Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS

bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:YA+UYJOAUkLHFw86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

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.

You look at others opinions of how science works. I look at how it actually
works. I see it work. It does NOT work the way you claim.

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.

The sources you have given me in the past made claims about how things work
that were not correct.

You trusted your sources. I found them incredible.

I quoted Einstein. I'm sorry if Einstein didn't say what you think he
ought to have said. He said what he said.


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.

I too have worked in electronics. Both in industry making resistors and
capacitors, designing resistor networks, writing process specs, overseeing a
production line, later repairing electronic devices, and teaching
electronics. Later operating and repairing computer controlled laser systems,
Later fixing radars and shipboard electronic systems[while being a part time
grad student in Chem and EE], Later doing chip level board repair on
computers and fixing ambient air monitoring equipment.

That didn't make me an expert on how science works.

Working daily with scientists that are doing science was necessary. I have
done that since 1981.

I am far more interested in the quality of your arguments (lack of) than
who you are or what you are as that is what I will judge you on. I
wouldn't play the oneupmanship game if I were you. You don't have a good
enough hand believe me.

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)

We shall see, below. But the tone of your comment shows that you are still
playing the 'oneupmanship game'

You started blowing your own trumpet not me I was merely responding.

rather than actually trying to exchange
information in a civil manner. One more such example and I won't care what
you say.


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.

In other words, you have never worked as a scientist.

Neither have you by all accounts. Not that that is in any way relevant
to the strength of an argument.

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.

Sometime the corrections take some time, but science IS self correcting and
is BETTER at correcting itself than any other field that I know of, except
for the retail business. There, the market will correct things for you. But
even there, there can be long delays and those that are reluctant to look at
facts.

Well perhaps one day Physics will correct itself but that is likely to
be inhibited by people who believe it can't possibly be wrong and refuse
to acknowledge the deficiencies of history and fail to make the study of
important alternative theories a natural part of education. It does not
help either that physics has redefined what physics IS. You complain
that I go on about physical processes - I will continue to do so.
Physics without and understanding of what is going on is mathematical
modelling and as someone once said "The problem with maths is that an
awesomely impressive equation may be describing an incredibly silly
idea". To avoid silly ideas you need to understand the physical process
the maths is describing.

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.

You have not shown me anything pertinent to the case in point: IS Ritz's
theory the correct theory or is Einstein's theory better? History may be your
interest but science is my primary interest.

That was not the debate. It was whether in ignoring the simpler Ritz
theory which fitted all the facts science was working the way it is
supposed to work. AT THE TIME Ritz theory was the better theory on the
basis of any criteria you would like to mention. Which theory is right
is irrelevant to that particular argument.

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.

I don't read German very well. Before I could form an opinion of what he was
thinking I would want to go back and read all the original documents and
notes he wrote.
Have you done so? If not, then I am not really interested in your opinion of
what he thought.

Einstein spoke good English and much of what he wrote was in English. I
have no doubt he cast an eye over translations of what he wrote to make
sure he had not been mis-represented. I have no doubt that those who
translated his German papers did a good job. You are simply looking for
an excuse to dismiss perfectly valid arguments.

If you have a source that has done so,

Done what?

I am willing to look
at that source, but as I said, I am not really concerned about the history, I
am concerned with science.

You cannot separate the two even though you would like to.

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 cited what others have written

No always directly attributable to what Einstein had written. He wrote
plenty.

and parts of what he wrote.

correct.

You and I
disagree upon what he meant.

You have not analysed the quotes I gave and showed that they were
capable of a different interpretation. I can provide plenty more. They
form a totally coherent picture. You have not cited a SINGLE reference
to the contrary. You cannot simply say you disagree. That isn't an
argument it is a statement of faith. Either accept I am right or put
forward a counter case.

You simply snipped it without comment. I am pretty sure we have been
here before. Showing you the facts does not affect your thinking.

Show me FACTS, not yours or someone else's opinions.

I quoted Einstein. It is a FACT that that is what he said or wrote.
You produce facts to substantiate your case.

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.

I have read his 1905 paper and his 1920 talk and his book. I don't get the
same impression from those documents that you do.

You have not analysed the quotes I gave and showed that they were
capable of a different interpretation. You have not cited a SINGLE
reference to the contrary. You cannot simply say you disagree. You have
to show that what is written is consistent with your 'impression'.
Either accept I am right or put forward a counter case. That is how
scientific discussion - any debate - operates. Saying "I don't agree"
without saying why is irritating.

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.

I agree that it was a very close call. But Ritz lost.

Newton lost. He said light was made up of particles - what a silly idea
:o) Someone suggested the continents had drifted apart - he lost and not
because there was anything wrong with the case he put forward. OK it
righted itself about 3 decades later but it wasn't because anyone was
checking whether he might be right.

You are prejudiced against the modern theories because they are not
'physical' enough for you.

Yes. I agree. I believe that physical understanding is an essential part
of true physics and that physics is wrong because it cannot produce a
physical interpretation which is not absurd. I agree with Murray

"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr
Scott Murray

It was that failure which allowed the mathematical take over of physics
where they tore up the rule book. No longer do we have causality "if
something physical happens it has a physical cause". or conservation
"you cannot make something out of nothing". If something has physical
implications - a 'field' for example - these days no one has to explain
what they mean by a 'field' in physical terms but one generation having
accepted that fields exist the next generation inherits them without
question and has them 'do things' e.g. transmuting into matter. The next
generation inherits the idea that matter can appear from nowhere without
question and thinks up interesting things to do with it..... and so on.

"The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this
state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist
at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are
not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which
are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable
matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according
to Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter,
brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special
theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of
distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing
as a special form of energy. More careful reflection teaches us,
however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to
deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give
up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by
abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which
Lorentz had still left it." AE 1920

Put simply Einstein also believed in physical reality as I do. He
questioned whether a field might be a physical entity in its own right
rather that a stress pattern in the aether - and came out in favour of
the aether. Today no one asks those sorts of questions. A field is a set
of equations, a light wave is a mathematical wave. It matters not that
you need a physical wave to transfer physical energy because just as you
are free to treat light as waves or particles depending on what you are
describing you can chose the particle model when you want to describe
the transfer of energy. All a tad too convenient.

Despite heavyweights like Ritz and Waldron you believe that I am an
idiot for even considering it.

I don't spend any time on those I consider to be idiots. I suggest that you
should not do so either.

As one of my favorite SF books said "Criticism implies recognition of ability
to perform." from A MATTER FOR MEN by David Gerrold 1983 Pocket Books.
In other words, no one wastes time criticizing the village idiot for his
inability to hold a job because they recognize that is beating a dead horse.

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 believe it has already been disprove by De Sitter

Fox ( a better man than either you or I) disagreed.
J.G. Fox, "Evidence Against Emission Theories"- American Journal of
Physics, Volume 33, #1, Jan. 1965 states:

"Thus it cannot be argued that the data on binary stars provides
support for the emission theory [source dependency]. However it does
seem, contrary to what has been believed for several decades, that the
data on binary stars does not offer any evidence against emission
theory".

I very much doubt that that is the first time I have pointed this out to
you but it effects your thinking not one jot.

and by MMX

Good heavens - The MMX is the main justification for Ritz's theory.
Ritz's theory is by far the simplest explanation of the MMX. I really do
believe I am flogging a dead horse. You make no effort to take on board
anything I say. You make no effort to study your subject and you pick
standard comments out of your pocket book of favourite phrases no matter
how many times it has pointed out to you they don't make sense.

and by Sagnac.

Sagnac claimed his experiment disproved relativity and proved the
existence of the aether. It is actually consistent with both Ritz theory
and relativity.


I believe the experiment I proposed WOULD disprove Einstein IF Ritz were
right.

I KNOW it will not prove Einstein right. Nothing can do so.


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.

When you persuade rather than insult, I will be more willing to listen.

If you are going to discuss you need to put forward arguments - evidence
- facts - simply disagreeing is not an argument.

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.

When they are not pertinent to what I want to discuss and when the article is
getting way too long, I trim.
If I don't want to make a comment, I don't want to make a comment. That is
all it implies.

NO if I go to the time and trouble to put forward an argument you either
accept I am right or you put forward a counter argument. It is not good
enough to snip it and decide you don't want to discuss it. Basically if
you could counter my argument you would want to discuss it.


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.

