Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS

John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:V7kn2vWqQ5LHFwu9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

bz wrote:
.....
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.

I am not talking about Einstein, I am talking about Murray.
.....
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.

See, that is YOUR problem. You ARE playing a game. I am trying to tell you
how science really does work.

.....
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.

I have not blown any trumpet. I just asked what qualifies you as an expert
on how science works. The answer is 'nothing'.

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

Why does having worked with scientists for over 37 years not qualify me to
testify as to how science works?

.....
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.

You display a lack of understanding of how both science and education
work.

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.

I hope you enjoy doing so. I won't be reading it.

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.

Your problem is that you think that every thing can be described by an
analogy to physical processes that you see every day. Sometimes math IS
the best way to describe something. Sometimes it is the ONLY way to
describe something accurately. But don't feel bad, even Einstein had a
problem with that. ....
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.

I disagree as to what the debate was and as to when Ritz was shown to be
fatally flawed.

.....
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.

He was not keeping his notes in English when he developed SR.
If you want to know 'what he was thinking' you need to go back and read
all his notes and private communications.


If you have a source that has done so,

Done what?

Gone through all his notes and private communications to find out what he
was saying and when.


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 are more concerned about 'History' than the science but you criticize
me for being concerned about science more than history?

.....
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.

Your 'totally coherent picture' has led you to erroneous conclusions. I
have pointed out to you the fact that science is self correcting and that
Ritz was rejected long ago. I pointed out to you the fact that Einstein's
theories are REEXAMINED on a daily basis in labs all around the world.
Your faith in your 'totally coherent picture' keeps you from seeing.

.....
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.

I certainly *can*. You don't have the right to tell me what I *may* do,
either.

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.

Scientific discussion and debate are much different.
scientific discussion depends on experimental data. It doesn't matter how
good you are at debating, reality is the final judge.

Debate depends on using all the tools of persuasion. It does NOT depend on
being right, just on being able to convince others that you are.

Saying "I don't agree"
without saying why is irritating.

Sorry. But my goal is NOT to irritate you, nor is it to avoid irritating
you. My goal is to find the truth.


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.

Yes. Newton lost. Ritz lost. Einstein lost. Science advances. Mankind
wins.

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.

Science is self correcting. Unlike religion, or philosophy. You are
arguing about the philosophy of science, not about science.


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

I read Dr. Scott Murray's diatribe. It is a bunch of sour grape carpings
by someone who has many erroneous ideas about how things work. I
commented, on some of the mistakes he made. I am NOT going to go over that
ground again.


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

Einstein rejected QED. QED is successful.
Einstein was a man, not a god. Einstein was a genius but he made mistakes
too.

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.

You are wrong when you make such statements. Every physics student
reexamines them while studying physics.

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.

Pick an inconvenient way to do things. I don't mind. But don't try to
force the rest of the world to use inconvenient methods. 'hint': it won't
work. If you want to disprove a theory, you need experimental data.

You ARE free to develop a 'physical explanation', as long as it does as
good a job as the 'non physical explanations', you are welcome to publish
it. It But although you are free to stomp and shout that others should
develop a 'physical explanation', it ain't gonna work. If you want it, you
gotta do the work.

.....
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.

That is because I have looked at the data and the equations that predict
what would happen IF Ritz were right. We do NOT see the multiple images of
some stars that we would see if light were source dependent.

The 'extinction' or speed unification that has been invoked as a 'fix' to
allow some to continue to believe in Ritz FAILS because it would require
that slow light (c-v) and fast light (c+v) exchange energy in such a
manner so as to make all light move at c soon after emission (the
extinction distance must be short or we would see multiple images and
infinite brightness flashes).

'Extinction' is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. It requires a
large decrease in the entropy of the light. The light which was disordered
(traveling at many different speeds) must become ordered (all traveling at
one speed). It would take a tremendous amount of energy to decrease the
entropy IN ADDITION to the energy needed to speed up the slow light! There
is no where for that additional energy to come from.

There is no mechanism for such an exchange of energy and no reason for the
speeds to converge upon c. It makes sense for energy to be take from the
c+v light, but it makes no sense for it to go to the RIGHT c-v light. c-v
light should continue to slow.

If Ritz were right, EVERY Doppler binary would show large variations in
brightness and those with large parallax would show multiple images unless
a thermodynamically impossible 'extinction' is invoked.

Fox is wrong. Ritz is dead.

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.

When I say Ritz was killed by Sagnac, I don't mean that the man Sagnac
actually killed the man Ritz. I don't mean that the Man Sagnac disagreed
with the man Ritz. I mean that the experiment performed by Sagnac, when
properly looked at, shows that the ballistic theory set forth by Ritz was
wrong.

