 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Is physics a science?... |
|
Page 17 of 26 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 24, 25, 26 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| maxwell... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 12:10 pm, Sam <shay... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]The problem with pseudo-science crackpots is not that they challenge
paradigms (they are actually more reactionary than radical), but
rather that they lack the intellectual capacity to actually articulate
and defend any rational position. For example, when Paul's infantile
and ridiculous "aether calculations", on which he claims to base his
confidence in the aether as a viable concept, are exposed as utter
nonsense, he simply walks away. Watch closely how he responds to the
re-posting of the following:
On Oct 1, 2:30 pm, Paul Stowe wrote:
Let me try to clear some things up... I do focus on the compressible state.
Right, so your previous vehement claim to the contrary was flatly
wrong.
On Oct 1, 2:30 pm, Paul Stowe wrote:
If you want to stick to rho, fine, its still not zero.
It isn't a matter of ME sticking to rho. You are the one who uses rho
in the continuity equation, and I have pointed out that your equation
is incorrect, because you have brought the value of rho outside the
Div operator. For compressible flow, it must remain inside. (Your
comment about rho being non-zero is irrelevant to the error that
you've made.)
On Oct 1, 2:30 pm, Paul Stowe wrote:
You are right about A and B having opposites sign when written in the
form A + (-B) = 0. Now, subtract B from both sides as,
A + (-B) - (-B) = -(-B)
Then we have A = B. Now please point to the math error???
The math error is in your spurious introduction of a minus sign on B
in your first equation. Look, on the web page the continuty equation
is quoted as
d(rho)/dt + (rho)Div v = 0
Please note that there is no minus sign in this equation. You then
claim that this equation implies (omitting the factors of s on both
sides)
(rho)Div v = d(rho)/dt
In other words, you being with A+B=0, and you claim it follows that
A=B. This is incorrect. Are you honestly unable to grasp this? To
dignify it as a "math error" is ridiculous... it's a basic thinking
error.
On Oct 1, 2:30 pm, Paul Stowe wrote:
... the Del operator is applied only to v, not rho....
Again, that is incorrect. In the continuity equation for a
compressible fluid, rho must be inside the Div operator. Sheesh....
[/quote]
So, SAM it looks like you are the 'vote-stuffer'. Who else would give
14 ratings of 'excellence' to this pile of mediocrity and hundreds of
'poor' ratings to your nemesis, Paul Stowe? Please desist from this
practice, it puts you in very poor company (eg Iran's current
president) and will result in you being banned from Google newsgroups. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 18, 10:55 am, maxwell <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote:
[quote]
So, SAM it looks like you are the 'vote-stuffer'. Who else would give
14 ratings of 'excellence' to this pile of mediocrity and hundreds of
'poor' ratings to your nemesis, Paul Stowe? Please desist from this
practice, it puts you in very poor company (eg Iran's current
president) and will result in you being banned from Google newsgroups.
[/quote]
GoogleGroupanoia (n.) - a psychological disorder where the affected
exhibits multiple breaks from reality; common delusions include a)
believing that anyone else even cares about the Google "star" rating
system, b) believing that ratings that are different than one's
sympathies are indicators of collective suppression and propaganda
schemes, and c) that certain people can be identified as abusing the
rating system by "stuffing" rating votes under numerous aliases. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 18, 7:26 am, "Dono." <sa... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 17, 12:10 pm, Sam <shay... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, that is incorrect. In the continuity equation for a
compressible fluid, rho must be inside the Div operator. Sheesh....
PaulStoweis a well-known imbecile whose fumbles have made Dirk's
list repeatedly. See here for another one of his "pearls":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thr...
[/quote]
Ironic really... I was asking a question. One based on this
expression,
Del'^2f - (1/c^2)(d^2f/dt^2) - (2zg/c)(d^2f/dtdx') = 0
and
g = 1/Sqrt(1 - z^2), z = v/c, x' = xg
Cast in the form of E & B. I did miswrite the expression in my post.
Correcting that is fine (one should) but, are you claiming instead
that I invented the expression above? If so, you're dead wrong and my
whole question was could it be used to express the physical form of
the E & B fields 'as they would be seen' when moving wrt an observer.
This form includes the Lorentz contraction thus all such fields have
the proper profile wrt the observer. But, as seen from the title of
the posting it was a question, not a declaration. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dono.... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 18, 9:40 am, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 18, 7:26 am, "Dono." <sa... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:10 pm, Sam <shay... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, that is incorrect. In the continuity equation for a
compressible fluid, rho must be inside the Div operator. Sheesh.....
PaulStoweis a well-known imbecile whose fumbles have made Dirk's
list repeatedly. See here for another one of his "pearls":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thr...
Ironic really... I was asking a question. One based on this
expression,
Del'^2f - (1/c^2)(d^2f/dt^2) - (2zg/c)(d^2f/dtdx') = 0
[/quote]
The math you wrote shows your imbecility. You posted the same idiocy
in another forum, this shows that you are not only an imbecile but a
persistent imbecile. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Nov 15, 9:33 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Nov 11, 3:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:42 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
[pruning]
I was never presented with statements I did not find acceptable.
