Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity

Hi Eric

Let us get a few things straight my friend. I do not lie. I am never
abusive and if I say I think something is wrong or rubbish I always
explain why I believe it is rubbish. I am not interested in what your
personal belief system is unless you can back it up with evidence and
argument.


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.

There are two methods of measuring mass you either measure the
attraction to another mass (gravity) or you get it from momentum. Either
method will yield the Mass as calculated by Waldron and used by Waldron
to explain Pound-Rebka, Compton effect, gravitational red shift, the
deviation of light caused by gravity, the precession of mercury,
positron electron annihilation, Pair production etc. He makes an
assumption that gravitational force is speed dependent. I have no
intention of copying out his entire book. If you want to see his
analysis then get his book and read it. The fact is photons have mass.
This disproves relativity as relativity says nothing with mass can
travel at c.

*If* you say "never mind the evidence SR is right so there!!" then you
have to redefine what mass is and then find a way to determine it. The
masses in the list have not been measured in the conventional sense they
are calculations based on the assumption that SR is right therefore they
are neither evidence that SR is right nor evidence that Ballistic theory
is wrong merely that both theories can be made to work. Ballistic theory
works using a conventional Newtonian definition of Mass. SR works only
if you redefine mass to make it work. The definition of a unit of mass -
the kilogram derives from an arbitrary lump of platinum held in Paris. I
can in theory trace the measurement of mass from that lump to Waldron's
calculation of mass. I would be interested to see whether you could do
the same.



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.

So? Photons have mass. They set out at c w.r.t the emitter and reach the
absorber travelling at c+v.

W = 1/2 mc^2 + 1/2 m(c+v)^2 = hf'

Plus the relation between mass and energy
is excluded by observation. Oh, and you don't actually _show_ how hf
is obtained.

It is the energy of a photon I thought you would know that.


Shoving quantization into a classical theory is a no-no,

What you should be asking is *why* current theory isn't 'joined up'. Why
it is a no-no. Ballistic theory is 'joined up' so it isn't a no-no.


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

Your repeating yourself.

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.

I do frequently. It is filled with photons.

The statement that the waves of Maxwell's theory do not physically exist
comes from

a/ Planck - who showed that light was generated in quantized lumps but
believed passionately that they then metamorphosed into Maxwell's waves

and

b/ Einstein/photoelectric effect which shows that when light arrives it
has not changed from the same quantized lumps which Planck had shown it
to be generated in. Maxwell's theory is a theory of continuous fields.
If it were to metamorphose into those waves the energy would spread out
evenly in space and there is no way it could be re-quantized and arrive
at a specific point to knock an electron out of the metal.

Apart from which, without the aether - which you agree does not exist -
Maxwell's waves have no invisible means of support.

What is ludicrous is that Einstein totally ignored the fact that light
is particulate and carried on as if Maxwell's wave in aether theory is
impeccable. That was rather silly. Even sillier physics then decided it
didn't believe in the aether Einstein had 'saved' by sacrificed 3
apparently sensible and long standing axioms of physics.


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?

Right or wrong my writings are mainly original. Now and again I find
someone who sees it my way and in this instance I don't think I could
improve on what Murray wrote.

I note that you haven't come up with anything original so far.

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.

What then is your definition of 'aether' other than it is a taboo word
:o)

Recap:
Two theories of light have dominated physics. One said that
'light propagates' in the form of waves of energy in a medium The other
that space is empty and 'light travels' from source to destination
(typically particles of light) its speed being a function of the process
generating it.
One may clarify the fundamental difference as follows. Imagine a
large cube of 'empty space'. Imagine a short burst of light enters that
cube and some time later exits it. For a finite period of time that cube
contains energy. The light travels theory says that the cube is empty
prior to the light entering it, the light particles travel through it
and the energy is contained in and transported by the light particles.
When they leave the cube of space is again empty.

The light propagates theory on the other hand says that space is
not empty. All of space including my cube contains a medium capable of
storing energy and therefore of propagating energy in the form of waves.
That medium they called the luminiferous aether.

The definition of the aether is space which can store energy by means of
an altered state. If you map the altered state it is a 'field'.

Again I put the question what is your 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. 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.

And as yet you have put forward no argument to support your statements
that *anything* I have said is wrong. I am not interested in your
beliefs only what you can justify.


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.

I can but I would not assume that an approximation is a sound conceptual
model of the working of the real, physical world and base a hundred
years of physics on that assumption. I would look for the underlying
physics which the approximation approximates to. Light is not made of
waves but particles therefore the question becomes what is the nature of
the particles such that they give a very good approximation to waves.

A clue is that Maxwell's equations are rearrangements of Faradays
relationships and Faraday's relationships all relate to charge and
nothing but charge. Therefore there is a connection between light -
which is made of photons - and charge. As a first try therefore one
might assume that photons contain charge but as they are not deflected
by an EM field one can assume that they have equal positive and negative
charge.

I understand that light photons with a particular polarization will
magnetize something (steel?). I didn't note the paper I read that in
unfortunately.

If you accept that there is no aether in space then a field cannot be an
altered state in the aether/space so a field can only be a field of
influence. It cannot exist without a source of influence. If photons
have EM fields associated with them as most seem to think then they must
contain charge to be a source of the field of influence.

As the fields have frequency associated with them the next assumption
must be that the charge is spinning and that en mass this gives rise to
the undulating EM fields described by Maxwell's equations. The frequency
is related to the period of spin. The wavelength is the length travelled
to complete one spin and polarization is related to the axis of spin
w.r.t the direction of motion.

This seemed to me to be a promising approach and I suggested it some
time back. I have only recently got hold of Waldron's work and I was
gratified to find that he had published a paper called "the spinning
photon". His ideas are more advanced than mine and he does a lot of
maths to go with his. It is certainly a promising line of approach but
conventional physics says no; a photon has no internal structure which
guarantees that physics will never be 'joined up' and talking about
photons and waves in the same paragraph will remain a no-no as you have
pointed out.

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.

I agree it was in 1905 and it is about time that physics faced up to the
fact discovered a century ago rather than still accepting the wave in
aether theory (sorry wave in "space which can store energy in the form
of an altered state") which was disproved in 1905 and yet is the basis
of relativity.


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.

Make no mistake I believe that physics made a serious error a century
ago and has gone off the rails big time. Garbage in garbage out. I do
not believe that sound physic can be built on absurd foundations. I do
believe that physics has granted itself so much freedom that they can
patch up any difficulty encountered. The sign that physics is off the
rails is not that it no longer 'works' but by layer upon layer of added
complexity. That is because thinking is so flexible that there is no
criteria to define what 'not working' means. Basically once it has been
accepted that nature is weird (rather than that physics has got it
wrong) then you cannot reject any idea on the grounds that "nature
may be weird but it can't be *that* weird". Physics can hypothesise what
it likes. String theory assumes the universe has at least 10 dimensions
maybe 26. Hawking has suggested parallel universes. Virtual photons pop
in and out of existence so quickly that the laws of physics don't notice
so they can act instantly over any distance. A Higgs field converts
something which is massless to something with mass. The entire universe
was once smaller than the head of a pin. It expanded exponentially
(inflation) to make the sums right. Anti gravity dark energy also needed
to get the sums right and Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive.


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.

And why don't you? If I suggest that a Christian fundamentalist reads
'Origin of Species' he will say "I don't need to. I know its wrong".
I suspect you response to my suggestion would be along similar lines
showing that relativity has become a religion.


But since you have such a goddamn boner for _facts_, do some basic
research on the subject. Pound-Rebka,

Covered that

Gravity Probe A, Eddington

That is simply Pound-Rebka in reverse isn't it.

and
the 90 years of lensing observations that proceeded, etc.

Photons have mass.

Anything with mass is attracted to other mass.

In order to escape from a massive object something with mass loses
energy. Photons lose energy (gravitational red shift)

If the object is massive enough the c will be insufficient to constitute
escape velocity and light cannot escape = black hole.

The trajectory of Photons passing near a black hole will be bent because
they have mass and are attracted to the mass at the centre of the black
hole. This is called lensing. If you assume the mass as calculated from
momentum or from Pound-Rebka and assume that the force of gravity is
velocity dependent the maths works out.

[ snip ] life is too short


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***.

I'm sorry my friend but SR is mathematically identical to Lorentz's and
Lorentz produced it first. What *exactly* do you believe that Einstein
*did* in respect of SR that was different to Lorentz. They both worked
from the same starting point. The MMX appeared to shown that the speed
of an observer relative to the aether is zero. Lorentz's theory tried to
explain this by means of distortion of measurement due to motion w.r.t
the aether. Einstein didn't try to explain anything but produced the
same maths from two postulates one of which describes exactly what an
observer would observe if his speed relative to the aether is zero.

Over to you. YOU explain what YOU think Einstein did which was so
wonderful. Start by explaining where you think the second postulate came
from. You keep saying my version is wrong what is your version?

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.

It depends on assuming the answer that there is a maximum speed which
comes from Einstein's SR theory. Ballistic theory says there is no fixed
Maximum speed but there are practical limitations - a law of rapidly
diminishing returns so that it is by no means infinite.
Einstein did not derive the transforms that way and that is what we are
discussing so it is irrelevant.

Now do as I ask and show your version of what happened. It is
exceedingly easy to simply say something is rubbish. Not only do I not
lie, not only do I not make abusive remarks, I don't say something is
rubbish unless I am willing to back it up with argument.

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.

My earlier prediction is proved correct then :o)

"If I suggest that a Christian fundamentalist reads 'Origin of Species'
he will say "I don't need to. I know its wrong".
I suspect you response to my suggestion would be along similar lines
showing that relativity has become a religion."
Have you heard of the concept of objectivity? How silly of me you are a
relativist defending his belief against a heretic.

--
John Kennaugh

.

Loading