Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS

bz wrote:
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.

Big bang theories predictions were wrong. It remained accepted -shored up by invention.


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'.

A theory will tend to prevail if it 'Works better' for the status and beliefs of the physicists of the day.


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.

Yes he collected a Nobel prize (although the actual breakthrough was Planck's) for the discovery and promptly ignore the implication that Maxwell's electrodynamics was seriously compromised.


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.

Maxwell's electrodynamics is based upon continuous fields which is incompatible with quantized light particles. The challenge is to explain how particles en mass mimic so convincingly the wavelike properties of light not to ignore the problem and continue as if they are waves. No one believes in the aether therefore light waves are not physical waves so cannot transport physical energy. The only physical model of energy transfer is by means of the photon.


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

And Einstein did such an experiment did he? No he did not. We are examining your statement that

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.

Currently accepted theory had been disproved - a prediction of current theory, Maxwell, had proved wrong - the MMX, and the nature of light was found to be inconsistent with continuous fields - the basis of current theory. The assumption of source independence had no experimental basis. The assumption Einstein retained came from wave in aether theory which says that the speed of propagation is a property of the aether, the permeability and permittivity of the aether and therefore could not be affected by the motion of the source. You say:

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

There was and it didn't. Ritz's emission theory. It explained all experimental evidence, was a far simpler theory, as late as 1965 Fox examined the evidence critically. The following quote is of interest:

"Fox claims to have invalidated the majority, if not all, of the speed-
of-light experiments (including binary star observations) that have been conducted to help us choose between Ritz and Einstein.... Fox gave a decision in favour of Einstein, but did so in a manner that seems to
suggest that the final verdict is not in. In private correspondence Fox
says:

'...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity
of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'"

Now whether Ritz theory or relativity is correct is irrelevant. Physics can be seen to not have worked how you say it works. Objectivity went out the window and physicists stuck with their beliefs despite experimental evidence. What Einstein was trying to do, as Lorentz had done before him was to reconcile Maxwell's wave in aether theory with the null result of the MMX. The question they addressed was "why does the observer always appear stationary w.r.t the aether?" Lorentz said it was an illusion brought about by distortion of measuring instruments as they travel w.r.t the aether Einstein said that was too convoluted and just accepted that - for whatever reason and however nature manages to achieve it - empirically every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether.

Somewhere along the line physics accepted the 'no aether doctrine' (no experiment had proved there is no aether). If you accept that doctrine then Einstein was addressing the wrong question. If there is no aether then clearly the speed of light cannot be controlled by it. The question to address is therefore "as the speed of light is not constant w.r.t the aether - what is it constant w.r.t. and what is the physical process which makes it so?" The obvious answer is the source and the physical processes taking place in the source. Physics cherry picked the bits it wanted to hang on to. They hung onto SR despite having rejected the rationale behind it. They hung onto the concept of a physically real 'field' which for Maxwell was a stress pattern in the aether, having rejected the aether but not redefined what they meant by a field.

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.

Who says so? What does relativity say? - it doesn't because what you are describing is not an inertial frame. OK lets make it an inertial frame - have the light gun on a train and fire it at a point when it is exactly opposite the target.

Look at the scenario from the PoV of the observer on the train. The gun is at right angles to the train and it fires when the gun is exactly opposite - but some distance away - from the target. The observer on the train sees the light travel in a straight line away from the train and at right angles but for him the target is moving and by the time the light has travelled to the target the target is no longer where it was when the light set out so misses. Put simply from the PoV of the observer moving with the source his description will exactly match that of 'behaving like a bullet'.

In a situation of inertial observers both SR and Ballistic theory predict exactly the same result when observed from the FoR of the source.

Now even in relativity you cannot have one observer seeing the light hit the target and the other not, so the observer stationary w.r.t the target will also see the light miss the target and by the same amount but his explanation is that what was a right angle for the observer on the train is not a right angle in his FoR i.e. for him the gun was pointing slightly off which is why it missed the target.

This is typical. Relativists expect SR to predict different results to ballistic theory and therefore assume that if SR gives the right answer it is another nail in the coffin of ballistic theory. It doesn't work like that. Waldron spent his life showing that ballistic theory is just as good at explaining things as SR.

Reviewer: Walter G. Hecker
Book "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light - A Critical Review"
R A Waldron, Frederick Muller Ltd., London 1977
"Waldron developed a ballistic theory of light on his own before learning that Walter Ritz had already done it at about the time that A. Einstein developed his 'Special Relativity'. Waldron shows with mathematical accuracy and in excruciating detail, one by one, that all the so called proofs of Einsteinian relativity (approx. 20) aren't proof at all but that the experimental and observational results can be just as well explained with the more pedestrian Ritzian relativity. Unfortunately the books writing style is extremely dry ..... But he is so detailed and conscientious in his proofs, that its a book worth having for any 'dissenter' regarding Einsteinian Relativity"

I am not saying that all experiments can be dismissed but certainly there is nothing in the first 60 years worth considering. You should certainly rid yourself of your naive view that it is a simple matter to demonstrate. If by some chance physics has ended up with the right theory it certainly isn't by getting rid of a theory because it has been disproved and replacing it with a theory which works better.

--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A guide for students of physics in the art of spin Part 2
    ... If the null result of the MMX is interpreted as showing Maxwell's theory, to be false or if the MMX is interpreted as showing there is no aether then if is false then so is. ... There was no experimental evidence for yet nevertheless both Lorentz and Einstein assumed it to be true. ... An observers speed w.r.t the aether would add to the speed of light and as it doesn't an observer is apparently always stationary w.r.t the aether. ... He lists the following experiments as being consistent with his ballistic theory: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A guide for students of physics in the art of spin Part 2
    ... If the null result of the MMX is interpreted as showing Maxwell's theory, to be false or if the MMX is interpreted as showing there is no aether then if is false then so is. ... There was no experimental evidence for yet nevertheless both Lorentz and Einstein assumed it to be true. ... An observers speed w.r.t the aether would add to the speed of light and as it doesn't an observer is apparently always stationary w.r.t the aether. ... He lists the following experiments as being consistent with his ballistic theory: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why relativists dont understand Einsteins 1905 mathematics.
    ... So, yes, Einstein *did* write it and I take back what I said. ... What Einstein actually did next was to assume that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable. ... Perhaps physics had been taken over by mathematicians who were interested in the mathematical possibilities. ... It was a fundamental change which the physics establishment used to get itself out of a hole having accepted a theory without proper scrutiny and not wanting to go back on its acceptance. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > usual conception of an aether. ... > POR is that is applies to all the laws of physics in inertial frames - ... >> substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > usual conception of an aether. ... > POR is that is applies to all the laws of physics in inertial frames - ... >> substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading