Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS

bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
T+G2XXAg4ZLHFwv$@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk:">news:T+G2XXAg4ZLHFwv$@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk:

bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:yQRes6H $iGLHFwZo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

No, he didn't but for a few hundred bux you can.

Why don't you? Go on make a name for yourself.

If I am right, I don't make a name for myself.

If you are right, you get a Nobel. Go for it.

Come up with a simple
experiment which proves source independence. No one else has managed
it - not a simple experiment that is.

Then formulate an experiment that will.
That is how science works, NOT by carping about things and insulting
people.
Good bye.

Your entire belief system is based upon propaganda.
I work with scientists every day.

So? That doesn't change the fact that you belief system is based upon
propaganda.

My beliefs are carefully formed based upon every day experiences.

Then try studying the facts of history. You live in a community of
believers and will gain comfort from the fact they believe the same as
you.

Yours are based upon things that you have read

That is called researching the subject My particular area of study is
the history and origins of current theories.

and your experiences in non
scientific fields of research.

Don't understand that comment. My field is electronics. I was a research
and development manager before I went freelance as an electronics
consultant.


The role of any
scientist is to question, question, question not merely accept what is
dished out by orthodoxy.

I have helped real working scientists formulate experiments to test
theories. I helped them critique and publish their ideas.

Good for you.

What have you ever done that qualifies you as an expert on how science
REALLY works?

It is rare for a submitted article to be accepted without revisions being
required by the publisher. My questions and help enabled researchers to
ANSWER the questions that the publishers would ask before they were asked.
I have seen several papers that I helped with accepted for publication
without any significant revisions. At least one was accepted with no
revisions.

Even though I lack a PhD, I DO have a BS in chemistry with a math minor.
I have been asked to co-author a couple of scientific papers that were
published in well respected journals.

Bully for you. You give yourself a great build-up pity you fall flat on
your face (see below)


How many scientific publications do you have in your CV?

Most if not all my work is confidential and the client who paid for it
owns the copyright.

How many PhD candidates have thanked you for your contributions to their
research? How many papers give you honorable mention and thank you for
your valuable help?

The One or two but it isn't part of my job. I have guided many graduates
in the early stages of their career. Teaching them the things they need
to know.

You have not countered any of the arguments or evidence I have put
forward. Historically speaking physics did not work the way science is
supposed to work. Existing theory had been disproved, there existed a
simple alternative theory which was ignored which explained all the
known data, existing theory was patched up ditching two previously
accepted axioms of physics in the process. Now it is possible (but in my
view unlikely) that what resulted is good theory but whether it is or it
isn't is irrelevant to my argument that in this instance physics did not
work the way science is supposed to work.

Several times you have made statements which I have shown to be false.
Your way of dealing with it is to snip my posting without comment.


Do you base your opinions on prejudice or experience?
Which of us has fallen victim to propaganda?

My interest in the history of physics. I am willing to study any
documentation that anyone points me at and revise my views as necessary.
To date all the documents form a coherent picture of Einstein's
thinking. You said:

That is NOT what Einstein said and you know it.

I went to a great deal of effort to point out various documents showing
that my summery of Einstein's position was accurate.

You simply snipped it without comment. I am pretty sure we have been
here before. Showing you the facts does not affect your thinking. You
will trot out the same prejudice next time we are engaged in discussion.

Likewise you are likely to come out with the statement:

It doesn't matter where the inspiration came from. He specifically showed
that no aether need be invoked.

No one studying the facts and the literature would make that statement.
That is pure propaganda. I have given you a selection of quotes - which
you snipped without comment - but I have no doubt based upon previous
encounters with you that it will not stop you trotting it out again in
future.

Better men than you or me have looked at the evidence against
Ritz/ballistic theory and found that it is a very very close call.
Despite heavyweights like Ritz and Waldron you believe that I am an
idiot for even considering it. You believe it is a simple matter to
disprove Ritz/Waldron with a simple lab experiment when people have
spent millions on experiments trying to do just that.

I have seen nothing that you have written that indicates that you have
ever participated in any real scientific research. I have seen nothing
that indicates you have any real knowledge of how science work.

When you can counter my arguments rather than snip them without comment
you may convince me that you know what you are talking about.


I condemn the things you say, NOT you. I attack the things you say, NOT
you.

If you want to attack what I say do so with counter arguments not with
scissors - you snip my arguments without comment.


You, on the other hand, called me an idiot.
I do not waste my time conversing with those that lack the self respect
that allows (and requires) one person to treat others person with respect.

I apologise for that but having written at length pointing out your
misconceptions it annoyed me that you simply snipped the lot without
comment.

When I make a mistake, I admit it. I try to learn from my mistakes.

No I have pointed out some of your mistakes and you have snipped what I
wrote without comment. Go back through this thread and you will see I am
right. OTOH you will not find a single instance of me snipping your post
without commenting on it. I don't do that I consider it rude.


The proposal I gave you was originally formulated for someone that thought
that the motion of the source continued to influence the motion of light.

