Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity



John Kennaugh wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

On Sep 23, 3:19 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

On Sep 19, 10:47 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


[...]


A theory only has to account for experimental data it does not have to
accord with any other theory or the interpretation of any theory and
certainly not with your belief.

Pound - Rebeka does not "confirm general relativity" all it shows is
that when photons fall under gravity they gain energy. So does a brick.

This is what is known as "lying", synonymous with "spin" and
"downplaying". Pound-Rebka and subsequent experiments of that nature
[Gravity Probe A...] confirm GR and _explicitly_ exclude Newton.


According to Newton's theory it shows they have mass.

And according to Newton's theory, the energy gain would be twice as
much as it is in GR. Furthermore, the calculation in GR is based upon
assuming null paths. Guess what was seen?


Waldron's theory, for sound reasons states that the energy W of a photon
is made up as follows:

W = 1/2 mc^2 + 1/2 mc'^2 where c' = c+v

The first term is the internal energy (rotational) and the second term
is the kinetic energy. When it falls under gravity only the kinetic
energy is increased

In the FoR of the source c' = c so we get

Wo = mc^2 = hfo

You have a problem here. For a 1 ev photon, you require a mass of
1 in units of ev/c^2. However, tests have shown an upper limit to
the mass of 6 x 10^-19 ev/c^2
Luo et al., “New Experimental Limit on the Photon Rest Mass with a Rotating Torsion Balance”, Phys. Rev. Lett, 90, no. 8, 081801 (2003).

Thus the experiments say this is not a viable model. Thus Waldron's
theory is dead. End of story.


The relationship between radiation pressure and energy density has been

....deemed irrelevant...


All experimental evidence is relevant.


established by experiment. First done in 1901 by Lebedev long before
relativity. Nichols and Hull (1901 and 1903), Geracch and Golsen (1923),
Golsen (1924), Bell and Green 1933 and Cullen 1952. This shows that
photons have momentum. According to Newton's theory that means they have
mass.

Not even close to being right. There's no way you have any formal
education in physics. Just because you can pull a Koobee Wublee and
recite history doesn't mean you have understanding.

That electromagnetic radiation has momentum has been known for a
century and a half, and there is zero mention of photon mass in
Maxwell's equations.


Forget Maxwells equations. The waves of Maxwells theory do not
physically exist.

You might want to study this sometime.


When you next open an electromagnetism textbook
to clear up your many misunderstandings,


"The great Electromagnetic Theory appears as an analogy of Nature,
sometimes [i.e. within its domain] as a very useful and accurate
analogy, sometimes as a definite failure, but at no time does it seem to
afford us a sound conceptual model of the working of the real, physical
world." Dr Scott Murray


it would be instructive for
you to review the sections that discuss the energy-momentum of the
fields.


"Space in which independent fields can exist" is a definition of aether


Specifically you should review the part that explains that
Newton's laws do not work unless the fields themselves transport
momentum and carry energy.


"Space in which energy can be stored by way of an altered state" is a
definition of the aether. You do not get rid of the aether simply by
banning the use of the word 'aether'.

Light does not consist of waves but of particles.

Except, of course, when they act like waves. If you look for waves,
you get waves. If you look for particles, you get particles.
Particles do not make interference fringes by the way.

The Waves of Maxwell
do not physically exist. You cannot rely on Maxwell's equations for
anything other than engineering (where they are useful). As a conceptual
model for understanding the real physical world they are useless.
Electromagnetic theory should have been killed off and replaced a
century ago when it was discovered that the waves of Maxwell's theory do
not physically exist, light is made up of particles,

Wrong, see above.


and no aether is
required. Instead of the ruthless action required physics kept the bits
of theory it was fond of and retained the aether in all but name;
created a new branch of physics to deal with the particulate nature of
light so that the wave in aether theory could carry on undisturbed by
the fact that it no longer represented a valid branch of physics.

Not the wave in 'aether' of course but the wave in 'space', or wave made
of fields travelling in 'space in which independent fields can exist',
or waves travelling in 'space which can store energy in the form of an
altered state'. Can you not see how incredibly silly it all is? OK human
nature does not like giving up its long held views but simply ignoring
how we got where we are because history doesn't say what you want it to
say isn't very scientific.


A Photon's path is deflected by gravity just as a space probe is
deflected by gravity. Mass attracts mass. Photons have mass. The value
calculated from radiation pressure works for predicting deviation.

No, John, it isn't. Photons do not behave like little massive
particles. Not in the quantum mechanical sense, and not in the general
relativistic sense.


I'm talking purely in the experimental sense. As Waldron says a theory
only has to account for the facts not for some other theories
interpretation of the facts.


Photons are massless within experimental bounds, and the value derived

from little things like radiation pressure are inconsistent with

observation.


Waldron analyses all these scenarios and it all pans out according to
Newton and Galilao.


Gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same.

Equivalence principle, founding postulate of general relativity.
Doesn't seem like you quite know this yet.


SR is based on the assumption that a theory which had been disproved
was impeccable. It doesn't make sense without the aether and no one now
believes in that now.

GR is just the next stage built upon that error.



What makes you think photons don't have mass?

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf


Because if they did SR
would be wrong.

No, it wouldn't. There would simply be a decoupling between the
parameter defining the Lorentz transformation and the speed of light,
and the already-covariant and well-known reformulation of Maxwell's
equations called Proca's equations would take over.

People have thought about this. Might want to do a little research.


