Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass

"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a7dg0xRU4QMGFwCr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeckyl wrote:
"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
I said that there is nothing which you now need to take seriously until
1964.

Well .. what you said was:

"I am told there is nothing worth considering before 1964"

Seems like you wanted to throw me off the scent.

[snip]
Then we find that it was convincingly disproved in 1913 (and so there was
VERY legitimate reaons for rejecting it).

There wasn't. DeSitter was flawed and could have been seen to be flawed
if anyone had thought about it critically.

Funny that it took 50 years for someone to come up with a possible reason
why the restuls were not what PaTh suggested.

SR was already accepted and
DeSitter told everyone what they wanted to hear.

I don't think you coudl say SR was "accepted" by 1913 .. it may have been
accepted by many, but not as widely as it is now.


[snip]
After 1964. I said there were experiments which need to be considered.

You conveniently didn't mention any.

And it appears there have been none that actually confirm BaTh .. I'm sure
you would have ruched to point one out if there was.

The one I looked at in detail had more holes in it that a sieve. The
others are similar. You haven't studied them at all.

Not in depth .. but there do seem to be expermients that contradict SR. It
only takes one. Tom (I think) just posted infomation about one. Does that
have any obvious flaws?

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)

You reject a theory which you obviously know nothing about.

NO . .I do know about it. As an evangalist for it, you obviosuly know more
details.

Can you enlighten me as to how it explains the experiments where light is
not source depentant, and how it explains time dilation etc?

.. so that would mean no maximum
possible speed,

Correct but not infinite speed.

I don't think I said infinite speed .. but no limit to speed . So there is
nothing really special about c .. it is just a coincidene that every photon
emmited, no matter what the cause, just happens to travel at the 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?

Transverse Doppler is supposed to demonstrate time dilation.

I didn't say transverse dopler.. I say time dilation. There is more
experimentaly evidence of time dilation and twins paradox than transverse
doppler

[snip]
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

Careful wording noted.

Good

SR does not say there is no aether it has
absolutely nothing to say on any physical matters.

Exactly .. so why the comments about physicist not abandoning ether theory ?
I guess you were talking about other some other odd theories

No physical thing is a part of SR. It is a mathematical model.

And one that works.

.. you
are making a logical fallacy by lumping aether theory with source
independence.

As did Einstein:

SR does not have any requirement for an aether.

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sa050304-1.htm
"The difficulties connected with the deflection of the magnetic needle, the
difficulties connected with the structure of the ether, induced us to create
a more subtle reality. The important invention of the electromagnetic field
appears. A courageous scientific imagination was needed to realize fully
that not the behavior of bodies, but the behavior of something between them.
that is, the field, may be essential for ordering and understanding
events." - Adapted from: The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to
Relativity and Quanta. A. Einstein and L. Infeld. Simon and Schuster 1938,
p.254.

That book documents who the ideas of physic changed and evolved .. it does
not appear to accept the idea of ether.


[snip]
Put simply "stuff photons, Maxwell is my God".
Einstein didn't reject photons.
He ignored them as far as SR is concerned - prove me wrong. Show me what
impact photons had on the thinking leading to SR.

There is no need for a specific nature for the transmission of light in SR
... so it is quite fine to ignore that.

[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

You can NEVER consider two FoR at the same time in SR otherwise you get
that A's clock is going faster than B's and B's clock is going faster
than A's which is nonsense.

Yes .. you can. That you think it nonsense does not mean it is not valid

You can apply SR to one FoR or the other but
not both simultaneously.

Yes .. you can.

Essentially SR is the mathematical equivalent
of assuming that every observer is stationary w.r.t the source

No .. it is not.

(although relativists claim there is no actual aether) while BaTh is the
mathematical equivalent of assuming every source is stationary w.r.t the
aether (although no actual aether is necessary). If you have one source
and one observer what I said is correct.

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)

Correct If relativists had not hijacked the English language I would say
that in BaTh the speed of light in all FoR is c w.r.t the source not c
w.r.t the FoR in which it is observed.

In BaTh light only travels at c in the sources FoR while in SR light
only travels at c in the observers FoR.

Light travels at c in ALL interial FoR in SR .. there is a preferred FoR in
BaTh (that of the observer)

Of course if the observer is in
the FoR of the source they both say that light travels at c.

EVERY interial FoR say that the speed of light is c.

In BaTh only FoR that are comoving with the source have a speed of light c
... everyone else see it as moving at different velocities.

====
[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.

NO! NO! NO!. Are you being deliberately thick to wind me up or
something?

No .. jsut trying to make sense of yout A,B,C,M,N,O stuff

A binary system with different parameters to those observed.
Try Henri - he is around here somewhere. He will explain the technique
although he is a little over enthusiastic about the successes he has
had.


====
[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

I said "Assumed" - past tense. SR now is a principle theory and
therefore NOW has nothing to say about anything physical so SR does not
assume anything about whether there is an aether or not but BEFORE SR
was declared a principle theory (by Einstein) its origins were from
aether theory.

Irrelevant except to historians

[snip]
That is what his second postulate is
describing.
No .. it is not.

The second postulate is describing exactly what an observer stationary
w.r.t the aether would experience.

No .. it says what EVERY inertial FoR observes .. there is nothing related
to aether in the second postulate

You're really just trying to associate SR with Aether theory to discredit it
... sorry .. those sort of gamse don't work.

Maybe you can explain in what way
what it describes differs from what an observer stationary w.r.t the
aether would experience.

What aether?

It is the equivalent of saying "lets assume every observer is
stationary w.r.t the aether as shown by the MMX." You can say "no it is
not" as many times as you like but unless you have an alternative
explanation then mine stands.

Ther eneeds to be no explanation . .the postulate is what it is .. depsite
your dishonest attempt to make it say something else merely so you can
attack it.

So no .. you "exaplanation" doesn't stand at all

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

Agreed! That is the whole point. Einstein was an aether man through and
through

[snip what einstien may have believed as it is not relevant to what SR is]

I'd say travelling is moving from one point is space and time to another.
"it gets from A to B" - How!

By moving. It doesn't matter how, as far as SR, is concerned .. just that
it gets there.

Light does that in a way that is always measured as speed c in all
intertial
frames of reference.

That is simply a restatement of the second postulate which in affect
says every observer is stationary with the propagating medium so will
always measure the speed as c.

It says NOTHING about any propgation medium .. it just says what the speed
will be in EVERY FoR. You're attempts at associating SR with ether are
dishonest.

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.

That is the normal state of affairs is it not. You measure a cars speed
from the roadside. A policemen measures it differently from a moving car
as you overtake it etc. Nothing unusual about BaTh.

So why try to make FoR seem absurd with "imaginary measuring rod"
and"mathematical imaginings" .. again .. very sneaky.

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?
Yes. It is physically nonsense.

Only to 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

It is more logical. It gives the same answers as Waldron showed. Are you
familiar with Wallace?

Never met him

" I would like to challenge two statements made by Allen D.Allen
(November, page 90) in his reply to Kantor on the question of
experimental relativity. Allen states "But Kantor is incorrect in
claiming that there is a reliable experiment that refutes special
relativity." With regard to this statement the 1961 interplanetary
radar contact with Venus presented the first opportunity to overcome
technological limitations and perform direct experiments of Einstein's
second postulate of a constant light speed of c in space. When the
radar calculations were based on the postulate, the observed-computed
residuals ranged to over 3 milliseconds of the expected error of 10
microseconds from the best fit the Lincoln Lab could generate, a
variation range of over 30,000%. An analysis of the data showed a
component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean sense."

Interesting .. I can find very little serious discussion about those
findings.

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 ?

One doesn't need to assume anything of the kind. Basically if you don't
accept relativity you are as likely to get a job as a physicist as you
are to get a job of a priest if you don't believe in god - therefore all
physicist believe in relativity.

If one assumes relativity is correct then why tell students about BaTh.

As a serious contender when SR was first introduced, it should be taught
(just as one would teach about aether theory, and LET).

It will only confuse them and make life more difficult for the lecturer
especially as the evidence against it is not as clear cut as one would
wish. You churn out students who have been taught nothing else other
than relativity for what seem to those concerned to be for the best of
reasons.

If an experiment seems to show source dependence then the editor of any
reputable magazine is going to assume there is a flaw in that evidence
because he knows that relativity is correct doesn't he?

I don't know .. I'm not a magazine editor. I've seens some pretty weird
things published though.

He gives it to a
peer reviewer who will, by definition, be a convinced relativist to try
and spot the flaw he is absolutely certain is there. The last thing the
editor wants to do is to publish something which is wrong and have
someone point this out as that will reduce the prestige of the
publication. A paper confirming relativity is not a problem. The editor
can publish that with confidence thus Alvaeger et al got their paper
published when it didn't even explain what a lump of the apparatus was
for, while Wallace, having persuaded one reviewer that his paper should
be published had the editor send it to a different reviewer who "saw no
merit in it". As I say you don't need conspiracy. All you have to assume
is that all concerned are convinced relativists doing the right thing as
they see it.

If an experiment of yours appeared to show c+v would you be in a rush to
publish it? Of course not.

And quite rightly.

You think that is wrong and you don't want to
end up with egg on your face.

I don't think anyone would. If you are going to present evidence that
contradicts accepted theories, you would need to be very sure of your
results (regardless of what theory it is)

Would you really want to face ridicule and
scorn if it turns out you are wrong?

I don't know .. depends how 'bitchy' physicists are.

Would you be willing to spend days
revising it to suite some nit-picking peer reviewer.

Yes

If you are right do
you want to be the most unpopular physicist on the planet?

If you proved SR worng, you'd be the most famous.

What would physics reaction be? Probably another duality fudge. "light
always travels at c in the observer's FoR except in some specific
circumstances where it can exceptionally travel at c+v.

Oh .. you mean like the Fox/Ritz results that light travels at c+v,except in
some specific circumstancewhere is can exceptionally travel at c

If light can be
shown to be particles not waves and carry on with the wave model as if
nothing had happened

Isn't that what QM says?

I am sure light being shown to occasionally travel
at c+v wouldn't have much of an impact.

If proven correct, it would show the second postulate was wrong.. and that
wipes out the basis of SR. . So then you'd need an alternative theory that
explains all the experimental evidence. I don't think we have one (as BaTh
doesn't explain all of it either).

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

As I say from my experience SR and BaTh give the same answers on
everything I have analysed within my capability. I assume that all
experimental evidence of time dilation can be explained in terms of BaTh

You said BaTh doesn't have any time dilation. So how can it?

until someone shows otherwise. I an amateur. I don't claim to be a
physicist nor a mathematician what do you expect from me?

That same you expect from everyone else who you criticise for not looking at
things as deeply and completely as you do.

- that I can
take on the entire physics establishment and produce an alternative
complete theory of everything?
No it is people like you who should be checking the alternatives.

Who do you think "people like" me are?

Asking the questions.

I do

Checking the evidence.

i do, given my limited time and availablity of evidence

All I can hope to do is try and shake people like you

Who are these people like you .. do we have a cluhouse .. have I been
missing out on meetings?.

out of your arrogant complacency

I'm far from complacent (and maybe a tad arrogant :))

and try and persuade you to show just a little of
the natural curiosity which should be a natural part of every true
scientist nature.

I've got lots of curiosity .. that's why I've been talking with you about
BaTH

[snip]
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.

Why not? Note that that does not make the limit infinite.

Having no limit effectively means the 'limit' is infinite

It is a law of diminishing returns. A single stage rocket will reach a
certain speed.
To go faster you need more stages, not only more stages but each stage
has to be much bigger than the last to get the same percentage
improvement. As I say a law of diminishing returns in a finite universe.

Yes .. but no theoretical limit .. you can go as fast as your source of fuel
allows

So why is it the light only (and always) travels a c when leaving a source?

Of course if there were things in the universe going away from us at
greater than c their light would never reach us. The visible universe
would be bounded by objects going at just a little less than c - guess
what? That is what we see :o).

But there should be lot sof slow light and really fast light arround then

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

SR is a principle theory and therefore has nothing to say on anything
physical - aether, photons or anything else.

There you go then

Maxwell/Lorentz
electrodynamics are based on continuous fields. SR is based on the
assumed correctness of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics.