It is the equivalent of assuming that you could guide a bullet to its
target by moving the gun after the bullet had left. The fact that you
didn't advise the person concerned not to be so daft does indicate to me
that you have dismissed Ritz/ballistic theory without having tried to
understand it. Is that your idea of scientific objectivity?

The
'curved path' was in accord with his theory and is, as I pointed out to him,
incorrect. However if Ritz were correct, the light would follow a diagonal
path traveling at c wrt the source and would thus travel from source to
detector along the perpendicular path at a slower speed. In any case (Ritz or
Eric or Einstein) the LED is to be pulsed at the exact position when it is on
the line through the axis of rotation and the detector, 10 meters away. If
Einstein is right, the pulse will reach the detector (a telescope with enough
magnification to resolve the LED) 10 meters away 0.033us later and appear
exactly in line with the center of rotation, no matter what the speed of
rotation or direction of rotation.

The LED will travel 17um during the 0.033us. The IMAGE of the LED would be
displaced by 17um if Ritz were correct. Since LEDs with diameters of 20um are
available, the image would be displace by almost a full diameter.

The direction of displacement would depend on the direction of rotation. The
above assumes a 10 cm rotor running at 50,000 rpm. Nothing expensive is
required for this kind of a test. Some simple optics, an old centrifuge, an
LED and a way to pulse the LED at the right time.

If you REALLY want to disprove Einstein, you will 1) check my calculations
and 2) run the experiment.

No point. A few minutes thinking about it and I can see why no one would
bother to perform it. As with most experiments SR and Ballistic theory
predict the same outcome. Basically you have not taken into account the
effect called aberration. I could simply tell you to go and look it up
in any good text book but I will take the trouble to do my best to
explain it to you. It is not an easy concept.

I think you would agree, now we have the curved path nonsense out of
the way that the reason for using a rotating disk is because it is a lot
easier than using linear motion but that in theory it could be done with
an LED on a fast train. I change your experiment into linear motion to
make it possible to draw with the limited drawing capability of text.
You need to display with a fixed pitch font.

T-->v Y





O

Train travelling at v, LED flashes when it reaches Y

With SR the apparent light direction Y-O.

Your argument is that with ballistic theory:

T-->v Y Y'






O

the light will expand in a circle who's centre will remain with T i.e.
that when the light hits O the centre of the circle will be at Y'.
This is quite correct for ballistic theory.

Your argument is then that the light reaching O is coming from Y' and
therefore will be seen as coming in the direction Y'-O compared to Y-O
for SR. I can understand why you might think that but it is wrong. What
you need to think about is what direction you need to point your
telescope in order that the light goes down it.

Let us start by assuming the source is stationary and the observer
moving. I'm sure we both agree with Einstein that we can do that.

SR case
X' X
|
|
|
|
v<-- O'---O


In the SR case the source remains at X but the centre of the circle
moves with the observer (remains in the same place in the observers FoR)
so when light reaches O' the centre of the circle will be at X'. Light
is observed as coming vertically down the page.

X' 3 2 1 X
*



| | | | | | |*| | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |*| | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | |*| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|*| | | | | | | | |
O' 3 2 1 O

What this shows is a telescope pointing in the vertical direction in 5
successive positions. O where the light sets out 1,2,and 3 at equal
intervals and O' where the light hits the detector. So far so good that
is what you would expect.

Source dependent case
X
|
|
|
|
v<-- O'---O

Light leaves X when it is opposite O. In the ballistic case the circle
will remain centred at X. At time t the circle reaches O'.


X




/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/*/
O' O

What you are expecting is that you will have to angle the telescope in
order for the light to now go down it as shown because the light is
travelling in the X-O' direction. This is the basis of your experiment.

Now let us put in the interim stages:

X
*





a /*/ / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
b /*/ / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
c /*/ / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/*/ / / / / / / / / / /
O' 3 2 1 O

Perhaps you can see the problem? when the light pulse is at 'a' the
telescope isn't, it is at 1 so the light pulse cannot enter the
telescope. Likewise when the light pulse is at b the telescope is at 2
etc. This is the phenomena of aberration. If there is relative motion
between source and observer the apparent direction changes. In this case
the apparent direction is vertical just as with SR. Sorry but it is.

X
*



| | | | | | |*| | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |*| | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | |*| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|*| | | | | | | | |
O' 3 2 1 O




On the other hand, if you just want to feel good because you are able to get
attention by attacking Einstein and 'the way science works', then you will
continue to do what you have been doing.

I do not attack Einstein I attack the misrepresentation of Einstein, the
distortion of history. I attack the opinions of people like you who have
swallowed re-written history, modern spin, sanitized history and trot it
out as if it were fact not having made the slightest effort to check
their sources.

You gave yourself a great build up in your posting and you have been
dismissive and patronising towards me - so how come I have had to point
out the absurdity of curved trajectories and a basic flaw in your oh so
clever experiment.

I will say however that had you done your experiment and falsely claimed
that you have disproved emission theory, because you have not given
sufficient enough thought to what emission theory would actually predict
you would not be the first nor the most illustrious to do so.
--
John Kennaugh
'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' Bertrand Russell.
.