Relativity was not on the A-Level syllabus in the 1960's.
The discussion is quite specifically regarding relativity.
Ah, so you were never taught relativity. What you were taught were
only those things you found intuitive? And therefore you have in your
mind that science should appeal to the same intuition if it is to be
considered right?
Not at all. I am quite happy to accept that the oak desk in front of me
is made of atoms and that an atom is mainly empty space. That is hardly
intuitive. I am for example quite happy to accept that force *may* act
naturally at-a-distance and may requires neither a medium (aether) to
transfer the force nor "force carriers" - something Physics has had
problems dealing with. The problem with relativity is that there is no
logic behind it.
I have no idea what you mean by "logic".
There is nothing illogical about physics. Illogicality would imply
that there are conclusions that do not follow from the premises,
I think you should learn to distinguish between what is mathematically
logical and what is physically logical. Unless your starting premise has
itself a contradiction mathematical logic simply means not making a
mathematical error.
Physically logical works like this. The premise that the speed of light
is naturally constant w.r.t the observer observing it is illogical as it
involves only the observer and the light and it is physically illogical
that the observer controls the transfer of light as it is contrary to
our understanding of the physical nature of light.
Sorry, but you're going to have to clarify again what "physical logic"
means in general.
[/quote]
Why? I have demonstrated that physical logic exists
[quote]What you've done is cite an example as an attempt to define,
[/quote]
I was not trying to define merely to demonstrate its existence.
[quote]which is
like trying to define a mammal by citing a cat.
[/quote]
Citing a cat demonstrates that mammals do exist. To define you start
with examples. When you have sufficient examples you look for common
features and then you are able to define.
[quote]Secondly, all you've done is make a number of incorrect associations
to try to explain what is illogical about it.
You say that the implication is that the observer controls the
transfer of light.
[/quote]
What else is there to control the speed of light? You only have the
source, the observer and the space in between. You claim it isn't source
dependent. You claim that the space in between contains no aether so it
doesn't control the speed of light - that leaves the observer. BTW don't
bring FoR into it - they do not physically exist.
[quote]This is no more correct than saying that the observer controls the
amount of kinetic energy an object contains,
[/quote]
Daft argument - An object does not contain kinetic energy. As I have
pointed out before.
[quote]even if the observer has
no physical contact with the object, as evidenced by the astounding
claim that the kinetic energy of an object depends on the observer.
You see? There are as many incorrect associations in both statements.
Third, you imply that the speed of light would NOT be constant w.r.t.
the observer if the observer did not control the transfer of light,
but you failed to explain what you think the speed of light WOULD be
in that case AND WHY.
[/quote]
If light is particulate and if space is empty of anything which can
influence the speed of light then light speed will be the result of the
physical process generating the light and light will have a constant
speed w.r.t the source.
If the space in between contains some substance capable of controlling
the speed of light i.e. aether then the speed of light will be constant
w.r.t the aether.
If the source does not control the speed of light and the space in
between does not control the speed of light then it must be the observer
who controls the speed of light as there is nothing else which can but
this is inconsistent with our understanding of the nature of light
(energy which leaves the source and travels to its destination) and of
the nature of observation.
If the speed of light IS constant w.r.t the observer and it is not the
observer which is controlling it then either the source, or the space in
between controls the speed of light. If the source controls the speed of
light it is hard to see how it does so such as to make it appear
constant w.r.t the observer. Lorentz did explain how the aether could
control the speed of light and make it appear to the observer that it is
always constant. If the speed of light is indeed constant w.r.t the
observer then this appears to be the only explanation we have - Or it
could be fairies  )
[quote]It's going to be really important for you to
justify whatever assumption you make about what that speed of light
would be if uncontrolled by the observer.
[/quote]
What speed do you say light travels at which is not observed by anyone?
[quote]If you are a mathematician one may start from a premise which has no
physical significance or one can start from a premise which has physical
significance without caring how it comes about. A *scientist* requires
that logical steps be established between our physical knowledge of
light
That depends on what you think the physical knowledge IS about light.
Be sure you distinguish this from what may have been THOUGHT was true
about light at one point. Keep in mind that whatever is considered to
be a model of any phenomenon is a GUESS about how that phenomenon
works and is in now way a guarantee that it is fundamentally sound and
correct. This is ESPECIALLY true of what was thought about light at
the end of the 19th century.
[/quote]
A very early theory of light was that to "see" something leaves the eye
and fetches the image. With such a theory it might be feasible for the
observer to control the process. My argument above merely depends on the
assumption that a flash of light is energy localised in space which
travels from the source to its destination.
[quote]
and what the observer observes. Modern Physics does not do that so
is not a science merely as a branch of mathematics.
In an earlier thread you issued a challenge. You said "Models ARE
explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from an
explanation? Be as precise as you can."
I replied
"If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware
of the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an *explanation*
of why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the
moon."
"I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route."