It's not really based on that .. its based on the postulates. It may be
consistent with it Maxwell

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.
Maybe not but If you look at Einstein's reason for rejecting Ritz theory

" [Ritz} theory requires that everywhere and in each fixed direction
light waves of a different velocity of propagation should be possible.
It may well be impossible to set up an electromagnetic theory that is
in any way reasonable and accomplishes such a feat. This is the
principle reason why, even before the special theory of relativity, I
rejected this way out" AE

His objection to Ritz theory evaporates if you assume light is photons.

Then how does that explain the wave nature of light?

There is no reason why they should not travel at different speeds
through the same space.

Einstein proposed light as photons (though he did not use that word .. i
think it was invented later on)

===
[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"

Agreed

.. when you're doing physics you need to talk about where an object
was and when it was there.

Yes and a standard part of any relativity course is a heading "ascribing
time to distant events". This says that A and B will ascribe different
times to the distant event they witness.

That doesn't mean that there were two events .. just that they are observed
as happening at different time.

You can have a given location in space and time .. do you not believe
that?
That is what I'm referring to.
The location is S for both A and B but A says it occurred at a time d/c
before the flash reaches him while according to B he was at the point
shown when the event occurred.


A< -------------- d ---------------------> S
B->v
|<--x-->|

x = vt
c = (d'+x)/t = (d' + vt)/t
ct = d' + vt
t = d'/(c-v)

Where d' = d/Sqr(1-vv/cc).




The event you are talking about happens at one location in space

yes

and in
time. it is not happening twice.

and at different times for the two FoR.

yes .. they see different times.

One important role of the Aether
in LET is that it allows A and B's measuring equipment to be distorted
by their speed w.r.t the aether, This means when they use their
measurements to calculate the time of the event their results differ. In
other words the aether allows A and B to see different distortions of
the same reality.

If you subscribe to the "no aether" doctrine then with SR there is
nothing which can distort reality.

Why does it need 'something' to do it?

The speed of light is measured by
both A and B as being c because it is c and the event is calculated to
take place at different times because it really does. i.e. without
Lorentz's aether to distort a single reality to give two distortions of
the same reality you need two different genuine realities.

No .. you don't

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

I was given an experiment said to be the most convincing evidence of
source dependence - so were you. You accepted that it was evidence of
source dependence I spent hours looking into it to see if it was
convincing. All I am doing is suggesting that if you are basing your
life following a theory it might be a good idea to check up on its
credentials.

And i found information that then showed the the original evidence was
backed up .. and that other experiemnts have also found source independence.

We've both researched and found different parpse

Of course, you seem to have an agenda to prove BaTh is correct.

[snip]
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.
Yes based upon hang-ups from the aether model.

So what? Associating SR with rejected aether theory is a dishonest attempt
to discredit it by association.

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

Of course not.

Good

The second postulate incorporates all the properties of the aether he
requires.

But there is no aether in it. that is may be consistent with some
properties ofaether (anod not others) is irrelevant.

I could make a mathematical model as to how long
it would take me to drive to London which did not require anywhere that
I specify that there is a road but you might assume that as I am driving
there that there is one. Likewise SR assumes source independence.

Yes

It does not specify an aether

Yes

but as light speed is not dependent upon the
source one can assume that there is one.

No .. one cannot. There is no aether in the theory an no requirement for
there to be one. That is simply your convenient interpration that allows
you t odiscredit Sr by associating it with aether theory.


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... And it appears there have been none that actually confirm BaTh .. ... Classical aether theory was dismissed .. ... I said they should have abandoned aether and SOURCE INDEPENDENCE which is a part of aether theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Bathing Horses
    ... We give them a bath a couple of times a year--just ... the show sheen detanglers as they are so drying. ... Tree tee tree baths for his old man itches--seemed to help quite a ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: Is it just me, or are Bath terminally dumb?
    ... I can't comment on whether you're terminally dumb or not, but Bath ... And of course we get the ever increasing injury rota as reward. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: Androcles and Henris Theory of Diffraction Grating Behavior
    ... > We know the BaTh must be right. ... > predictions and the willusions can help answer some of those questions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast