Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass

"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:HFOHLBBFp6LGFw6w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xggaiOJ9cdLGFwvv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Well it appears your tune has changed

First you said nothing before 1964 to show source independance and that it
was rejected because SR was traditionlan (it wasn't) BaTh was radical (yet
it was far less radical than SR), and the Ritz died soon after his theories
were published and strong implied there was no scientific justification for
rejecting BaTh.

Then we find that it was convincingly disproved in 1913 (and so there was
VERY legitimate reaons for rejecting it). Then you say that that finding
was later shown as incorrect (actually just that is may be possible to
explain it so it is not conclusive). Then when you are presented with
experiments/observations that all show source independance (including one
sthat do not sugffer from exitnction), you dispute those.

So now we've gone from a theory that was rejected on non-scientific
principles with no proof, to one for what you cliam the just is out. Hmm.

I assume BaTh must use galilaean transforms (as otherwise you couldn't have
simple vector addition of velocities) .. so that would mean no maximum
possible speed, no non-linear increase in energy as speed increase, no time
dilation etc. Yet these things are experiementally obvserved. How does
BaTh explain these, and still have source dependent velocity for light?

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.

I have never suggested conspiracy merely a reluctance to accept physics
had been wrong for 200 years about aether and source independence both
of which should have been abandoned when the fundamental particulate
nature of light was discovered

Classical aether theory was dismissed .. ether is not a part of SR .. you
are making a logical fallacy by lumping aether theory with source
independence.

Put simply you can't have waves propagating at different speeds in the
same aether :o)

What aether?

My point is that it had been discovered that light was not waves but
particulate so Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics was flawed. Ritz's view
point is more reasonable:

And how does it explain the wave nature of light ?

Put simply "stuff photons, Maxwell is my God".

Einstein didn't reject photons.

====
[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
Not at the same time. If light is going from A to B then A is the source
B is the observer. If light is going from B to A then B is the source A
is the observer.

You appear wrong again. SR applies simultaneously in both FoR and
regardless of which direction the light is travelling

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
You keep making these unsubstantiated statements.

No .. that is not unsubstantiated at all.

They are very different when considering non-source FoR .. as one predicts
the speed will be c and the other than it will be different (in FoR other
than the source.

Light travels every which way at c.
But not in BaTh .. it is source independant.
No BaTh is source dependent.

That's what I meant .. typo. Yes .. BaTh is source dependant so light does
not always travel at c in BaTh (only in the FoR of the source)

====
[snip]
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?

OK if your not willing to think It through I will spell it out to you
idiot fashion.

Good .. because it was just gobbldeygook with a bunch of meaningless
letters.

[snip]

So you're saying they aren't binary stars at all, we only think they are
because of SR.

====
[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 ??
That is what Einstein assumed.

SR does not assume an aether. LET does

That is what his second postulate is
describing.

No .. it is not.

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
So! SR makes no sense - you have got it at last.

I was not talking about SR .. SR does not have an aether frame

====
[snip]
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.
define 'travel'

Don't you know what travel means? Surely things travel through space and
time in BaTh.

It appears that, as you cannot argue with my point, you try to divert into
arguing about definitions.

I'd say travelling is moving from one point is space and time to another.
Light does that in a way that is always measured as speed c in all intertial
frames of reference.


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.
You can't see anything wrong with the idea that a whole load of FoR
which are mathematical imaginings

Everything is a mathematical imagining .. but many have physical
correspondence. FoR has phyical meaning .. its how things appear from a
particular viewpoint .. how long things are and how fast clocks tick when
measured.

You ceratinly seem to have no trouble in referring to different frames of
reference .. indeed BaTh relies heavily on FoR, as the speed that light is
measured depends completely on the frame of reference.

define the same physical space and yet
the speed of the same light in each is c without anything physical
making it so?

None at all .. do you?

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.
Henri would disagree as would Wallace.

That's nice for them .. shame they are not here to give an anwert. Do you
have any evidence you can cite that supports BaTh over SR

Probably because no one has seriously looked apart from Waldron and a
couple of others. Where would anyone wanting to try get funding? No one
wants SR to be shown to be wrong anymore than Einstein and the
physicists of his day wanted to accept that light wasn't waves. The just
ignored it and carried on. Any evidence of source dependency will be
treated the same.

So there is a conpsiracy theory against source dependance ?

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?

Lets take transverse Doppler. That according to SR is due to time
dilation. It is cited as proof of time dilation.
BaTh doesn't do time dilation

So there you go .. it does not explain experimental evidence (other then
transverse dopler) that DOES show time dilation.

So we reject it.

so transverse Doppler disproves BaTh right?

Not if it explains it, no. But does it explain (other) experiemental
evidence of time dilation.