You challenged me; I responded; you failed to acknowledge it.
Do you now understand?
Sorry, again you've attempted to make a definition of a mammal by
citing a cat.
[/quote]
Your statement "Models ARE explanations" is the equivalent of stating
there is no such thing as a mammal - I have shown you a dog and a cat. I
do not claim that I have defined what a mammal is only that mammals
exist when you said they didn't. I have demonstrated that Explanations
do exist separate from a model thus disproving your statement.
[quote]Let's have a general rule that distinguishes a model
from a physical explanation.
[/quote]
[quote]or
that there are two obviously contradictory statements made by the same
theory. Neither of these is the case. If this doesn't match what you
think "logic" means, then perhaps you should clarify -- or ask a
logician.
As Dingle put it Mathematics should be a tool of physics and has become
master. If my change of speed must be preceded a year earlier by a
change in the wavelength generated by the source that is not
mathematically illogical. Maths does not care whether time goes
backwards or forwards nor does it care whether a change in wavelength at
the source *caused* me to change my speed one year later - the equations
are perfectly happy - the predictions are accurate.
The problem is that mathematics has taken over. At this really simple
level it is still possible to temper maths with physical reality and
realise that something is wrong but only a tiny fraction of modern
mathematically oriented physics comes into this "really simple"
category. Your immediate reaction to being shown that something is wrong
is to try and express it in terms of more sophisticated maths so that
the problem is no longer apparent.
Q - What causes time to dilate?
A - It must do to get the answer we want.
Q - Yes but what causes it?
A - I'm sorry I don't understand the question. Come here and I'll show
you the maths.
Then, yes, you were taught poorly.
You see? You were taught poorly. It is quite straightforward to show
how, starting with the premises of special relativity (which can
either be the structure of spacetime or the two postulates that
Einstein used and which follow from the structure of spacetime), then
relativity of simultaneity necessarily follows. Then it is fairly
straightforward from the *definition* of measured length and the
relativity of simultaneity, that length is necessarily frame-
dependent. Then it is fairly straightforward from the *definition* of
measured duration and the frame-dependence of length (or from
relativity of simultaneity) that duration is also frame-dependent.
Thus, the structure of spacetime can be shown, in a number of pages,
to be the direct cause of time dilation. I actually went through this
with Marcel Luttgens in a long, long thread some months ago -- I'm
sure you can find it.
Now, it appears that you find following a chain of steps to be
difficult
Why do you say that? Can you not discuss without continuous "put downs"?
Please don't consider *corrections* to be put-downs.
[/quote]
It was not a "correction". "....it appears that you find following a
chain of steps to be difficult". 'It appears' from what exactly? Please
be as precise as you can. I have never argued that things do not follow
from the postulates. I would argue that time does not dilate because
Einstein postulated X and Y.
[quote]If you consider a
correction a put-down every time one is delivered to you, you will
find that learning anything becomes impossible.
[/quote]
Prove it was a correction and I will withdraw my comment. If on
inspection you find that it was not a correction then apologise.
[quote]
Do you have a problem with your status? Do you see me as a threat to
your status? The one thing I have learned in life is that I, and no one
else am responsible for my views and opinions. If you have something to
say I will consider it but I do not seek your approval neither am in any
way affected by your disapproval.
In answer to your question - If I am going to follow a set of steps then
not only must one step follow from the last the starting point must be
justified.
Interestingly, this is NOT true in science. That is the point of
inferential investigation. One infers a proposition by whatever means
are available, including intuition and hunch, and then one finds
necessary and testable consequences of that inferred proposition. It
is only through the testing of those consequences that the validity of
the inferred proposition is accrued. Note that at NO point is the
inferred proposition -- your "starting point" -- put to the test of
direct justification by deduction from prior statements, nor even by
direct experimental proof.
If you do not care for this style of thinking, then I'm afraid you are
going to be disappointed with science ever since the days of Galileo.
Where you get to logically follows from where you start.
Again we need to know whether we are talking about being physically
logical steps or merely mathematically logical steps. You do not seem to
understand the difference.
and you'd like to have a *direct* explanation of why time
dilates in terms of some particulate substrate.
Yes - Otherwise you are left with
Q - why is measurement transformed according to the LTs?
A - LOGICALLY it must be if the postulate is true
Q - What makes you think the postulate is true.
A - LOGICALLY it must be because measurements are transformed according
to the LTs
No, this is not why we think the postulate is true. We think it is
true because the necessary and testable consequences of those
postulates match experimental measurement.
[/quote]
How does that statement in any way differ from mine:
"LOGICALLY it must be [true] because measurements are transformed
according to the LTs.
[quote]If you do not understand that, then you do not understand the
scientific method.
[/quote]
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 18, 9:10 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:33 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Nov 11, 3:30 pm, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:42 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
[pruning]
I was never presented with statements I did not find acceptable.
Relativity was not on the A-Level syllabus in the 1960's.
The discussion is quite specifically regarding relativity.