It only takes ONE reproducible experiment to kill a theory.

It doesn't matter how many time you do CPR on Ritz's theory, it is time to
stop trying to revive the corpse. The flesh has all fallen off of the
bones. There are no longer any lips for you to do mouth-to-mouth upon.


.....
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.

If you are going to disprove SR/GR, as it is currently formulated, you are
going to have to do better than just complaining that "it ain't physical".
.....
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.

If you say something ridiculous, I am not going to waste my time refuting
it.


.....
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.

See. You only apply YOUR rules for 'polite discourse' to others. YOU get
to break your rules but no one else can without incurring your wrath.

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.

Being on first name terms with doesn't contribute to science.
It does not get your name on the 'authors' line of a paper.
It takes "making significant contributions of ideas" to the get your name
there. It takes being respected as a scientist by scientists. It takes
helping to write the text of the article. It takes reviewing the article
and correcting it. It takes many things to earn the right to have your
name listed as an author on a scientific paper.

It takes many things that you have never done.

....
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.

You demonstrate that you do not understand SR. Don't feel too bad, I once
thought that SR can not be applied to accelerating objects such as those
in rotary motion.

SR allows us to analyze things that are in motion, even accelerated
motion, as long as we do so from an inertial frame of reference.
Otherwise, we could not use most of the laws of physics under SR. Laws
like F=ma could not be used.

And, in this case, the fact that there is a rotor allows us to
reproduceably study a moving source.

Since the source is just turned on for a very short time means that it is
moving in an essentially straight line. The deviation from straight line
motion during that time is so small as to be negligible.

But that motion at 1,885 kph would be sufficient to produce a visible
aberration IF Ritz were right and no aberration if SR is right.

.....
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.

Au contrare. It is you that fail to understand the source of the effect.



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.

.....

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.

SR predicts NO aberration in this case of a moving source.

.....

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


But in the experiment I set down, your 'moving telescope' is NOT
equivalent to my 'moving source'.


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.

When you run in the rain, the rain hits you in the face rather than on the
top of your head. That is aberration. The earth is moving. That produces
the aberration. The aberration is proportional to the earths orbital
velocity wrt the incoming light. That depends on the angle of incidence of
the light.

Ritz (JK version of relativity applied) predicts that proper motion of a
star would produce an equal amount of aberration. It doesn't. Ritz is
again invalidated.

Take a star that is located near the celestial north pole with a proper
motion equal to the earths orbital velocity; per Ritz/JK, part of the year
the earth would be moving in the same direction as the star and there
would be NO aberration, part of the year the earth would be moving at
twice the orbital velocity wrt the star and the aberration would be twice
the expected aberration (expected per SR).

Remember, parallax varies with distance to the star, proper motion depends
on relative velocity and distance, aberration is independent of distance
AND velocity of the star, depending only on the earths orbital motion and
the angle of incidence of the incoming light.
.....

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'

right.

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.

Aberration and parallax and proper motion are gauged against the
background of 'fixed stars'

If Ritz were right, the light a moving, distant star, would carry with it
the original velocity (c+v). That would produce MUCH different amount of
aberration that that which is observed for stars with a large proper
motion

It would be like running in the rain when there is a strong wind blowing.
The direction you run makes a difference in how hard the rain hits you in
the face, whereas without Ritz, it is like running in the rain on a calm
day, there is no preferred direction of motion. The rain hits your face
just as hard when you run north as when you run south.


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

[rest snipped]



Likewise. I need to get back to reviewing a chapter in a book we [my wife and
I and several others] are writing.



--
bz

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

bz+mspep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion? ... "The Einstein Hoax", and its related texts, were written because ... then insured the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that ... Unlike many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: NC Governor Should Resign Over Science
    ... common-sense evaluation of my Einstein disproofs. ... Harrell, a mathematician, heads the science department at GT. ... wholly unqualified to head any department of trust at any university. ... Math can be the proof or it can be the solution. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
    ... to even the possibility that Einstein has been disproved. ... If there is one area of physics at which I excel, ... education whatsoever! ... and to 'professional' level magazines like: 'Science', ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... Einstein, but without a critical eye, nor the objectivity to realize ... subject is the measure of the subject's truths? ... But my posts and ... You don't evaluate new science by using old science as the standard. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Einsteins man in China
    ... For seven decades, Xu Liangying has been Albert Einstein's man in China, ... inspire a rebirth of interest in Einstein and in science in China. ... Chinese leaders say that science is the key to the country's ... Concluding that China needed "total revolution," he resolved to join the ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
Quantcast