I wasn't talking about, nor interested in the example you wrote about. It had
nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
You didn't look at my example, you just set forth your own.


Had I done that to YOU, you would be angry at me and insulting me. Oh, that
IS what you have been doing, isn't it and accusing me of calling you names
that I didn't call you.

I proposed my example FIRST. By your rules, you should have dealt with it.
You don't follow your own rules.

For the simple reason I knew that with a rotating platform you could not
possibly calculate what Relativity would predict as it takes you into
general relativity so there is no way you could show that whatever
result you got was consistent with relativity. We were discussing
special relativity and Ritz theory. I changed the experiment to one
where SR applied and where we could have meaningful discussion. I did
not believe I was changing the nature of the experiment. I admit I had
not appreciated the curved path absurdity.

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.

Are we going to play 'who has been ruder to whom?' or are we going to
communicate?

I don't see a lot of point to be honest. I'm not interested in your
statements of belief, you haven't put forward any coherent arguments and
I am not in the least bit interested in how many 'scientists' you are on
first name terms with.

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?

I politely told them that IF their idea was right, then certain things would
happen that do not happen.

In his case, I called it to his attention that we could have faster than
light communications just by wiggling a laser back and forth.

I leave it to others to call his concept 'Daft'. I just pointed out the
implications of his idea.

I think he still clings to it.

It did not prevent you putting it in front of me as an example of an
experiment which would disprove either Ritz or SR theory and being a
rotating table you cannot use SR anyway.


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.

If you want to Disprove Einstein, I still suggest that you try 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 am WELL aware of aberration. It does not come into play in this case for
reasons that I will explain.

You may be aware of it but you show you don't understand it.


Aberration is the result of the motion of the OBSERVER, NOT of the source.
Ritz, however would predict aberration due to motion of the source.

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.

Correct. No aberration.


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.

That is correct, ballistic theory would predict aberration due to motion of
the source.

Correct. The light path is Y'-O but because of aberration the apparent
direction is Y-O same as SR.



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.

That is correct, for motion of the observer.


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.


NO. In this case, the two situations are NOT equivalent.

The principle of relativity says that motion is relative - you can
consider either to be stationary and the other moving. Both SR and
Ballistic theory are consistent with the principle of relativity


They are ALSO not equivalent when looking at stellar aberration for a very
simple reason, the aberration occurs INSIDE the telescope body, NOT during
the time the light spends traveling from star to earth.
I am surprised that you missed that fact.

It has nothing to do with the telescope. The apparent direction of a
star is the same whether you look at it with a telescope or with your
eyes. You point a telescope where you see a star not in another
direction.


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.

Moving the telescope is Not the same as moving the target because the
aberration takes place inside the telescope.

The telescope is merely a metaphor for 'the apparent direction the light
comes from' You can point a stick with two nails in it if you would
rather. Go back to school. Learn the principle of relativity. If your
theory depends on which is moving you have reinvented absolute motion.

I give up. Sorry there just isn't any point. Life is too short.

[rest snipped]

--
John Kennaugh
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Globaloney elsewhere
    ... any way similar to the present scientific standing for global warming is ... "science" is politically motivated junk science IMO and I refuse to ... Another poor game of the whipped by the facts crowd is to try to play ... we invoke the aid of the scientists and Al Gore instead. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: More than Medicine?
    ... though science and philosophy are perhaps two fields ... > the paucity of facts. ... If political scientists have a high ratio of this kind, ... If I were to be asked if I am an honest man, and would not be allowed to ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Homo erectus, city dweller and sailor
    ... science means by the term 'theory', he is not wrong, and Ken is. ... I had my facts wrong. ... I have studied world history, human history, religions, philosophy, ... Thenthe instant ice age was followed up by a 19,000 year ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: APES, MEN AND MORONS.
    ... Facts, Faith, and Fairness ... require that creationism should be taught alongside the theory of evolution?" ... Defining Science and Religion ... Scientists who investigate the past must proceed in the same way that detectives ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Question on Falsification of Common Descent
    ... about the justification of a knowledge claim rather than about attaining ... to adopt Popper's view of science or not, ... Do scientists have the right to say that they "know" anything? ... If 'facts' are useless at best, and an obstruction to doing science, ...
    (talk.origins)