all.
| >
| > All one needs is a good polished mirror, lots of
| > | patience, and an interferometer, apparently.
| >
| > And a damned hard vacuum. Any trace of rarified gas, no matter how
| > slight, is lethal to the experiment.
|
| I don't see how, though it depends on the light source.
We know air refracts light. It's that simple.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040321.html
|
| I've been hypothesizing reflected beams, for example (why
| does the light *source* have to move?); the effect would
| be similar to bunting a pitched baseball, slowing it down.
In cricket the bowler takes a run, adding his own velocity to the ball
as he releases it. I guess it matters which game you play as to the way
you think. But I agree if the mirror moves instead, like the blade of
a fan which adds velocity to air molecules, the source need not.
|
| >
| >
| > | You've already
| > | mentioned a light accelerator; a double-mirror system might
| > | very well do interesting things.
| >
| > Well, you could certainly observe doppler shift, that's for sure.
| > But that's been done...
| > To measure c+v, it would be necessary to accelerate a pulse,
| > bounce it some large number of times between mirrors at the ends of a
| > long tube, and time the return. The whole experiment has to be carried
| > out in a vacuum, that includes the accelerator and the detector.
| > A fringe shift isn't going to cut it, we aready know we'll get that.
|
| Depends on the method of conduction. A particle beam will do
| interesting things to that laser pulse.
|
| Of course, you don't like that experiment because a reflected
| beam will be going at the same speed as the incident beam.
| (But not at the same velocity! Otherwise standard everyday
| mirrors wouldn't work at all.)
I have no objection. I just don't see what you expect of it. Do you
intend to use the particles as mirrors? Wouldn't they reflect at all
angles if they reflected at all? I've never heard of an electron
reflecting a photon when the electron has the shorter wavelength.
Long radio waves go around buildings, short ones bounce.
Short wavelength (blue) reflects from dust motes in the atmosphere,
we see a blue sky. Longer wavelengths goes around them
giving red sunsets. Your particles are many many times smaller than
dust motes. I think your laser light will pass right through the particle
beam unaffected.
|
| > |
| > | I'd point you to Eric Gisse (who's apparently done something along
| > | those lines) but apparently you two annoy each other. :-P
| >
| > Gisse is quite incapable of 1) deriving the Lorentz equations, I asked
him
| > repeatedly and he simply ignored the issue, 2) providing any
experimental
| > evidence in support of the velocity of light being source independent.
He
| > does the same thing as the FAQ, even cited MMX, trotting out a list of
| > experiments he doesn't understand himself, hoping to blast all the paper
| > at me in a pathetic attempt at browbeating. When that failed, he
resorted
| > to insult. He is totally incapable of reason. Instead of a discourse as
you
| > and
| > I are having, he responded in this thread with
| > "[snip] I wonder if you will ever understand how wrong you are."
| >
| > Snipping simply means he was unable to give a coherent response to
| > the seven issues I raised. There are no chess pieces on the board to
play
| > a game with.
| > Why should I bother with anyone that is so ignorant, lazy and
| > self-righteous?
| > moortel and Titan Point didn't attempt any response either, merely
wishing
| > to insult, and that leaves only you.
| > No relativist is going to touch it, they dare not.
| > You, on the other hand, are brave enough to raise a few points but face
| > abuse if you so much as dare to agree. And they are watching you,
believe
| > me.
| > Abuse doesn't bother me, I'm used to it and can slam back any time I
choose.
| > I couldn't get any sense out of Gisse, so now he resides in my killfile,
| > along with
| > a large number of morons.
|
| well, you have disproven SR, for what it's worth; you have *not*
| proposed an upwardly-compatible theory to replace it.
Nor do I intend to. There is ample working theory from others.
|
| Such a theory has to at least attempt to address such issues as:
|
| [1] MMX -- but you've already done that.
| [2] Compton scattering.
| [3] Accelerator design.
| [4] GPS satellite detuning by about -4.46 * 10^-12 to compensate for
| a rather theoretical effect.
Well, I'm not ignoring the problems, but it is getting late. Nor do I
intend to solve the whole of physics. You'll have to tackle some yourself.
[2] has nothing to do with relativity, go to Quantum Mechanics.
[3] is engineering.
