Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
- From: glird@xxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 10, 7:26 am, John Kennaugh wrote:
< Seeing fairies at the bottom of your garden must inevitably result
in people questioning your sanity. Why the proposal that something can
travel at the same speed in all frames of reference does not have the
same effect is a mystery to me. >
It isn't a mystery to you, John; you just left out
a few relevant words. I will therefore put them in:
Seeing fairies at the bottom of your garden must inevitably result
in people [who don't know you are wearing painted eyeglasses]
questioning your sanity. Why the proposal that something can travel at
the same speed in all frames of reference [as measured by them using
esynched clocks] does not have the same effect is [not] a mystery to
me.
< As far as I can see light is made up of particles which are only
unusual in that they happen to travel rather fast compared to the
speeds we are used to. >
Where did you ever "see" that "light is made up of particles"? [What
we actually see is the slowly changing image on a curved pane, the
retina of our eye(s).]
< They have momentum [= mass times velocity] which is why when they
hit something pressure is detectable. >
If mass is a function of v, becoming infinite when v = c, then how
come the momentum of a photon [mc = infinity] isn't infinitely great?
Why doesn't a photon moving at c wipe out anything it hits?
< They have no need for an aether and in the absence of an aether a
source in space is surrounded by nothing which can take part in a
physical process so their speed must be the result of the only
physical process involved, that taking place at the source. >
Einstein's "photon" is a quantity of energy whose numerical value is
given by e = hf, in which e is Plancks quantum of energy, h is his
quantum of action, and f is the frequency relative to a given object.
If we ignore the fact that this "frequency" denotes the number of
WAVES that pass a given point per second, and that "a given point" is
an abstraction - a point at rest in a given FoR -
then a photon (or ANY wave system) moving at c IS a physical process.
Since it is impossible for such a physical process to take place in an
empty nothing, a materail medium is obviously present wherever light
goes, which is everywhere in the universe.
< [1] Relativity is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's theory is
impeccable. [2] The waves of Maxwell do not physically exist. [3] The
aether in which they were thought to be waves does not exist. [4] The
independent
fields which were believed to map altered states in the aether do not
exist because there is no aether for them to exist in. [5] EM theory
is no longer a legitimate branch of physics and neither therefore is
relativity. .
My comments:
1 is false. STR is based on two postulates, the second of which
(together with his third postulate - that clocks of all systems,
moving or not, must be set to MEASURE the speed of light as a
constant, c = 1 unit per second) is "Any ray of light moves in the
'stationary' [i.e. MOVING] system with the *_DETERMINED_* velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."
2 is false. The light-waves of Maxwell DO physically exist. If they
didn't, the f in e = hf would be meaningless, thus so would Planck's
quantum of energy.
3 is true, the [universally stationary] aether in which they were
thought to be waves does not exist. BUT a compressible wave-conducting
material DOES exist everywhere, including the "elastic spaces" between
Maxwell's infinitesimally small "particles" of "aether".
4, though more true than false, is ambiguous. It is true that the
"independent fields which were believed to map altered states in
[Maxwell's particulate] aether do not exist because there is no [such
discontinous] aether for them to exist in." In no way, though, does
that mean that Maxwell's electric and magnetic fields don't exist in
the continuous matter that fills all space, including the paces inside
of and between any particles made of it.
5 is also ambiguous. Independently of the fact that EM theory IS a
legitimate branch of physic, and independently of the fact that many
of its equations are correct, STR is a false and misleading theory,
thus is NOT a legitimae branch of physics.
< Physics was not forced to abandon reason; it chose to because it
could not bear to ditch Maxwell's wave in ether theory, and refused to
accept that it had been wrong for a couple of centuries in that that
Newton's corpuscular theory was in fact correct as least in its basic
concept. >
Right thesis, but for the wrong reason.
Having accepted the Lorentz equations (which disagree with Newton's
basic theory) our physicists abandoned reason because they also
accepted Einstein's theory, even though none of them understood the
physical - nor, therefore the mathematical - meanings of those
equations, nor, therefore, that the equations contradict the very
theory they accepted as true.
< The absurd wave-particle duality fudge prevented a great chunk of
dodgy physics from being rightly scrapped and rebuilt on sound lines.
[True.] By adopting it, physics avoided the great question as to what
the structure of a photon needs to be in order for photons to so
convincingly mimic waves. It is in my view the single most important
question in Physics and yet current doctrine says that a photon has no
internal structure. >
A "frequency" demands and is based on a wave system as part of the
internal stucture of a quantum of energy
e_o = (2pirm_electron c')f. Since no such electron could be part of a
light-wave moving at c, a "photon" is NOT the e_o that radiates
through the luminiferous material that fills space, it is only the
quantity that emits or is absorbed. It is therefore true that
Einstein's photon has no structure while radiating through space;
because something that DOESN'T EXIST during that interval HAS no
structure.
Having "abandoned reason" current doctrine doesn't even know what
reality_"whateverTHATmeans" IS!
glird
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
- Prev by Date: Re: GR to Newton. Unable to get there from here.
- Next by Date: Re: Three alternatives to explain the MMX null result
- Previous by thread: Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
- Next by thread: Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
