Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS

John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:RPnmL7DgBoKHFwVZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

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.


THAT is not just a gross oversimplification, it wrong.

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.

If you can not produce useful predictions, it will NOT be accepted by
anyone.

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.

If there is an alternate theory which works better, it WILL prevail.

"Works better", however, might not agree with YOUR idea of 'works better'.


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.

It certainly has some particulate properties. Einstein published a famous
paper on the photoelectric effect. He KNEW of the wave and particle
properties of light.

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.

Knowing when to treat as waves and when to treat as particles is
important. Einstein did.

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

NO! Much of the evidence pointed to the wave properties. Some to the
particle properties.

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.


If light were cwrt the source(rather than independent of the motion of the
source), a rotating disk with a LED on the edge, rotating at a high speed,
and pulsed at the point of closest approach to an observer across the lab
from the disk would show a lateral displacement of the source, depending
on the rotating speed and direction of rotation. With current LED sizes
and possible rotation speeds, one would observe displacements of many
times the diameter of the source. This has not been observed

Imagine a gun, mounted on the edge of a merry-go-round that shoots
straight out from the center of a merry-go-round.

Fire the gun as the merry-go-round is oriented so that the gun points
directly along a line from the center to a target. Rotate the
merry-go-round. The bullets will MISS the target because the rotational
velocity adds with the muzzle velocity. Light does NOT act like bullets.

There are MANY other experiments that, if the particle theory of light
were totally correct, would give different results from those observed.

You are the one ignoring the evidence.

You keep trying to PROVE a theory. Theories are NOT proved in science,
they are disprove.

It is TRUE that light appears to have characteristics of a wave and of a
particle.

It is NOT true that the speed of light is c wrt ONLY the source.

You may not like this. I may not like this, but it is what our
observations show us.

If you actually WORKED in science, you would understand this and you would
understand that every scientist would LOVE to DISPROVE a major theory. Fame
and fortune would be assured.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+nanae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gerald L. OBarr and the At Theory.
    ... "aether" for space-time if you don't like the term. ... the wave equation. ... type of particle to explain the four forces and the ... due to the nature of the spalls. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Double slit, quantum eraser, and delayed choice experiments are evidence of aether
    ... The aether. ... particle is always detected entering or exiting a single slit.. ... wave it creates in the aether enters and exits both. ... 'Particle' is in quotes because a photon ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aether Displacement II
    ... 'particle' traveling a single path in double slit and 'delayed-choice' ... Well, no, it works fine without an aether. ... mysterious nature of the electri current. ... associated wave. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aether Displacement II
    ... 'particle' traveling a single path in double slit and 'delayed-choice' ... Well, no, it works fine without an aether. ... mysterious nature of the electri current. ... associated wave. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: two slit questions for experiment experts
    ... on the order of 5x the slit width. ... I think of this "wave function collapse" along the lines of this ... We look for particle behavior, ... inseparability between the objects observed and the observer. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading