Re: JE and MMX
From: eleaticus (eleaticus_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 11/25/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Previous message: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- In reply to: J.E.: "Re: JE and MMX"
- Next in thread: J.E.: "Re: JE and MMX"
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: JE and MMX"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:57:24 -0600
"J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39d6e584.0411242024.20dff7ad@posting.google.com...
> "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<oD7pd.53684$IQ.28733@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
> > > > Special Relativity's viewpoint is that no emitter, no reflector, no
> > > > refractor, no observer has any effect on the speed of light.
> > > Because that's what Maxwells equation says, light propograting through
> > > empty space (the ether) travels at a fixed numerical rate determined
> > > by measuing magnets and charged balls.
> > At a fixed rate relative to the frame of the EM source, and that frame
is
> > not the same as that of an arbitrary observer.
> Mawell stated his equations relative to the ether, that's the way it
> has always been. You are wrong.
Funny thing about that. I look in the index of "A Treatise on Electricity &
Magnetism" for aether and find only a reference to a very , very, very late
section, the portion on light which is the first portion having anything to
do with the ether.
Guess what? He makes no such claim.
Not only that, but his equations were derived way before he applied them to
the possibility that they applied to light.
Not only that, but he makes the assumption that the ether is at rest, which
would make the equations nonsense in the general case where the ether was
not at (relative) rest.
An ether not at rest would require a velocity of ether term.
> > However, I recognize that part of the SR-corruption in this regard may
be
> > based of the anti-Newtonian strawman imposition of the moving observer
> > velocity being the same as the light's.
> I'm not TALKING about SR here, I'm talking about the PRE-SR Maxwellian
> ether theory, because that's the subject YOU brought up. And I don't
> understand your sentance either. I was assuming Newton AND Maxwell,
> to DO that Maxwell's equations hold in JUST one frame, the frame of
> ether
The frame of the REST ether which is not relevant anyway. Maxwell is most
used by people too smart to think the ether exists, and Maxwell does not
depend on the existence of the ether. There is only one frame actually
and/or practically implied by the actual equations, and that is the frame of
the EM source.
BTW, I didn't bring up Maxwell. My article was NOT about Maxwell, it was
about MMX.
> > Do it honestly, with u-observer <> v-particle/whatever and there
remains
> > only one frame wrt which the c is relative.
> Just labeling some mysterious theory uncovered in ANY my education as
> "honest" neither explains what you expect, nor proves that I was
> dishonest.
The dishonesty is SR's, and yours too if you insist on forcing the velocity
of the moving observer to be that of any velocity present in the
untransformed equation. Such a counter-traditional imposition on the
Galilean transforms is one of the three strawmen required to corruptly say
Maxwell is not Newtonian invariant.
> > > Are you REALLY giving up on
> > > Maxwell's equation? What are you replacing it with? Did you come up
> > > with "assume Maxwell was wrong" on your own or is this an "arguement"
> > > you heard.
> You are not following Maxwell in any way I have EVER seen before, and
> drawing conclusions that I've never seen before.
Your environment is one in which three strawmen are enforced on Newtonian
transformations, the three being required to corruptly claim Maxwell is not
invariant under Newton. It makes no damn difference how long the strawmen
have been imposed. They are wrong, they are corrupt.
> > > > In the extreme this is obviously wrong, of course, even to them,
else no
> > > > thing could reduce light's velocity to zero.
> > > This is no wrong, and it is not obvious, "light" is a classical wave
> > > of a medium, the ether, in that theory, and Maxwell's EQUATION is
> > > clear about it moving at the same rate through the ether, regardless
> > > of how it was produced. Learn some EMT before posting such grand
> > > claims about other people being dishonest.
Maxwell's equation at most could claim such wrt a medium stationary wrt to
the source of the EM. That stationary medium being virtually impossible - an
absolute frame, remember? - only the most addled would insist on treating a
(supposedly) valid Maxwell as appropriate to a general, moving ether.
> > Not so. There is no term in Maxwell pre-corrupt transformation that says
the
> > c is relatie to anything but the stationary EM source described.
> "transformation"? Maxwell wrote a large set of partial differential
> equations, with the idea of having an analogy to fluid mechanics and
> mechanical waves, and to DO that he postulated an ether to BE that
> medium.
No, his equations were derived WITHOUT ether. It was only after their
derivation that he THEN applied them to light, with the idea that there
would maybe be an ether.
> > > > This SRian view of light contrasts with the customary view of, say,
a bullet
> > > > fired from a gun. If the gun is moving toward you, or if you are
moving
> > > > toward the bullet as it approaches, the net relative velocity
will/can
> > > > differ substantially with the velocity of the bullet relative to the
muzzle.
> > > A bullet isn't a wave.
> > And a baseball isn't a pomegranate. So what? I wouldn't have brought up
> > baseballs and pomegranates if you hadn't brought up the strawman 'bullet
> > isn't a wave'
> YOU think that *I* am bringing up irrelevancies. Cut out your part
> about a bullet and TALK about Maxwell's equations then. You brought
> up irrelevant things and THEN tried to make points about it, ALL that
> I did was CALL you on it.
Whatsa matter you?
It was MY goddamned article, the expressed purpose - and actual content - of
which was the discussion of MMX in terms of c+v. And in NO way about
Maxwell.
Whatsa matter you?