The argument used is that SR says that nothing with mass can travel at c
so you can calculate how much mass (maximum) something has by how close
its speed is to c. If it turns out that photons don't quite make c and
therefore have a tiny mass physics has a contingency plan which says
that c isn't the speed of light, Lorentz transforms have nothing to do
with light and c is a constant related only to Lorentz transforms.
Ignoring of course that the Lorentz transforms came from Lorentz's
*aether* theory and c was the speed of light w.r.t the aether. Also
ignoring the fact that Einstein simply reproduced Lorentz's maths and
totally failed to come up with a different theoretical structure to that
of Lorentz's (which he objected to).


Is there any real likely hood SR is right? It is based
on the belief that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable. It
isn't. Maxwell's waves do not physically exist. It is totally at odds
with the actual physical nature of light.

SR isn't based on Maxwell's equations, and especially _not_ imaginary
properties you associate with Maxwell's equations.


Rubbish. You have swallowed an awful lot spin.

As Beckman and Mandics so aptly put it.
"Albert Einstein was one of the few people who realised explicitly that
his theory rests on the *assumption* that our present Maxwell-Lorentz
electrodynamic theory, experimentally verified only for low velocities
of charged matter will also hold for velocities commensurate with the
velocity of light. Considering that our present electrodynamics have
grown out of a concept of an elastic ether... and that the Maxwell
equations do not satisfy the principle of relativity in its simple form
using the Galilei transformations this assumption is far from self
evident"



[snip]

deSitter, Ives-Stillwell, Sagnac, the entire field of cosmology...

At least Tom isn't trying to justify his faith on stuff discredited
decades ago. De-Sitter was debunked by both Waldron and Fox and could be
faulted by anyone who thought about it properly. Ives-Stillwell is
analysed fully by Waldron against his theory and his theory predicts the
experimental results. Likewise Sagnac which was originally believed to
disprove SR.

Try to make arguments with things that aren't utterly inane. I mention
deSitter because it was the first work on the subject - not only has
it never been discredited,

Don't be naive.

Got a literature reference, or hopes and prayers?



but because it has been confirmed multiple
times in the proceeding 90 years in Earthbound and cosmological
observations. Its' like the cranks who whine dishonestly about whether
or not Eddington 'really' saw lensing: the result is irrelevant as
successive observations confirm GR to a far better degree anyway.

Whether Sagnac was "originally" believed to disprove SR is wildly
irrelevant and you know it - SR predicts the results of Sagnac.

So does Ballistic theory.

So? Say it does - which I have no reason to believe considering your
lack of background - ballistic theory won't replicate things like
Compton,


Waldron does a full analysis of Compton assuming a photon has mass as
calculated as above and it all works out.


accelerator experiments,


Not a problem. Essentially there were two choices. The one Einstein took
which was to assume electrodynamics was impeccable and that mechanics
had to change - so he ditched 3 long established and apparently sensible
axioms of mechanics. The alternative - ignored - that mechanics is fine
and 2 simple changes were needed to electromagnetic theory.

1/ That the speed of light is constant w.r.t the source - perfectly
reasonable once it was realised that light is particulate and the waves
of Maxwell's theory do not physically exist.

2/ Coulomb's law needs to be altered when charge is moving. Essentially
in accelerator experiments you always have the ratio m/q in the
equation. There is no way of telling whether the mass increases by gamma
as per SR or the effect on q is reduced by gamma.


eclipsing binaries,


I'll leave that to Androcles.


gravitational
redshift,


Easy. If you use Waldron's mass of a photon then the energy lost in
escaping the pull of gravity is the same for a photon as for any other
projectile.


the lack of time dilation/redshift in high-velocity
centrifuges wrt another part of the centrifuge.


I have no knowledge of Waldron's theory past that it is wrong if it is
ballistic in nature.

Light is made up of photons. You don't believe in the aether. What other
physical process is there other than that taking place at the source?

A physical process requires something physical otherwise you are
describing magic.

Physics doesn't explain why something happens,


It took an arbitrary decision not to try. Other proper sciences do. That
decision was forced on physics because it had accepted things which do
not physically make sense. It should have rejected things which don't
physically make sense and gone back to the drawing board.

"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 models and makes
predictions based on those models. Just because you don't like or
understand the model does not mean it is wrong.


OK Physics is now just a section in that part of mathematics dealing
with mathematical modelling. You don't need the aether because all you
need is a pencil and paper.


Magic - something which happens with no physical cause.

Might want to look up the definition of magic again because that makes
no fucking sense.


Neither does physics. As you say yourself "Physics doesn't explain why
something happens". So it can accept magic as a part of physics.

An example of magic:
Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source of light 1 light year away.
According to SR (second postulate) light is travelling w.r.t. you at c
having separated from the source at a speed of separation c.
If you now change your speed so that you are travelling away
from the source at v the frequency of the light you observe will be
lower due to Doppler shift but according to SR the light still travels
at c w.r.t you (second postulate).
If the speed hasn't changed and is still c and the frequency
has, then the wavelength must have changed. The wavelength is determined
at the source. It is the result of the speed of separation of the light
from the source. What the maths says is that in your new FoR the
wavelength has changed because the light is now separating from the
source at c+v generating longer wavelengths than previous.
The problem with this is that your change of speed has
apparently caused a change in what is happening at the source and that
is 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is even
more absurd is that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to avoid a
1 year delay in the frequency changing. - magic.

[....]Snip your denial that Maxwell's theory said what it did say. You
can only sustain your belief by falsifying history. Your reactions are
exactly those one gets if you question someone's religion.


.

Quantcast