Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass

"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xggaiOJ9cdLGFwvv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeckyl wrote:
That the speed of light is a constant .. has that not been shown
experimentally? Wasn't that theory disproven early last century when
predicted results from observations of stars was not found? Yeup .. here
it
is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment .. 1913
that was

Blimey you are out of date. Have you not heard of Fox's paper?

J.G. Fox, "Evidence Against Emission Theories"- American Journal of
Physics, Volume 33, #1, Jan. 1965 states:

"Thus it cannot be argued that the data on binary stars provides support
for the emission theory [source dependency]. However it does seem,
contrary to what has been believed for several decades, that the data on
binary stars does not offer any evidence against emission theory".

The evidence you quoted, has not been accepted for 40 years.

Befoer the Fox paper emission theory was ruled out by experiments such as

Comstock, Phys. Rev. 10 (1910), p267.
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, pg
1297-1298 (1913);
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, pg
395--396 (1913).
Zurhellen, Astr. Nachr. 198 (1914), p1.
Observations of binary stars. k < 10-6.


Heckmann, Ann. D'. Astrophys. 23 (1960), p410.
Differential aberration, galaxies versus stars.


Note that Fox paper does not say emission theory is supported.

Since then here is a further paper that takes fox into account and still
appears to support SR over emission theory

K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the
Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977).
Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the
source-velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2*10-9


See these experiments that confirm the SR is correct and emission theory is
incorrect (taking extinction into account) WITHOUT using stars where
extinction could have an effect:

Beckmann and Mandies, Radio. Sci. 69D (1965), p623.
A moving mirror experiment.

Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12,
260 (1964).
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975
c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million.

Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), p271.
Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e- annihilation (with
center-of-mass v/c ~ 0.5) to be c within 10%.

Bab*** and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964).
-

Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), p B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.2 c) in
an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their
results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c + v, and are
consistent with SR.


Certainly up until fox cast some doubt on the binary star observations,
there was VERY good scientific reasons to reject emissions theory .. your
conspiracy-theory-like explanations for why emission theory was rejected
don't really hold up to scrutiny.

====
[snip]
The two theories are
mirror images of each other.

A B

Let us assume we have two observers and that light is travelling between
them (they can be moving relative to each other). Let us suppose that
the speed is always c w.r.t A (normal English usage).
Nothing I have said so far tells you whether I am illustrating SR or
BaTh as I have not said which direction the light is travelling. If I
said it was travelling A to B then I am describing Ballistic theory. If
B to A then SR

No .. SR applies to both cases

Which ever I chose, then if I reverse time I transform
one into the other.

No .. because SR has a speed of light c in all cases .. BaTh does not.

In the maths no one worries about the direction of
time so if you chose the wrong theory you would still get the right
equations.

That really makes no sense at all. How is time reversed, and what
difference does it make if it is.

Likewise although SR is complex you can always transform everything into
the FoR of the source and in the FoR of the source both theories say the
same thing.

Yes .. but the problem is with other FoR, where the theories say very
different things

Light travels every which way at c.

But not in BaTh .. it is source independant.

====
[snip]
De Sitter made a fundamental error which anyone could have spotted.

Oh really?

Suppose that what you are observing has properties A,B,C.
Relativity says that because the speed of light is constant w.r.t the
observer that what you will observe is A,B,C.
By making the assumption that what you are looking at IS A,B,C you have
assumed SR is correct.
The argument goes that if you assume it is A,B,C then if ballistic
theory is correct it would look like X,Y,Z and it doesn't therefore SR
is correct.
What ballistic theory says is that if it is M,N,O then it won't look
like M,N,O it might look like A,B,C so the fact that it looks like A,B,C
does not disprove ballistic theory.

WTF are you on about here?

What you need is a modern computer
to change the values of M,N,O iteratively to see if the observed data
can be reproduced assuming a ballistic model. In some cases you get a
better fit than SR and in some cases SR seems to fit better.

Really .. where is this evidence that ballistic theory gives better results?

The result is the jury is still out.

Who is it that is still doing work on emmission theory?

====
[snip]
In LET everything is transformed from the aether FoR except that
you don't know which frame is the aether FoR. No
matter you can choose any frame as your aether frame and get the same
answer.

Of course, that makes no sense as a physical model (which is where LET
differs from SR) .. how can the aether be stationary in every FoR ??

As you are free to chose any FoR as your aether frame you can
chose the observers FoR as the aether frame. If you do what you get is
indistinguishable from SR

But one that makes no sense if the aether is something physical

====
[snip]
A FoR is a mathematical abstraction it cannot make light travel at c
w.r.t
itself.
You have it backward .. the FoR does nothing to the light. It doesn't
change how the light moves .. it does nothing.
it can't. It is a matrix of imaginary measuring rods.

Exacly my point .. it does not and cannot "make light travel at c wrt
itself".

Unfortunately the physical space it defines is equally devoid of any
physical entity which could take part in a physical process to do the
job
either.

There is no job to be done .. there is not variation in the speed of
light.
It isn't speeding up or slowing down .. it just travels.

In an infinite number of FoR it separates from the source at an infinite
number of different speeds resulting in an infinite number of different
measured frequencies. It doesn't "just travel".

Yes .. it does in SR.

It only travels at one speed, c, not an infinite number of them.

That the source can be measured as moving away from where it was when it
emitted the light at an infinite number of different velocities is
irrelevant to the speed that the light is travelling.

It does havea bearing on how the frequency is measured from different FoR's

The idea of light separating from the source at different speeds in
different FoR is what causes Doppler shift in SR.

Yes .. it separates at different speeds becuse the light always travels at
c
.. but the source is moving away. That is not a problem

If in a given FoR light separates at greater than c i.e. at c+v then the
wavelengths are stretched and when observed travelling at c w.r.t the
observer a lower frequency is measured.

That's fine

If in a given FoR light separates at c-v the wavelengths are compressed
and when observed travelling at c w.r.t the observer the frequency is
higher. I do not see why you consider this as not relevant it is as much
a
part of the model as light always travelling at c in a FoR.

I never said it wasn't relevant.
I rather thought you did.

Then you are wrong.
But I did say it is not relevant to the speed at which light travels.

It has to separate from the source at whatever speed makes it c w.r.t
the
FoR
Light cares nothing about the source or the FoR .. it just travels. That
the source moves after it is emitted makes no difference. There is no
mecahnisam that is make light trabel at different speeds it is ALWAYS
travelling with speed c.
w.r.t any matrix of imaginary measuring rods.

If you like to call it that .. yes .. Always travelling at c .. it doesn't
matter where you are (as long as you're not accelerating or spinning etc)
the light will be travelling at c.

and Doppler shift is the result. Surely anyone trying to understand SR
needs to understand all its implications.
Of course
Do you find that implication somehow embarrassing?
No. Do you find it emabarrassing that the theory you support doesn't fit
observational data?
When someone has shown me a convincing experiment ruling it out I will
happily drop the subject.

Good. Same here. So far, there is absolutely nothing that supports BaTh
over SR.

It is you and your like who have this
unshakeable belief that it has been disproved and in your case the best
you have come up with is something no one has taken seriously for 40
years.

See above .. there is more evidence than just that. You have your blinkers
on again :)

Further there are other predictions from SR like time dilation, transverse
doppler, twins 'paradox', 'relativistic mass' increase, which are
experiemntally observed.

Do BaTh predict them as well?

Point out anywhere in anything Einstein wrote on
relativity where he considers the impact of the photon on his thinking.
A major discovery which should have caused a major rethink totally
ignored. Einstein's starting points are Maxwell and Lorentz.

Einstein introduced the photon theory of light, in 1905, an extension of
planck's work. He predicted the photon energy would be proportional to
frequency, and that was later confriemd experimentally.

I think that would he would have considered it :)

===
[snip]
There does not need to be aprocess that makes it faster or slower ..
because it is always the same

A S
B->v

A flash of light from S reaches A and B as they meet. According to SR
light separates from the source at different speeds in A's FoR
and in B's

Yes .. because S moves after the light is emitted in B's FoR .. that only
says something about the movment of S in B's FoR, not about the light .. it
has speed c

and the event they view takes place at different times

No .. it happens at only one point in spacetime

so that the light arrive at the same time at AB.

Yes

You don't find any problem with that?

No

The fact is A's For and B's FoR define the same piece of physical
space.

Yes

The event takes place at two different times,

No .. it takes place at one time in physical spacetime.

light setting out (separating from) the source at different speeds

The light goes at the same speed in every FoR. That the source moves
afterward in one FoR is irerelevant

and one flash catching up with the other when they arrive at AB.

There is no catching up as there is only one flash
===
[snip]
Q1/ Are photons affected by gravity?
A/ Apparently so in that light is bent by massive objects i.e. the sun
and
they gain energy if they fall from the top of a tower to the bottom.
You're getting into General relativity now.. in that case the light is
bent
because space-time is bent.
Whatever that means.

Read up on GR then

===
[snip]
In many of these cases that answer is of the form 'mass is'.. and we just
give a name to it. what is it .. it is mass. If something is truly a
primitve property of the universe, then it is what it is, it is not made
up
of something else.

I agree. What makes the moon go around the earth - Gravity. What is
gravity - it is what we call whatever it is which makes the moon go
around the earth. I appreciate that point. I think photons are
different. Charge and mass may well be beyond further explanation but I
think one day a model of a photon will emerge which better explains the
nature of the energy it contains and how that is related to frequency.
Spin may come into it.

Quite possibly .. physics advances.

I'm not sure what doubt you think you're introducing .. the doubts seem to
be only in your mind.

As I say why don't you check out the actual evidence against source
independence

Why don't you?

rather than simply accept what you have been told.

I don't

Remember there was no evidence against source dependence
when SR was formulated so that is not what it was based upon.

From einsteins papare on relativity: Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
===
By means of similar considerations based on observations of double stars,
the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of
propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body
emitting the light. The assumption that this velocity of propagation is
dependent on the direction "in space" is in itself improbable.
===

It was based upon a belief which
stems from belief in the aether (which no one believes in anymore).

There is no mention of ether in relativity that I can see. Relativity was
based on the postulate

* The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. In
other words, there are no privileged inertial frames of reference.

that is contrary to classical ether theory that says there IS a priveleged
interital FoR.

It was propped up for 60 years by faulty evidence.

What faulty evidence?

If you find anything
really convincing then please let me know. I have looked into everything
so far laid before me.

So you've look at all the experiments that get the results SR predicts, and
they are all faulty?

the only physical model compatible with SR is LET. Now in LET
contraction
is physical not merely mathematical
That makes no sense unless there is a absolute frome of reference.

It makes more sense than assuming that a photon knows where it is going
to end up so chooses its speed of separation from the source

It doesn't chose anything .. the source "chooses" to separate from the point
when the light was emitted

so as to be c w.r.t that destination.

A photon doesn't know or choose anything .. it just moves at a speed that
everyone measures as c .. including the source.


.

Loading