Ah, so you were never taught relativity. What you were taught were
only those things you found intuitive? And therefore you have in your
mind that science should appeal to the same intuition if it is to be
considered right?
Not at all. I am quite happy to accept that the oak desk in front of me
is made of atoms and that an atom is mainly empty space. That is hardly
intuitive. I am for example quite happy to accept that force *may* act
naturally at-a-distance and may requires neither a medium (aether) to
transfer the force nor "force carriers" - something Physics has had
problems dealing with. The problem with relativity is that there is no
logic behind it.
I have no idea what you mean by "logic".
There is nothing illogical about physics. Illogicality would imply
that there are conclusions that do not follow from the premises,
I think you should learn to distinguish between what is mathematically
logical and what is physically logical. Unless your starting premise has
itself a contradiction mathematical logic simply means not making a
mathematical error.
Physically logical works like this. The premise that the speed of light
is naturally constant w.r.t the observer observing it is illogical as it
involves only the observer and the light and it is physically illogical
that the observer controls the transfer of light as it is contrary to
our understanding of the physical nature of light.
Sorry, but you're going to have to clarify again what "physical logic"
means in general.
Why? I have demonstrated that physical logic exists
[/quote]
? You haven't demonstrated that anything exists without first defining
what the term means.
You can point to a cat and say it exists, but this doesn't help define
what a mammal is.
[quote]
What you've done is cite an example as an attempt to define,
I was not trying to define merely to demonstrate its existence.
[/quote]
Demonstrate that WHAT exists? Define the term you are using.
Second, please tell me what a demonstration of existence of some form
of logic would prove?
[quote]
which is
like trying to define a mammal by citing a cat.
Citing a cat demonstrates that mammals do exist.
[/quote]
Not until "mammal" is defined. Until then, all it demonstrates is that
you can attach a 6-letter label to a cat.
[quote]To define you start
with examples.
[/quote]
START. Now tell me what the definition is, because a cat does not
define what a mammal is.
[quote]When you have sufficient examples you look for common
features and then you are able to define.
Secondly, all you've done is make a number of incorrect associations
to try to explain what is illogical about it.
You say that the implication is that the observer controls the
transfer of light.
What else is there to control the speed of light? You only have the
source, the observer and the space in between.
[/quote]
That simply is not the case! Consider the property of an object being
stationary or not.
It is stationary for one observer, and it is not stationary for
another -- and this is true at the SAME TIME. It makes NO sense to
claim that the state of stationariness is controlled by the object, or
by the observer, or the space in between. It is simply a property that
is frame-dependent, and this does NOT imply that something is
controlling that property, changing that property, or producing an
illusion about that property.
There are simply some properties that are not innate to the object,
and which are frame-dependent.
Your insistence that SOMETHING MUST BE controlling the speed of light
and it can only be one of three things, is the erroneous assumption.
[quote]You claim it isn't source
dependent. You claim that the space in between contains no aether so it
doesn't control the speed of light - that leaves the observer. BTW don't
bring FoR into it - they do not physically exist.
This is no more correct than saying that the observer controls the
amount of kinetic energy an object contains,
Daft argument - An object does not contain kinetic energy. As I have
pointed out before.
[/quote]
That's right. But a single object with respect to a particular
reference frame DOES. The kinetic energy of gases *counts* on this.
If you do not understand that a system with a SINGLE object can have a
kinetic energy with respect to a particular reference frame, then you
have problems with CLASSICAL physics, not with relativity.
[quote]
even if the observer has
no physical contact with the object, as evidenced by the astounding
claim that the kinetic energy of an object depends on the observer.
You see? There are as many incorrect associations in both statements.
Third, you imply that the speed of light would NOT be constant w.r.t.
the observer if the observer did not control the transfer of light,
but you failed to explain what you think the speed of light WOULD be
in that case AND WHY.
If light is particulate and if space is empty of anything which can
influence the speed of light then light speed will be the result of the
physical process generating the light and light will have a constant
speed w.r.t the source.
[/quote]
WHY? What about the physical process of light creation determines the
speed of launch of the light from the source? Please be REALLY careful
about answering this. It is not enough to just say, "Well, it's gotta
be."
But you did not yet answer the question. What would you expect the
speed of light with respect to the *observer* to be, if this were the
case, and WHY do you expect that? Please be REALLY careful about
answering this one too, as it is central.
[quote]
If the space in between contains some substance capable of controlling
the speed of light i.e. aether then the speed of light will be constant
w.r.t the aether.
[/quote]
Same questions as above.
[quote]
If the source does not control the speed of light and the space in
between does not control the speed of light then it must be the observer
who controls the speed of light
[/quote]
What if NONE of these is CONTROLLING the speed of light? Remember, in
hyperbolic, flat spacetime, there is a NATURAL limit on the speed of a
causal signal, without need of an external physical agent that limits
it. That requirement would ONLY arise in a Euclidean flat space.
[quote]as there is nothing else which can but
this is inconsistent with our understanding of the nature of light
(energy which leaves the source and travels to its destination) and of
the nature of observation.
If the speed of light IS constant w.r.t the observer and it is not the
observer which is controlling it then either the source, or the space in
between controls the speed of light. If the source controls the speed of
light it is hard to see how it does so such as to make it appear
constant w.r.t the observer. Lorentz did explain how the aether could
control the speed of light and make it appear to the observer that it is
always constant. If the speed of light is indeed constant w.r.t the
observer then this appears to be the only explanation we have - Or it
could be fairies )
[/quote]
Let's look at a simple, classical case, and ask the same questions you
are asking. Keep in mind that this ballistic example is not an exact
analog as light, but the *questions* one would ask are similar.
There is a gun that fires a bullet.
There are two observers that measure the speed of the bullet as it
goes by, and the two observers compare notes and one observer has
written down a value that is twice (2v) what the other observer has
written down (v).
Now, let's ask similar questions:
1. How did the gun know to fire the bullet so to give it velocity v
for one observer and velocity 2v for another observer? After all, the
gun may have ceased to exist before the bullet even passed by the
observers.
2. If not the gun that set this, then what did the observers do to the
bullet to change its velocity from v to 2v? Or, wait, maybe it was 2v
to v? In either case, the observers had no physical interaction with
the bullet at all, and in fact, the results are unchanged independent
of which observer measured first, so they couldn't have *changed*
anything about the bullet.
3. So if not the gun and not the observer that is changing the
velocity of the bullet, then what was it about the intervening space
that set it to be v for one observer and 2v for another observer,
especially if the space is taken to be empty. And why does it not
matter how close one observer is to the other at the time of
measurement, so that the transition is arbitrarily short?
Once you see how ridiculous and MEANINGLESS those questions are for
the bullet, you'll begin to understand why they are also MEANINGLESS
for light.
Then you can ask yourself, as I have, what you would expect for how
the speed of light would depend on the observer IF it depended on the
source or IF it depended on the intervening space. And I will ask you
again WHY you expect the speed of light to have that value.
[quote]
It's going to be really important for you to
justify whatever assumption you make about what that speed of light
would be if uncontrolled by the observer.
What speed do you say light travels at which is not observed by anyone?
[/quote]
c, in any reference frame, whether there is an observation made or
not. Or in fact, whether two different observations are made AT THE
SAME TIME from different reference frames. In the latter case, why do
you think it would HAVE to be different than c for at least one of
them?
[quote]
If you are a mathematician one may start from a premise which has no
physical significance or one can start from a premise which has physical
significance without caring how it comes about. A *scientist* requires
that logical steps be established between our physical knowledge of
light
That depends on what you think the physical knowledge IS about light.
Be sure you distinguish this from what may have been THOUGHT was true
about light at one point. Keep in mind that whatever is considered to
be a model of any phenomenon is a GUESS about how that phenomenon
works and is in now way a guarantee that it is fundamentally sound and
correct. This is ESPECIALLY true of what was thought about light at
the end of the 19th century.
A very early theory of light was that to "see" something leaves the eye
and fetches the image. With such a theory it might be feasible for the
observer to control the process. My argument above merely depends on the
assumption that a flash of light is energy localised in space which
travels from the source to its destination.
[/quote]
That doesn't answer my question about what you think is our physical
knowledge about light.
[quote]
and what the observer observes. Modern Physics does not do that so
is not a science merely as a branch of mathematics.
In an earlier thread you issued a challenge. You said "Models ARE
explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from an
explanation? Be as precise as you can."
I replied
"If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware
of the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an *explanation*
of why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the
moon."
"I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route."
You challenged me; I responded; you failed to acknowledge it.
Do you now understand?
Sorry, again you've attempted to make a definition of a mammal by
citing a cat.
Your statement "Models ARE explanations" is the equivalent of stating
there is no such thing as a mammal - I have shown you a dog and a cat.
[/quote]
And attached a 6-letter label to both, without definition of the
label.
I can point to you and to Paul Stowe and announce that you are both
Telezians. It is a meaningless statement.
[quote]I
do not claim that I have defined what a mammal is only that mammals
exist when you said they didn't. I have demonstrated that Explanations
do exist separate from a model thus disproving your statement.
[/quote]
What???
Define what a "physical explanation" is.
Or may I now claim that Telezians exist by virtue of having labeled
both you and Paul Stowe by that term?
[quote]
Let's have a general rule that distinguishes a model
from a physical explanation.
or
that there are two obviously contradictory statements made by the same
theory. Neither of these is the case. If this doesn't match what you
think "logic" means, then perhaps you should clarify -- or ask a
logician.
As Dingle put it Mathematics should be a tool of physics and has become
master. If my change of speed must be preceded a year earlier by a
change in the wavelength generated by the source that is not
mathematically illogical. Maths does not care whether time goes
backwards or forwards nor does it care whether a change in wavelength at
the source *caused* me to change my speed one year later - the equations
are perfectly happy - the predictions are accurate.
The problem is that mathematics has taken over. At this really simple
level it is still possible to temper maths with physical reality and
realise that something is wrong but only a tiny fraction of modern
mathematically oriented physics comes into this "really simple"
category. Your immediate reaction to being shown that something is wrong
is to try and express it in terms of more sophisticated maths so that
the problem is no longer apparent.
Q - What causes time to dilate?
A - It must do to get the answer we want.
Q - Yes but what causes it?
A - I'm sorry I don't understand the question. Come here and I'll show
you the maths.
Then, yes, you were taught poorly.
You see? You were taught poorly. It is quite straightforward to show
how, starting with the premises of special relativity (which can
either be the structure of spacetime or the two postulates that
Einstein used and which follow from the structure of spacetime), then
relativity of simultaneity necessarily follows. Then it is fairly
straightforward from the *definition* of measured length and the
relativity of simultaneity, that length is necessarily frame-
dependent. Then it is fairly straightforward from the *definition* of
measured duration and the frame-dependence of length (or from
relativity of simultaneity) that duration is also frame-dependent.
Thus, the structure of spacetime can be shown, in a number of pages,
to be the direct cause of time dilation. I actually went through this
with Marcel Luttgens in a long, long thread some months ago -- I'm
sure you can find it.
Now, it appears that you find following a chain of steps to be
difficult
Why do you say that? Can you not discuss without continuous "put downs"?
Please don't consider *corrections* to be put-downs.
It was not a "correction". "....it appears that you find following a
chain of steps to be difficult". 'It appears' from what exactly? Please
be as precise as you can. I have never argued that things do not follow
from the postulates. I would argue that time does not dilate because
Einstein postulated X and Y.
[/quote]
Have you looked up the presentation given to Marcel on this newsgroup?
Have you found a more recent book on it that presents the linear
argument I outlined?
[quote]
If you consider a
correction a put-down every time one is delivered to you, you will
find that learning anything becomes impossible.
Prove it was a correction and I will withdraw my comment. If on
inspection you find that it was not a correction then apologise.
[/quote]
Prove that you have read and understood the linear presentation given
here and elsewhere, and I will.
[quote]
Do you have a problem with your status? Do you see me as a threat to
your status? The one thing I have learned in life is that I, and no one
else am responsible for my views and opinions. If you have something to
say I will consider it but I do not seek your approval neither am in any
way affected by your disapproval.
In answer to your question - If I am going to follow a set of steps then
not only must one step follow from the last the starting point must be
justified.
Interestingly, this is NOT true in science. That is the point of
inferential investigation. One infers a proposition by whatever means
are available, including intuition and hunch, and then one finds
necessary and testable consequences of that inferred proposition. It
is only through the testing of those consequences that the validity of
the inferred proposition is accrued. Note that at NO point is the
inferred proposition -- your "starting point" -- put to the test of
direct justification by deduction from prior statements, nor even by
direct experimental proof.
If you do not care for this style of thinking, then I'm afraid you are
going to be disappointed with science ever since the days of Galileo.
Where you get to logically follows from where you start.
Again we need to know whether we are talking about being physically
logical steps or merely mathematically logical steps. You do not seem to
understand the difference.
and you'd like to have a *direct* explanation of why time
dilates in terms of some particulate substrate.
Yes - Otherwise you are left with
Q - why is measurement transformed according to the LTs?
A - LOGICALLY it must be if the postulate is true
Q - What makes you think the postulate is true.
A - LOGICALLY it must be because measurements are transformed according
to the LTs
No, this is not why we think the postulate is true. We think it is
true because the necessary and testable consequences of those
postulates match experimental measurement.
How does that statement in any way differ from mine:
"LOGICALLY it must be [true] because measurements are transformed
according to the LTs.
[/quote]
No. Measurements are NOT transformed. Measurements are TAKEN. The
predictions of what those values will BE when TAKEN may involve the
Lorentz transforms.
[quote]
If you do not understand that, then you do not understand the
scientific method.
--
John Kennaugh[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 18, 10:41 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:21 am, maxwell <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote:
John, I really enjoy your insights but trying to persuade a
brainwashed follower of the current physics establishment, like PD, is
a complete waste of your time. It's like trying to persuade a Catholic
priest that his theology is fundamentally flawed - it's impossible
since he's been indoctrinated from the age of five. Hopefully, after
many years, people will just stop believing in this nonsense.
What's nonsensical about it?
What do you think are the INDISPENSIBLE elements of a physical theory,
and why do you insist that they are indispensible?
[/quote]
Do you intend to answer the question?
[quote]
--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
[/quote]
Is this intended to be an answer? What do you think the indispensible
and universal attributes of a "physical reality" are? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Nov 15, 7:33Â am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
7/ that there was an alternate simpler theory more consistent with light
of a particulate nature, easier to reconcile with the PoR which was
simply ignored despite not having been satisfactorily disproved. That in
fact the history of physics shows a totally lack of objectivity on the
part of physicists which lasted over 6 decades. As an educator the
existence of Ritz's theory would be an embarrassment because having to
teach  that the aether does not exist and that light is particulate will
suggest to the bright student that Newton's corpuscular theory is
vindicated by experiment. Once a student finds that there was no
experimental evidence ruling it out and that an eminent physicist had
indeed put forward such a theory then you as an educator are in trouble.
