Re: Again and again about the result of MMX


John Kennaugh wrote:
oriel36 wrote:


As far as I can see your post is totally unrelated to the post to which
it is supposedly a response.


You discuss a 20th century concepts where the conclusions match that of
a 1898 science fiction novel,specifically -

"'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the
pause required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well
that Time is only a kind of Space."

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

The formal 1905 version uses a particular route to achieve the same
aims as the science fiction novel and most of it centers on Newton's
ideas for time,space and motion.There was no Newtonian aether to reject
in 1905 and especially aether as 'absolute space' insofar as being
really familiar with what Newton was doing,for right or for wrong,he
went out of his way to reject an aether back in 1704 -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial
bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of
bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which
their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since
matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually
interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken them, there is no
solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all.
Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Optics 1704

Unless you have a severe reading disability,there is no way you can
come away from that you can come away from that passage and believe
you can associate aether with 'absolute space',at least as Newton
expressed the term.Of course it did not stop the 20th century guy from
making this eroneous assocation -

You are guilty of misreading my post. What I said was:


I do not do guilt John,what I do is actually look at what
absolute/relative space,time and motion means in Newtonian terms and it
takes the eye of an astronomer to gauge what he was doing.I am
surprised that far from being interested in what those terms were
meant to convey,most like yourself opt for the same recycled early 20th
century nonsense which is an expansion of the Newtonian tactics and
nothing else.



"Newton was an advocate of Galilean relativity but OTHERS prevailed with
their belief that light is a wave travelling in the aether in which case
in theory it should be possible to devise experiments whereby two
inertial observers may perform the same experiment and get different
results because they are travelling at different speeds relative to the
aether. It is therefore belief in the aether which ruled out the PoR."


The dilemma of genuine investigators in the mid 19th century is
explicitly clear,Newton rejected an aether which they needed to study
how radiation reached the Earth.Unlike the later fables which dumped
aether on Newton anyway as absolute space,these gentlemen in their
honesty knew that they were caught in a rut and could not find a way
out -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

The actual problem is indeed Newtonian absolute/relative space but it
is an entirely geometric solution and a direct misinterpretation by
Newton of Kepler's Panis Quadragesimalis seen on page 86 -

http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf

I would not even think of explaining this in detail as Kepler's
representation is an astronomical language and method that Newton
clearly did not grasp or rather misinterpreted leading to
absolute/relative space,time and motion.

What I will say is that the terrestrial ballistics agenda applied to
planetary motion via the Ra/Dec system is not worth saving.The compound
motions of the Earth around the central star and with the solar system
around the galactic axis is a strong enough case to relinquish the
localised solutions for Keplerian orbital geometries be it the
Newtonian one or the later exotic extensions of the early 20th century.










i.e. it was NOT Newton but others who believed in the aether and set
aside the principle of relativity which Newton believed in. He believed
in the principle of relativity which was re-established by the MMX and
others experiments - so Newton was right.

Newton believed that light consisted of particles he called corpuscles -
and guess what - he was right again. Einstein had the affront to rename
Newton's corpuscles 'photons' and having taken the credit for them (I
give it to Planck) he totally ignores them and does not let the fact
that light was particulate to effect his thinking and his belief in
Maxwell's aether.

You now have the absurd situation where no one believes in the aether so
the wave theory is totally dead as far as being a physical theory is
concerned. You need real physical waves to transfer real physical energy
and you cannot have real physical waves in nothing. The only physical
model capable of transporting energy is the particulate model - as first
proposed by Newton. Yet somehow the ghost of the wave aether theory has
clung on and we have the speed of light unaffected by the speed of the
source (from aether theory) when physically there is nothing else which
can be responsible for it.

I am opposed to absurdity in science. I agreed with Dr Murry

"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr
Scott Murray


<snip>
--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal


--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Again and again about the result of MMX
    ... ideas for time,space and motion.There was no Newtonian aether to reject ... really familiar with what Newton was doing,for right or for wrong,he ... You need real physical waves to transfer real physical energy and you cannot have real physical waves in nothing. ... "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
    ... speed w.r.t the aether is always zero so we cannot detect *motion* w.r.t ... By definition a physical process requires ... metaphysics of DesCartes and not those of Newton, ... those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ether ousts Dark Matter..
    ... Here is what Newton thought of aether - ... "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space ... be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Does any mainstream physicist subscribe to aether theory?
    ... :>> experiment since) refutes it. ... there are mainstream physicists who do so. ... :> A steady trickle of aether theory papers continues to appear in the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Does any mainstream physicist subscribe to aether theory?
    ... Unless you define "mainstream" specifically to exclude subscribing to ... there are mainstream physicists who do so. ... A steady trickle of aether theory papers continues to appear in the ... it refutes one ...
    (sci.physics)