Re: B SR-cult fraud and corruption
From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/08/04
- Next message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: shevek: "Re: B SR-cult fraud and corruption"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:42:55 -0500
shevek wrote:
> RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2smcqbF1n3tvmU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>shevek wrote:
>>
>>>RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2sjainF1lodu4U1@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>shevek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2si6rnF1l3ic2U1@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>RP wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The original notion of Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction (Lorentz
>>>>contraction Aether theory, LCAT) was that x arm of the interferometer
>>>>contracted when motion wrt the aether was along x. This was regarded as
>>>>a physical contraction, not so much different, qualitatively speaking,
>>>>than thermal contraction. With this premise taken in the context of
>>>>Galilean transforms, the results of the MMX were explained. IOW, the
>>>>transformation that I provided above is nothing other than the Galilean
>>>>transform with unit conversion factors figured in, gamma being that
>>>>factor. Gamma is the direct result of the fact that the path of the
>>>>beam along the y arm, wrt the stationary observer, is taking a zig zag
>>>>path, and the y component of the light beam's velocity is therefore
>>>>c/gamma. This is pure Euclid. A contraction factor of 1/gamma must be
>>>>applied to the x arm in order to provide for the simultaneous arrival of
>>>>the signals at the detector, i.e. for no fringe shift.
>>>>
>>>>Thus the time transform given above is just the application of the unit
>>>>conversion factor. Events that are simultaneous in one frame are
>>>>simultaneous in all other frames. The speed of light wrt K' is not c
>>>>along the x axis, however the two-way light speed is c wrt K', thus
>>>>providing for the simultaneous arrival of the two signals in the MMX.
>>>>The only reason that the one way y velocity is c wrt K' is that he is
>>>>defining his second in terms of the y arm light beam speed. His has
>>>>bound himself to use of the light clock for measuring all time-like
>>>>intervals. He is free to use some other type of clock that has been
>>>>adjusted to tick at the same rate as the rest frame clock, in which case
>>>>he will measure the speed of the y moving beam at c/gamma, just as the
>>>>rest frame observer does. IOW, this is all a simple matter of a
>>>>difference between the standards of measure employed by the respective
>>>>observers, which is brought on in turn by the physical alteration to
>>>>those devices when in different states of motion wrt the aether.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I think we agree; especially that it is all a matter of different
>>>standards of measure employed by different observers. When you say
>>>"light clock" I am reading: a clock that functions based on
>>>electromagnetic restoring forces.
>>>
>>>
>>>So do you have a problem with the LCAT theory as it stands?
>>
>
> Thanks for a very interesting post!
Thank you for your hard questions, which I'll attempt to address to the
utmost with my limited abilities :)
>
>
>
>>Actually I do have a problem with it, but with LET as well, which latter
>>is equivalent to special relativity. I only posted the LCAT transform to
>>show that Robert's statement was "not even wrong".
>>
>
>
>
> Hmm.. I don't see the difference between the two. You haven't told
> me how you synchronize clocks in some arbitrary inertial frame in
> LCAT..
A can see no reason to synchronize the clocks, when it is the
intervals that we are mostly interested in finding. What benefit is a
specific time value except to reference it to another time value to obtain
the interval? If you insist on synchronizing the clocks, under this
transform delta_t' is proportionate to delta_t at any given v.
Just adjust the clocks so that both tick at the same rate and you're
right back to a Galilean synchronization issue. The real issue, though,
is first determining the state of motion wrt the local medium, since the
transform is essentially useless without this value.
>
>>My conclusions are that electrons interact instantaneously, and that
>>photons are nothing more than accounting devices that happen to
>>correspond in a rough way to patterns of ambient field fluctuations. The
>>problem with photons is that the energy absorbed may have been
>>contributed to by electron fields, that in turn are associated with
>>electrons, that actually lost momentum via their interaction with the
>>advancing wave. It's a matter of phasing, or IOW, of interference
>>patterns and the geometry of the system. Photons share their energies
>>in such a way that it appears that the same energy is absorbed that was
>>emitted. It's a holographic effect. Quantum physicist speak of momentum
>>space and Fourier transforms.
>>
>>I see these as nothing more than different terms for phasing of the
>>magnetic moments of the charges in space, that are in turn directly
>>related to the vectors of momentum of those charged particles. Every
>>electron's instantaneous momentum vector is the vector sum of the
>>portions of the momentums of all of the photons suspended in space at
>>any given instant.
>
>
> I see.. you would describe the electron as a superposition of
> photons..
Vice versa, actually.
> but there must be something else going on. A free space
> light wave or wave packet (photon) can be described as linear
> oscillations.. an electron is more solitonic, requiring non-linear
> interactions and mass. I think your description is very much similar
> to QED.. that the field is a superposition of virtual photons..
You could put it that way, but it's a matter of perspective.
>
>>Via Fourier decomposition the momentum of the
>>electron can be broken down into components consisting of energies
>>derived from every photon suspended in space. IOW, "direct particle
>>interaction" is occurring, and photons are just an illusion brought on
>>by the fact that energy is absorbed and emitted by atomic matter in
>>various, but relatively constant, units. These units correspond to
>>specific frequencies respectively only because the orbital diameters of
>>the electrons are quantized, because the charge of the constituent
>>particles is quantized.
>
>
> I agree with you on this point. Nothing spooky about it, eigenvalues
> occur classically as well.
>
>
>>This internal atomic structuring is addressed
>>in my paper "Electromagnetism: First Principles". Moreover I've
>>approached such effects as photoelectric effect and holography in
>>quantitative terms that make no assumption about the existence of photons.
>>
>
>
> arXiv number or url?
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/Electromagnetism.html
not yet transcribed into standard notation.
A .pdf version will be available in the near future.
The journal SCIENCE wanted no part of it, but what the hey, at least I
put it out there for a "real" review.
"Meritorious work" they called it, but nevertheless rejected. Still
quite a bit more than nothing :)
>
>>I also have in my possession a very nice book on laser technology that
>>takes the reader from basic premises to advanced laser theory and
>>instructions for building lasers of various types, without so much as
>>once referring to these particles called "photons" (Except to note on
>>one page that some people believe they exist).
>>
>
>
>
> As you pointed out, electron energy levels are quantized due to the
> geometry. Drop down an energy level emitting ligh: you have created a
> photon. What about this doesn't exist?
The photon.
>
>
>
>>Before I get sidetracked from your question: Taking into consideration
>>the empirical validity of the equations derived in my paper, and their
>>internal consistency, not to mention their outright common sensical
>>approach, and given the proffering of those such as Bohm, Dirac, and
>>Feynman regarding photon behavior and the grand view, I've come to
>>conclude that space is curved by charge rather than by mass. Mass being
>>a behavior of charge rather than a thing in itself. An artifice, just a
>>measure of resistance to motion, being on a fundamental level entirely
>>ohmic in nature.
>
>
>
> Your argument is consistent with observation, as long as you are
> including a neutron as a "charged particle", i.e. treat it as a
> superposition of proton and electron (actually constituent quarks).
I don't trust quark theory, it's ad hoc. OTOH, protons and neutrons are
composed of charges. I see no reason to blindly speculate about their
charge values or their dynamics within those composite particles.
Experiment offers insufficient data at this point in time. A quark could
arbitrarily be broken down into much more fundamental charges, or
perhaps some quality other than charge that interacts to produce the
effect that we call charge. There is no end to speculation, and it is
virtually never correct. Deduction from empirical premises is the only
logical path to proceed along.
> However, you have not explained why an electron does not weigh as much
> as a proton.. presumably because of the more than three constituent
> quarks (i.e. virtual quarks), but there is some handwaving going on
> here.
Weight is an unfortunate choice of terms. The electron has never been
weighed, nor is it likely to be.
If you meant "Why is the proton more massive than the electron?", then I
can only suggest that it is because protons are composite particles.
OTOH, at high speeds wrt the medium I suspect that the mass (resistance
to acceleration) of the electron will exceed that of the neutron, while
the masses of electrons and protons will approach equivalent values as
c is approached.
>>There are four types of field predicted by my empirically derived
>>equations. Each of these are associated with
>>1) the signs of the charges involved
>>2) their particular types of motion wrt each other.
>>
>>In the first case we have the lorentz force between moving charges,
>>derive by me without the aid of the lorentz transform and its baggage.
>
>
> Again, ref. please. I see no baggage in the lorentz transform.. as
> you pointed out already its merely a consequence of a system of
> measurement and a very useful one at that.
But there is more to the lorentz transform than differences in standards
of measure, else it would be identical to the transform that I provided.
Namely, relativity of simultaneity and reciprocity are the differences.
>
>
>>The field of a moving charge neither Coulombic nor magnetic; it is a
>>field that has characteristics of both of these.
>>
>>The two types of motion referred to are "random motion" and "ordered
>>motion".
>>Random motions of a monopolar (having the same sign of charge)
>>population of charges gives rise to the Coulomb field, and is thus the
>>electrostatic field is a macroscopic field only.
>>Ordered motions of a monopolar charge population gives rise to what can
>>best be described as a "fundamental" field, since the other three are
>>just superpositions of this field.
>>In addition to these two types of fields, there are two more types that
>>are the result of superposing both signs of charge over the same volume,
>>i.e. fields extended by "neutral" matter.
>>In the case of ordered motions, a superposition of positive and negative
>>currents gives rise to the classical magnetic field.