The student would want to know what happened to the theory and why it
was abandoned. "Ritz died and the theory was simply ignored for no good
reason" does not fit with the 'objective' image of physics you are
trying to portray. The image is therefore a sanitized one. IT DOESN'T
MATTER is an admission that physics got where it is for all the wrong
reasons and I believe that anyone intending to base their life around
physics should be made aware of that.
I am confused by your reference to Ritz. This model is proven to be
falsified by direct observation.
[/quote]
According to Fox none of the experiments prior to 1964 actually stood up
to close scrutiny. Physicists had been a bit too eager to dismiss a
theory they didn't want anything to do with anyway. Even if your
statement is now correct "Ritz died and the theory was simply ignored
for no good reason" is a valid statement and an indictment of physics as
an objective science over a period of nearly 60 years.
If you take a modern theory, BB for example and its prediction fails it
is not abandoned. Essentially its champions try to find a way to make it
work and invent dark energy and dark matter. A theory is not abandoned
simply because it is falsified, only if those who champion it cannot
find an explanation which explains the experimental results.
The problem with emission type theories is that they have never had a
champion and for that reason cannot be considered disproved. The only
serious attempt to update the emission theory was Waldron's Ballistic
theory which was based on the known experimental evidence available at
that time. Can he be counted as a serious champion? - He wasn't a
physicist and he was ignored anyway.
In a sense the emission theory has never been disproved because there
isn't one. Waldron's paper "The electrodynamics of Ritz" states "If more
experimental evidence had been available to Ritz, he might have
formulated a theory of a similar type but different in detail" He points
out that Ritz theory is wrong in many respects. Ritz theory itself
cannot be taken seriously. Waldron's theory was a better match with
experiment but no one tries to disprove either theory. Experiments
disprove what the experimenter thinks an emission theory would say.
There exist no emission theory champions to either pick holes in such
experiments or devise experiments to disprove relativity.
As Beckman and Mandics put it The possibility exists that the Lorentz
transforms are simply equivalence formula distorting time and space so
as to give the correct answer from a wrong theory - as per the
geocentric theory. The fact that SR/Lorentz gives the correct answer in
many cases proves nothing unless it can be shown that emission theory
predicts something different. Most relativists have no idea how many
things - including instances of "time dilation" are predicted equally by
both theories:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thr
ead/10780cf53003ee23?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Does+SR+transform+to+Ballistic+theo
ry1
[quote]Both by measured time dilation,
[/quote]
Both the Beckman and Mandics experiment and GPS time correction are
explained by Waldron's theory.
[quote]Sagnac, and long range observation.
It is also in conflict with
Einstein's second postulate which is founded upon well understood
behavior of discrete media...
[/quote]
???? If the MMX was the only challenge to Maxwell's wave in aether
theory then Lorentz solved that problem - but it wasn't. Light is
particulate. The continuous fields in a continuous aether do not exist.
Why should one still expect the aether to prevent the source's speed
affecting the speed of the light particles it emits?
[quote]This is described well in the section
titled Emission Theory of Wiki's MMX entry,
"Walter Ritz's emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also
consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring
aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same
velocity in respect to the source.[6] However it also led to
several "obvious" optical effects that were not seen in
astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary
stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured
in an interferometer. If this was correct, the light from the
stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the
stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no
such effect could be seen.
The Sagnac experiment placed a modified apparatus on a
constantly rotating turntable; the main modification was that
the light trajectory encloses an area. In doing so any
ballistic theories such as Ritz's could be tested directly,
as the light going one way around the device would have a
different length to travel than light going the other way (the
eyepiece and mirrors would be moving toward/away from the light).
In Ritz's theory there would be no shift, because the net
velocity between the light source and detector was zero (they
were both mounted on the turntable). However in this case an
effect was seen, thereby eliminating any simple ballistic theory.
This fringe-shift effect is used today in laser gyroscopes"
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment#Emission_theory.
A highly superficial description if I may say so. The Double star[/quote]
evidence is now largely discredited. Some double star phenomena are
better explained by emission theory some by SR it is certainly not a a
totally one horse race despite 99.9% championing one theory and 0.1%
championing the other.
Ritz theory disproved - big deal it is 100 years old has had no
development and no champions. It does not mean the basic idea isn't
viable. Who knows if nobody tries. Who wants to ruin his career by even
suggesting the subject interests him?
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 18, 10:15 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]
Ritz theory disproved - big deal it is 100 years old has had no
development and no champions. It does not mean the basic idea isn't
viable. Who knows if nobody tries. Who wants to ruin his career by even
suggesting the subject interests him?
[/quote]
This is telling.
You are suggesting the very antithesis of what you argue about
relativity.
You are insisting that evidence that is not clearly predicted by
relativity (such as Pioneer data) should immediately spell the doom of
relativity and then whine that it has not been dropped like a hot
rock. But then you acknowledge that the Ritz theory has been disproven
but say that should be overlooked and the theory nevertheless be
pursued to see if it can be modified or saved in some other way.