First, the bullet bounce/kinetic energy c+v model was contrasted with the
catch-and-throw/intrinsic energy model of c+v.
> > > Have you SEEN the E&M wave equation? The
> > > derivation of it? It clearly ONLY depends on an oscilating electric
> > > or magnetic field. It doesn't depend on the velocity of what produces
> > > the field, AS LONG AS IT PRODUCES THE FIELD.
Of course it does. That's what Maxwell says: "But since there is no motion
of the medium ..." p-433, section 783.
> > And so we see it, the c is relative to the source, not an arbitrary
> > observer.
> Says who? Sounds like "assuming your conclusion" unless you have a
> source. You KNOW that Maxwell believed in the ether, so surely you
> know that what I say is what he intended.
Says anyone but an idiot. Maxwell doesn't have any moving observer or
relativity in the treatise.
How in hell does one get to 'any observer or interactive/impact object'
from 'ether stationary wrt to the frame of the EM source'?
> > > > Too, if you are the Man of Steel, the velocity with which the bullet
> > bounces
> > > > off you will depend on those relative velocities. This is what we
will
> > call
> > > > the 'kinetic' or 'bounce' Newtonian-Galilean model.
> > > A bullet has mass AND momentum. An E&M field has ONLY moment. That't
> > > why the former can be stopped and the latter always moves at the same
> > > velocity.
For that to be taken as true you have to explain how light can be stopped
although it is just such an EM travelling wave.
But your comment is completely a non sequitor.
> > So - to take your mis-statement as is - you contradict my point that
light
> > can be stopped.
> Light is a travelling wave, if it doesn't travel, then it isn't a
> traveling wave and then it isn't light. This is all classical, I was
> assuming QM would unneccissarily complicate things, no?
> > > > That model depends on the idea that the kinetic energy of the
bullet
> > > > relative to an object it hits depends on the relative velocities.
And
> > that
> > > > concept depends on the mass of the bullet.
> >
> > > RELATIVE kinetic energy? When did you start making new physics.
Whatsa matter you? You know kinetic energy is a function of velocity which
is relative.
Of course kinetic energy is relative. What it is calculated as relative to
an arbitrary observer is just nonsense, the actual energy that is relevant
is the energy of impact/interaction, which is dependent on the velocity
relative to the impact or interaction object/field.
> > You don't follow very well, do you? That statement was about the bullet
> > concept I was arguing against. If you insist on arguing against me, at
least
> > argue against me and not some figment of your imagination.
> I deeply apologize for misunderstanding that you were argueing AGAINST
> the bullet analogy. It was an honest error and I retract any claims
> against it. I have no interest in debating a figment. Unfortunately
> for my debate, the sole evidence that I can find that you are AGAINST
> the bullet analogy is your statement here that you are against it.
Everything above and below was about rejecting the bullet/kinetic c+v model
of light and using the intrinsic energy c+v model of light. Why? Because the
only way to reject c+v on the bare observables is the bullet model.
Here is the relevant non-evidence, from the original article:
------------------------------------------------------
This SRian view of light contrasts with the customary view of, say, a bullet
fired from a gun. If the gun is moving toward you, or if you are moving
toward the bullet as it approaches, the net relative velocity will/can
differ substantially with the velocity of the bullet relative to the muzzle.
Too, if you are the Man of Steel, the velocity with which the bullet bounces
off you will depend on those relative velocities. This is what we will call
the 'kinetic' or 'bounce' Newtonian-Galilean model.
That model depends on the idea that the kinetic energy of the bullet
relative to an object it hits depends on the relative velocities. And that
concept depends on the mass of the bullet.
But does light have a mass? The question is important in examining MMX in
Newtonian-Galilean terms because the thesis is that light moves at not just
c, but c+v, a sum of the emitter/reflector/refractor and
observer/target velocities, plus c, the velocity of light relative to the
object.
<badly written, that, so changed it some>
But light is presumably massless and to suppose it would impose different
kinetic energies on a target object depending on relative velocity is
nonsensical.
This is the 'intrinsic' energy model of light and leads to the
'catch-and-throw' model for reflection/etc.
Light from a single source with a single wave length relative to that source
can provide only that energy upon impact that was implicit in the energy of
emission relative to that source.
Hence, light will not 'bounce' at different velocities depending on the
relative velocities of a source and a target object. Instead, it will be as
if a baseball is thrown at a given energy level from one player to another,
who catches it and throws it back at the same energy level.
Hence, Michelson-Morley is thoroughly and exactly explained by the
non-SRian, intrinsic energy, catch-and-throw model.
----------------------------------------------
And then I showed that the c+v model fit MMX.
Discussing c+v models vs MMX:
A. I hypothesized that light would be reflected or refracted in terms of the
'intrinsic' energy of its original transmission, there being no mass on
which a velocity-dependent kinetic energy would be based.
B.. In the c+v model then, there would be no 'extra', kinetic energy due to
speeds more than or less than c.
C. Hence, its energy content relative to the refractor or reflector would be
dependent only that original energy and would be refracted/reflected away at
exactly c wrt the refractor/reflector, rather than more or less than c
because of the possible non-c incoming velocity of the light wrt the
refractor/reflector.
And more.
eleaticus
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Previous message: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- In reply to: J.E.: "Re: JE and MMX"
- Next in thread: J.E.: "Re: JE and MMX"
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: JE and MMX"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