>>
>>We have one empty slot left, and it is the superposition of positive and
>>negative charges in random motions. The resultant field is thus the
>>very macroscopic "gravitational" field.
>>
>
>
> I'll need to see the details to comment.
It isn't complicated, but it is lengthy. Here's a brief summary: In
essence, the gravitational force emerges as a sort of left over
electrostatic force. This doesn't quite capture the theory though, since
the net attraction is for both positive and negative charges. How is
this possible? Because my electrostatic equation includes a relative
velocity^2 term. When that relative velocity (an average value) is c,
then the equation reduces to the Coulomb equation. Since protons are
more massive, they move slower than electrons. There is thus an
asymmetry in not only the charge numbers, but in the forces developed
between like and unlike charges respectively. These are the same
asymmetries that generate a host of semiconductor behaviors, Hall
effect, and the net force on the conductor itself.
>
>
>
>>Einstein found it a ridiculous notion that there be two types of space
>>superposed over each other, one consisting of the gravitational metric,
>>and the other of the electromagnetic metric. IOW, he understood that
>>charge can also be taken as a space time curvature.
>
>
> Weyl's (1918?) model of electromagnetism really included E&M in
> space-time curvature. CHeck out "the dawning of guage theory",
> (o'raifeartaigh).
I am indeed aware, but thanks for the thought anyway :)
>
>
>>According to the above analysis of the basic forces, which is just a
>>simple logical exercise, the former must be a subset of the latter, i.e.
>>gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon. There are other arguments,
>>some involving the equivalence principle, that require this same result.
>>I won't repost those arguments because they are in the google archives
>>for those who on a rare instance might be motivated to look them up.
>
>
> Newsgroups have their place.. detailed equations are not that place.
>
>
>
>>So to sum up, I share in essence the same view about the medium as did
>>Miller, i.e. that it is not homogenous, and nor is it isotropic.
>
>
>
> I think almost everyone would agree, as long as you include gravity,
> although some curmudgeons would argue the term "medium" as antiquated.
> I agree even without gravity, but the million dollar question is more
> subtle: can this anisotropy be detected by real physical devices?
It will never be detected when it is taken to be a very premise that it
doesn't exist :)
>
>
>
>>There
>>are boundaries where different localized fields overlap and their
>>effects on propagation sum vectorally. Such as a position midway
>>between two equally massive galaxies, which are in turn closer to each
>>other than to surrounding galaxies. IOW, matter, space, and field are
>>identically the same entities.
>
>
> All is one and one is all. Very zen, but where are the equations? :)
Certainly the QM math is sufficient if it corresponds to observation.
Mine is just a considerably different perspective of what the equations
are saying. I support those interpretations with a bit of my own math,
provided in the link that I posted above.
>
>
>>The cause of the MMX null results is that we are indeed virtually at
>>rest wrt the local portion of the matter-space-field medium.
>
>
> !!
> Well, now we have something to talk about. How can you conclude that,
> when the null results are also predicted by your LET and LCAT with
> laboratory moving at arbitrary speed through the medium?
I specifically stated that I don't agree with the universal validity of
either of those transforms :)
>
>
>
>>A light
>>clock will indeed experience changes in ticking rate with changes in
>>motion wrt the medium, but length contractions are at this time purely
>>speculative effects.
>
>
> ?? Length is pegged to clock ticking rates BY DEFINITION.
Not by my definition. Without a universal standard for any unit of
measure, then you have maybe "good" theory mixed in with a quagmire of
unit conversions. That isn't good practice. Whether a clock slows its
ticking rate, or a ruler contracts, nobody ever considered transforms
to account for those alterations, but simply applied coefficients of
contraction, etc. as functions of temperature, pressure, etc. When the
unit conversion within a coordinate transform practice is set aside the
lorentz transform cannot be maintained, since the relations aren't
proportions. The alternative is to state that the lorentz transform
doesn't incorporate unit conversion factors. I tend to agree that it
doesn't, and this is the very reason that Mr. Lorentz's notions of
physical contractions are far from being equivalent to the lorentz
transform.
> Not much
> speculation there.. to measure the distance to an object you bounce
> light off the object and measure the round trip travel time. If you
> clock is ticking at a different rate, you get a different distance -->
> length contraction.
Distance and length are not equivalent terms.
>
>
>
>>IOW, it isn't necessarily the case that an
>>interferometer in motion wrt the Earth at high speed will derive the
>>same empirical outcome.
>>
>
>
>
> How so exactly?
If length contraction either doesn't occur, or doesn't occur as
predicted, then there will be a fringe shift observed through rotation
of the apparatus. This experiment hasn't been done, because extreme
stability of the system is required to eliminate errata, not to mention
the high speeds required to produce an observable fringe shift.
Richard Perry
>
> THanks for your help! - shevek
- Next message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: shevek: "Re: B SR-cult fraud and corruption"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
