Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity

On Sep 25, 1:59 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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

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

Not even a remotely plausible theory given those bounds on photon
mass.


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

Even less plausible than it was 50 words ago, the emitter and absorber
in Pound-Rebka were static. Plus the relation between mass and energy
is excluded by observation. Oh, and you don't actually _show_ how hf
is obtained.

Shoving quantization into a classical theory is a no-no, especially
when your entire motivation is to sidestep current theory.




The relationship between radiation pressure and energy density has been

....deemed irrelevant...

All experimental evidence is relevant.

....except the ones that disprove your pet cause, right John?

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




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.

BWAHAHHAHA

That's so fucking ludicrous that I can't believe you said it. Go use a
microwave.


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

I find it interesting to see how much you argue based on quotemining.
Are you incapable of forming a free thought?


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

No, that is not the definition of aether.

Might be yours, but your definitions and feelings are irrelevant to
physics at large.


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. 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.

Thank you captain obvious! Welcome to physics circa 1900. You continue
to prattle on about things that are either horribly wrong or trivially
true. I'm yet to see a well defined middle ground.

Electromagnetic theory should have been killed off and replaced a

You aren't even a good engineer! You can't even appreciate the utility
of a good approximation.

century ago when it was discovered that the waves of Maxwell's theory do
not physically exist, light is made up of particles, 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.

Boring prattle. You continue to drone on about the particulate nature
of light as if it is some great revelation - which it was, in 1905.
This is no longer 1905.

The replacement for Maxwell's equations is called "quantum field
theory". Still no aether, but reduces to Maxwell's equations
regardless. Ain't that a bitch?


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.

....now the argument has shifted to "look how silly physics is!" Not
that I expected otherwise of course. Regardless I'm surprised how
blatant you are about it.


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.

As Waldron says? Get your own words. If I wanted to read what Waldron
had to say, I'd go out and read it myself.

But since you have such a goddamn boner for _facts_, do some basic
research on the subject. Pound-Rebka, Gravity Probe A, Eddington and
the 90 years of lensing observations that proceeded, etc.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/index.html




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.

This is so wrong that you are either lying or so incompetent that you
can't even tell that you are lying.




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.

SO(3,1)

Stop lying and repeating stupidities. I bet you don't even know that
the covariant Maxwell's equations remain an integral part of Quantum
Field theory, the most successfully tested theory *ever*.


GR is just the next stage built upon that error.

No it isn't, liar.


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).

Do you actually believe this ***, or do you actually think I'm stupid
enough to buy it?

Einstein didn't "simply reproduce" Lorentz's work, no matter how hard
you lie about it or how hard you hope other people here will buy your
bull***.

The Lorentz transformations are completely _independently_ derived
from group theoretic arguments and contain zero reference to Maxwell's
equations. All that is required is the assumption of the principle of
relativity and _some_ maximum speed.




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.

You don't know what you are talking about.


  As Beckman and Mandics so aptly put it.

[snip more irrelevant quotemining]


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.

UH, NO. Waldron is clearly wrong and I don't even have to look at the
analysis to see that.


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.

Stoooopid. The laws of classical kinematics remain largely unchanged
in special relativity.


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.

Stoooopid. Please continue to repeat the stoooopidities about
electromagnetic waves not existing.


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.

Stoooopid. Proposing arbitrary modifications for electrodynamics is
simply stoooopid.


eclipsing binaries,

I'll leave that to Androcles.

Who knows even LESS about it than you.


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.

No...it isn't. The experimental evidence is pretty fucking clear on
that.

[snip rest, unread]

I'm simply tired of reading your stupidities and realizing you have
*NO* clue what you are talking about.
.

Loading