Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS
- From: John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 01:41:52 +0000
bz wrote:
SStamenin <tasko.s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1193281007.094840.149550
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
I apologize. my unswer was related to mister Dirk Van de Moortel and
not to you. I regret that English is not my first language and not the
second. but this doesn't matter. I am surprised tha about all my
observations I didn'e see any serious repost.
Since you, or someone that makes the same spelling errors you make,
frequently trolls this group under different identities, I don't think that
you really WANT serious answers.
I will give you one anyway.
Science (and scientist) advance by DISPROVING 'currently accepted' theories
by providing reproducible experimental data which is contrary to the
predictions of the 'currently accepted' theories.
A gross oversimplification.
The Big bang theory was disproved by experimental data. It survived by the total invention of 'inflation' 'dark (anti gravity) energy' and 'dark matter'. Scientific method is turned upon its head and the theory is assumed to be correct and it is then stated that the theory 'predicts' the existence 'inflation', 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'.
In modern physics no theory can be disproved once accepted because there are no constraints on what can be invented to shore it up. If you need a magic particle to perform some action you can assume it spontaneously comes into existence from nothing (e.g. virtual photons)- and disappears again before you can detect it of course - it doesn't even have to obey the usual laws of physics.
I read that gauge bosons are massless but in some circumstances have to be massive so they invent a 'Higgs' field which makes a massless boson massive when it enters it.
Hawking has propped up one of his theories with the assumption of parallel universes.
Even before physics turned into metaphysics no theory was rejected - whatever the evidence is against it - unless there is an alternate theory which works better and in many cases not even then.
Take for example theories of light. The particulate theory of Newton was rejected and the wave in aether theory accepted. The wave in aether theory was given a massive boost by Maxwell who's maths gave it credibility. An experiment, the MMX, was devised to demonstrate one of the predictions of Maxwell's theory. Not only that but it also had predictably different results for Maxwell's theory and Newton's theory and could therefore decide between them. The null result was contrary to the predictions of Maxwell's theory but consistent with Newton's particulate theory.
It was then discovered that light is indeed particulate.
In formulating SR Einstein ignored totally the particulate nature of light, and assumed that Maxwell's wave in aether theory was in no way compromised by the fact that light wasn't really waves.
If you assume that Maxwell's electrodynamics is correct as Einstein did then the MMX is a valid experiment measuring the speed of an observer relative to Maxwell's aether and the result is valid i.e. an observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether. That is what his second postulate is describing. If you look at his paper he justifies his first postulate at length because that was the one which was controversial but he gives no justification at all for his second. That was how the null result of the MMX was viewed at the time.
When he suggested a totally implausible aether 'without the immobility of Lorentz's aether' - an aether which every observer is naturally stationary w.r.t. physicists decided to ignore the physics and accept SR as a mathematical model which Einstein then described as 'putting forward no specific hypothesis'.
All the evidence pointed to the fact that light is primarily particulate and its speed is c w.r.t the source emitting it but if physicists have believed something for 200 years it doesn't matter where the evidence points.
--
John Kennaugh
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Relativity is a Dutch discovery
- Next by Date: Re: Relativity is a Dutch discovery
- Previous by thread: Re: Confusion in Expanding Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