[4] is engineering.
| >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the
quantity
| > | > | > | > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of
| > light
| > | > | > | > in empty space.",
| > | > | > | > an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is
any
| > | > | > | > relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the
derivation
| > of
| > | > the
| > | > | > | > remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I'll agree c is essential to the theory, yes.
| > | > | > So is the '2' in 2AB. If you deny it, prove otherwise.
| > | > | > That '2' is the foundation of the ½, Einstein is saying
| > | > | > ½ [(tB-tA) + (t'A-tB)] /2 = (tB-tA),
| > | > | > which of course it is A and B never change distance from each
other.
| > | > | > However, if they do, We have a problem. Subjectively, we don't
know
| > | > | > when the light reaches B, so Einstein wants us to believe it
must be
| > | > half
| > | > | > the
| > | > | > time of the round trip. Objectively, we do, I do not accept
| > | > | > (1/3 + 2/3) / 2 = 1/3,
| > | > | > and my 10 year-old granddaughter would get no ice cream from me
for
| > | > getting
| > | > | > her fractions wrong.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | > the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to
| > saying
| > | > | > | > (1/2 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Actually, 1/2 (+) 2/3 = 7/8, where I've written '(+)' to
indicate
| > | > | > | the observed velocity of B with respect to A, if A is going
| > | > | > | to the left on an imaginary line at a certain speed,
| > | > | > | and B is going to the right. In SR, this is not ordinary
| > | > | > | addition, of course;
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | 1/2c + 2/3c = 7/6c
| > | > | > | 1/2c (+) 2/3c = 7/8c
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Ok, I made a minor typographical error. :-)
| > | > | > You are making the error of circularity, though. We are
discussing
| > the
| > | > | > derivation of (+), and we haven't got that far yet. However,
I'll go
| > | > along
| > | > | > with it if you like, doing the same thing.
| > | > | > To save space, I'll use the symbol '~' to represent your
operator
| > (+)
| > | > | > whenever I encounter a velocity.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > ½[tau(0',0,0,t)+tau(0',0,0,t+x'/(c~-v)+x'/(c~v))] =
| > | > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c~-v))
| > | > | >
| > | > | > and since c~v = c,
| > | > | > ½[tau(0',0,0,t)+tau(0',0,0,t+2x'/c)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/c)
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Hence Einstein has the wrong equation.
| > | > |
| > | > | I for one wouldn't know at this point; I'd have to study the
matter,
| > | > | in a more or less proper form, such as what one might see on
| > | > | a Webpage with proper typography. ASCII is very confining, as
you've
| > | > | undoubtedly noticed. :-)
| > | >
| > | > No excuse. Written above and copied here:
| > | > For quotations following, reference:
| > | > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > | > ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
| > |
| > | A good reference. So what, precisely, is your problem therewith?
| > See thread title.
| >
| >
| > | He's basically derived the Lorentz already, by Section 3.
| > Nope. See thread title.
|
| Oh, I see, yes. Einstein made a mistake, therefore Galileo
| is the king here?
If you want to be sarcastic, fine. Newton is king, though.
He would not use circularity, as you are doing, either.
|
| >
| >
| > (I am
| > | not horribly thrilled with his usage of Greek letters, but who
| > | am I? :-) )
| >
| > Dunno who you are. Someone that accepts relativity to go along with
| > the crowd, or a man who can think for himself? You tell me. I don't
| > mind what letters he uses, but you might be even more put off with
hebrew
| > mixed in as well in GR.
| >
| > | Of course he's assuming a constant TWLS c (near the end of Section 1).
| > | Obviously this is not right according to you.
| > Assumption is never right according to any engineer, mathematician or
| > scientist.
|
| Correct. The question is: what are your assumptions? Do they
| lead to predictable, testable results? Do the results from
| an experiment confirm or disprove the theoretical results?
|
| You have *three* sets of observations disproving SR. I doubt that's
| going to be enough,
ONE is enough.
| mostly because there are a lot more than
| three experiments showing evidence for SR (GPS satellite detuning,
| mass-gain in accelerators,
What mass gain? The EMPIRICAL data is the energy. That's it.
Mass is a computation based on relativity. My EMPIRICAL data
is the light curve. SR gives no explanation.
| and muon detecting
Already answered. Muons are proof that relativity is wrong.
| being the three
| that come to mind; the fourth is light-scattering from a
| high-speed moving charged particle beam, apparently).
Your claim. You prove it.
|
| You still need more data.
No, you need more data. I'm satisfied.
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence
0'
| >=
| > | > 0-vt,
| > | > | > | > and the equation should be
| > | > | > | > ½[tau(0',0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| > | > | > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| > | > | > | > at the very least.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... "
without
| > | > | > considering
| > | > | > | > IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using
Einstein's
| > | > method)
| > | > | > | > tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | > | > | > xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > 6) The statements
| > | > | > | > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
| > | > | > | > when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity
| > c-v..."
| > | > | > | > and
| > | > | > | > "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."
| > | > | > | > which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the
second
| > being
| > | > | > | > contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a
| > vector
| > | > | > space.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | So who says the Universe has to behave as a linear
vector-space?
| >:-P
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Nobody, I agree.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | The Universe is; we observe it and try to explain it.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Can't do that if we get our hard sums wrong, can we? That's just
| > fooling
| > | > | > ourselves. We don't get to tell the Universe to do what we want
it
| > to
| > | > and
| > | > | > call that "understanding".
| > | > |
| > | > | Correct. The Universe is. We predict, and then test, and hope
| > | > | that we're right. That's all we can do.
| > | >
| > | > No, it is NOT all we can do. We have to PROVE we are right,
| > |
| > | You've already proven yourself right, have you not?
| >
| > Irrelevant.
| > This thread points out that Einstein did NOT prove anything, that
| > all he has is assumption and faulty mathematics.
| >
| >
| >
| > | However,
| > | have you been able to find other examples of spectroscopic binaries
| > | and fitted them with your curves? I've found another one for you,
| > | apparently; perhaps you can try your method on PSR J1518+4094.
| > |
| > | It should show c'=c+v as well -- if your theory is correct.
| >
| > It does. I've already responded above. But that is a side alley.
| > The issue here is Einstein's misuse of mathematics.
|
| So claim the Nobel, already.
|
Why? I have no desire to bask in glory. I'm content to have learned
something about Nature that nobody else knew. Nor does it matter
whether you believe me or not.
| *I've* proven (of course, I'm retreading ground here) that
| the Lorentz transform preserves lightspeed invariance and
| observer switchability -- a necessity for anything that
| purports to be a coordinate tensor/transform. The
| addition theory u= (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2) is also derivable
| therefrom.
Nope. You've proven you know how to use circularity. Derive
the Lorentz transform using your u= (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2).
There can be only one PoR. We can't choose the one we like
when it suits.
|
| Of course, this is merely theoretical symbol-slinging,
| not real physics. (But then, a lot of physics nowadays
| requires a lot of symbol-slinging; I'm still trying
| to figure out what purpose a brane has, for example --
| and I do mean "brane"; it's a component apparently of
| a variant of string theory. Not that I'm all that
| well-equipped for anything more complicated than the
| eigenstates of a hydrogen atom, and I'd have to look
| that up... :-) )
|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > based on the
| > | > accepted axioms,
| > |
| > | No. Not on *accepted* axioms, which among other things include
| > | constancy of the speed of light, u=(v+w)/(1+vw/c^2), and
| > | mass increase.
| >
| > Axioms are not and can never be derived. They are primitives to be
| > accepted without proof. I have to accept you exist. That is an axiom.
| > I do not and will not accept what you say, though. u=(v+w)/(1+vw/c^2)
| > is derived, it is NOT an axiom. Nor was it derived correctly.
| >
|
| It can be derived from the Lorentz transform, that much I know.
Then derive the Lorentz transform without using u = v+w. If you can do
that, you have a consistent theory. Otherwise I won't know which
to use, u = v+w or u=(v+w)/(1+vw/c^2).
| >
| >
| >
| > One must go deeper into the Universe.
| > |
| > | What are your axioms?
| >
| > Answered above, and not relevant to finding the errors Einstein made.
| > When you comprehend the difference between finding error and providing
all
| > the answers to life, the universe and everything, you'll be well on your
way
| > to being a logical, thinking human being.
| > I don't know all the answers and I don't pretend to.
| > What I do know is that relativity is a long, dark blind side alley
| > full of traps and obstacles that has led us off the path to knowledge
that
| > Galileo set foot upon, with physicists and astronomers stumbling around
| > trying
| > to find the way out. The only way is back the way they came.
|
| So you've disproven SR and reinstated Galileo. Again,
| congratulations.
Again, thank you.
|
| You now get to go up and fix the GPS satellites. They're
| having a pecular detuning relative error of about +4.46 * 10^-12
| which the prior bunch of engineers put in there for
| some reason.
Get rid of the Earth's magnetic field, then. Those satellites are
flying through it. The clocks on the ground are not. If that doesn't
work, let me know and I'll look deeper.
|
| >
| > | They cannot be the same as Einstein's,
| > | since Einstein's results are wrong (AFAICT according to you, anyway).
| > |
| > They certainly are.
| >
| > | Pick another set.
| >
| > The choice is yours. Believe what others tell you to think, or think for
| > yourself.
| > Nature won't care either way.
|
| Thinking is fine, but physics includes thinking, observation,
| experimentation, and peer review.
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton peer-reviewed Ptolemy and
he didn't pass.
I've peer reviewed Einstein's paper and it didn't pass either. I don't need
to do more.
|
| It's fairly clear that Usenet has at most two of these characteristics.
| I'll let you figure out which two. :-)
|
| > |
| > | [rest snipped]
| >
| > {rest restored, you didn't play by the rules and respond. }
|
| Oh. OK.
|
| >
| > not on hypotheses. We can't say "It looks right, so it must
| > be!". That isn't science at all. How would it be if you went to a
medical
| > doctor complaining of pain and the doctor misdiagnosed the problem, says
you
| > are suffering with the belly ache and need to be bled?
| > "Oh well, the patient died. I tried to bleed him with leeches, but it
was
| > God will. Too bad". So the body snatchers dig you up, give you to a
| > researcher and he finds you have a burst appendix.
| > Either way you had a pain.
| >
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent
by
| > | > feeding
| > | > | > the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and
finding a
| > | > total
| > | > | > failure.
| > | > | > Check:
| > | > | > (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] =
| > | > tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Androcles.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > P.S. Tom Roberts, Ph.D. says
| > | > | > "There are a lot of people around here who post nonsense
| > masquerading as
| > | > | > physics."
| > | > | > I completely agree with him on that point. He is one of the
guilty.
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | Well, if you can derive both E = m_0 c^2 * gamma and
| > | > | t' = t from the same theory, I for one will at least
| > | > | consider the matter. The problem is that in Newton's
| > | > | theory, E = 1/2 m v^2, and in Einstein's theory,
| > | > | t' = (t - vx/c^2) * gamma.
| > | > |
| > | > | (I'm not sure how your t and tau and my t and t' interrelate.)
| > | >
| > | > Equations you have in
| > | > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > | >
| > | > Diagram is like this.
| > | >
| > | > -----------------0'----------x'--xi-- X-axis, moving frame, tau = 0.
| > | > -----------------0-----------x------- X-axis, stationary frame, t =
0.
| > | > ---0000--0'----x'----xi------ X-axis, moving frame, tau =
| > (1-vx/c^2)*gamma.
| > | > -----------------0----------------x------ X-axis, stationary frame,
t =
| > 1.
| > | > -----------------|<----- (-v*1)--|
| > | > x' = x-vt, given by Einstein.
| > | > xi = (x')*gamma. Hence xi is greater than x' because gamma is > 1.
| > | > The Lorentz contraction brings x' = xi which I cannot draw.
| > |
| > | I'd have to see a clearer picture; ASCII wasn't meant for things
| > | like that. :-)
| > No excuse.
| > |
| > | >
| > | > If you understand that, then I'll leave you to construct a similar
| > | > diagram showing the displacement of tau and t on the t-axis.
| > | > Use c = 1 for simplicity or you may be trying to put 300,000 spaces
| > across
| > | > the page :)
| > |
| > | I'll admit I'm not quite sure how to approach this, but the more or
less
| > | standard form in some textbooks is to rotate the (x,t) axis. This
| > | isn't quite right, of course:
| > |
| > | x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2)
| > | t' = (t-vx)/sqrt(1-v^2)
| > |
| > | (where I've set c = 1) although it's close, as a rotation is
| > | more along the lines of
| > |
| > | x' = x cos theta - y sin theta
| > | y' = x sin theta + y cos theta
| > |
| > | If one assumes t=iy is pure imaginary (e.g. Minkowski), then one gets:
| > |
| > | x' = (x - viy)/sqrt(1-v^2)
| > | iy' = (iy - vx)/sqrt(1-v^2)
| > | y' = (y + vix)/sqrt(1-v^2)
| > |
| > | and now one has to deal with *four* quantities (Re(x), Re(y), Im(x),
| > Im(y))
| > | rather than two, but at least it looks more like a rotation now.
| > | However, one can take v=iw to be imaginary as well, and then it *does*
| > | become a true rotation:
| > |
| > | x' = (x - wy)/sqrt(1+w^2)
| > | y' = (y + wx)/sqrt(1+w^2)
| > |
| > | where theta = arccos(1/gamma).
| > |
| > | Admittedly, this is a very weird observation -- but
| > | mathematically, it's more or less consistent, and since
| > | v has to do with time, it might as well be imaginary,
| > | since in x = vt, the equation of motion, x is real but
| > | t is pure imaginary, which means v = x/t has to be pure
| > | imaginary as well.
| >
| > If you can rotate clockwise, then you can rotate counterclockwise.
| > Try turning time backwards. Better yet,
| > apple' = (apple - apple/orange*orange)/sqrt(1- (apple/orange)^2)
| > orange' = (orange - apple/orange*apple )/sqrt(1- (apple/orange)^2)
|
| Horse happy apple working. However, you're correct; the Lorentz
| transform makes no sense, c'=c+v, and everyone knows that
| this will end the matter.
|
| Not.
|
Of course not. But some will. Those that cannot think will continue
to rant and insult. Those that can will change the course of science.
Androcles
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS"
- Previous message: Patrick Reany: "Re: The difference between Weston and Reany."
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Reply: Eric Gisse: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: The seven deadly sins of SR."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