Imagine a bow and arrow.
Q -What speed will the arrow fly at?
A - It depends on its weight.

Q - if you had a weightless arrow would that fly at infinite speed?
A - No there is a maximum speed which is the speed which the bow string
will move without an arrow which is also the speed that it would impart
to a massless arrow - let us call that c.

If you have a heavy arrow that will fly at much less than c. If you
couple up several bows so that they act together you can increase the
speed of the heavy arrow. The more bows you couple together the nearer
you can get the heavy arrow to c but you can never reach it.

If as per ballistic theory photons are ejected at c then as they are
massless, c is the maximum speed at which the force ejecting them can
act. If you are trying to accelerate a charged particle with mass then
one would expect that the nearer you got to c the less would be the
effect because the force itself cannot act any faster than c and becomes
progressively less effective.

I can think of no similar explanation in terms of natural philosophy as
to how making an object go faster makes its mass increase.

BaTH would then predict you can get any speed you like. eg attach a smaller
bow and arroow mechanism to your arrow, Show the big arrow and then shoot
the smaller arrow after that .. then the velocities add .. if you keep doing
that you can get as fast as you want. Eg a rocket could simply keep on
accelerating with no limit.

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.

Planck predicted the photon energy would be proportional to
frequency not Einstein. Planck showed that light was generated in
quantized lumps but believed that it then became waves. Einstein showed
that Planck's maths explained the photo electric effect which showed
that light remained quantized. He then ignored his own findings and went
back to assuming the universal truth of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics.
I fail to understand this.

What is there in SR that say light cannot be composed of photons ?

I think that would he would have considered it :)
Apparently not. Having discovered photons why should he still rule out
Ritz's theory:

You don't need Ritz theory to have photons.

===
[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

I do not accept that spacetime is anything other than a mathematical
convenience. It has no place in the real world. Space and time are
separate.

I am talking about the real world .. there is space and time in the "real
world" .. when you're doing physics you need to talk about where an object
was and when it was there.

You can have a given location in space and time .. do you not believe that?

That is what I'm referring to.

The event you are talking about happens at one location in space and in
time. it is not happening twice.

===
[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

I am aware what GR says. I always assumed that "bending of space-time"
was a figure of speech intended to illustrate the mathematical model
rather than anything having meaning in the real physical world.

GR is a model of the real world, so if the bending in the model has
implication in things that we can observe (as you cannot directly observe
the math), then that is what we should see.

===
[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?

I hope from what I have written above that you will now appreciate the
fact that I have spent a great deal of time doing so.

Yes .. I don't doubt it .. and it seem you've given much LESS time to the Sr
that you want ot replace.

You OTOH have read
the summary of an experiment and accepted that it proves what it set out
to prove.

Ah .. so its not about fact ..tis about who does the most reading?


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.
===
I said SR which was 1905.

So .. Einstien started used a model with source independence before the
evidence which back that up.

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.
Precisely why Einstein described his second postulate - the one which
describes exactly what an observer stationary with the aether would
experience

There is no aether required in SR in either postulate

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?

As I said before, because an experiment is consistent with SR does not
mean that it is inconsistent with BaTh as I have demonstrated and as
Waldron showed.

I've not seen you show how BaTh predicts time dilation which has been shown
experiemntatlly (including the 'twins' paradox.

Until it can explain ALL the experimental evidence that Sr can, it has to be
rejected.

What would be particularly nice is to come up with something that showed
BaTh predicts things that are observed that SR does not predict.

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

Whether or not you think something is 'silly' doesn't affect whether or not
it is correct.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is Proper Time?
    ... There is no aether, therefore it's wrong. ... In BaTh the whole MM apparatus may be considered 'at rest'. ... reflecting mirror and is always moving at speed c. ... if the observers are moving at different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... rejecting BaTh. ... had been wrong for 200 years about aether and source independence both ... Classical aether theory was dismissed .. ... mecahnisam that is make light trabel at different speeds it is ALWAYS ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: threat to ones worldview
    ... aether. ... because this theory came first) by special relativity. ... If you want a dynamic explanation of how it works, ... speeds. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Why relativists dont understand Einsteins 1905 mathematics.
    ... speeds we are used to. ... It cannot mutate into waves for part of the journey because by their very nature waves spread out and their energy density reduces. ... The waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist. ... Essentially what Einstein assumed was that EM theory is correct and that therefore the laws of mechanics had to change resulting in having to ditch 3 long standing and apparently sensible axioms of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY
    ... rigid aether in the Y-direction. ... Apparently all theoretical physicists have their own flavour, ... The rod is shorter, yes, but not by the same amount. ... :> If, however, an absolute reference frame existed and the above speeds ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)