The reason why there is so little work being done on Ritz theory
today, after 100 years, is that the trailing end of that work was done
90 years ago. Since that time, people have recognized that it does not
have enough promise to warrant further work. On the other hand, people
HAVE made the judgment that relativity is still viable enough to
warrant further work, despite some *recent* curiosities.
This is a judgment call that is based on familiarity with *both*
theories.
If you disagree with that judgment, John, you ALWAYS have the option
of picking up the work of Ritz where it was last left off and seeing
where it takes you. This would mean you'd have to get familiar with a
few things first, but that shouldn't be an impediment.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 18, 10:15 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]
Ritz theory disproved - big deal it is 100 years old has had no
development and no champions. It does not mean the basic idea isn't
viable. Who knows if nobody tries. Who wants to ruin his career by even
suggesting the subject interests him?
[/quote]
This is telling.
You are suggesting the very antithesis of what you argue about
relativity.
You are insisting that evidence that is not clearly predicted by
relativity (such as Pioneer data) should immediately spell the doom of
relativity and then whine that it has not been dropped like a hot
rock. But then you acknowledge that the Ritz theory has been disproven
but say that should be overlooked and the theory nevertheless be
pursued to see if it can be modified or saved in some other way.
The reason why there is so little work being done on Ritz theory
today, after 100 years, is that the trailing end of that work was done
90 years ago. Since that time, people have recognized that it does not
have enough promise to warrant further work. On the other hand, people
HAVE made the judgment that relativity is still viable enough to
warrant further work, despite some *recent* curiosities.
This is a judgment call that is based on familiarity with *both*
theories.
If you disagree with that judgment, John, you ALWAYS have the option
of picking up the work of Ritz where it was last left off and seeing
where it takes you. This would mean you'd have to get familiar with a
few things first, but that shouldn't be an impediment.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
maxwell wrote:
[quote]On Nov 16, 6:43 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:19 pm, maxwell <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:33 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
...
If you are a mathematician one may start from a premise which has no
physical significance or one can start from a premise which has physical
significance without caring how it comes about. A *scientist* requires
that logical steps be established between our physical knowledge of
light and what the observer observes. Modern Physics does not do that so
is not a science merely as a branch of mathematics.
...
The above (give or take the odd bit of cynicism) is a completely
accurate summery of history and the logical development of
Lorentz/Maxwell's aether theory is totally transparent as it follows
directly from knowledge gained from experiment. What is obscure is
exactly what Einstein is supposed to have achieved or why, and why a
highly promising alternative approach was simply ignored. It would
appear that the answer to the former is a take over of physics by
mathematicians who did not want to be constrained by the real physical
universe (physical logic) and the answer to the second is simply human
nature - showing the lie to everything which you claim physics to be.
Physics it seems would rather add layers of complication than admit it
is wrong.
...
What conspiracy? I see nothing but human nature and self interest. You
are a salesman trying to sell a product using all the techniques which
have been developed to ease that process. The techniques are second
nature to you and you are perhaps not even aware you are using them. In
fact (really scary thought) it is possible that you were sold the
product by someone using the same techniques and that you genuinely
haven't seen them for what they are.
...
Your job is that of a salesman. In order for your students to complete
their course you have to sell a very silly theory to them, based as it
is on the postulate which describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
the aether would observe without explaining how nature allows every
observer to be simultaneously stationary with an aether. You have then
to say that there is no aether and it is just natural that the speed of
light is constant w.r.t the observer observing it. It is one hell of a
thing to have to sell. You need all the help you can get from your text
book even to the inclusion of semantic slight of hand. Personally I'd
rather try and sell sand to the Arabs.
Excellent history lesson, John but this, like all references to
reality, will be lost on mathematicians (who, as you say, have
hijacked theoretical physics). One of the key tests I now apply when
reviewing theoretical papers in physics, is to try to find the
PHYSICAL hypothesis that the author is exploring. If there is none,
then I don't bother reading further as the author is not doing physics
but applied mathematics, where anything that can be imagined is
allowed. Before The Hijack (i.e. prior to 1900) physicists were well
read, knew the history of their subject and the philosophical
distinctions between the various intellectual pursuits of Academe.
Their approach was grounded in the assumption that there was such a
thing as REALITY which contains examples of real objects (ENTITIES).
These entities were considered to interact & produce observable
results. This approach was called Natural Philosophy (as in Newton's
masterpiece: The Mathematical Principles OF Natural Philosophy).
You'll notice that Newton derived *mathematically* the universal law
of gravitation, but had no accounting (and offered none) for WHY
massive objects would reach across the void to interact in the way
that they do. There is much talk about Einstein's snippet about
relativity offering "no specific hypothesis" but somehow it is missed
that Newton said basically the same thing.
Although the Giants used math (as Dingle observed, it was ONE TOOL,
not the foundation) physics was NOT just the mathematical imaginations
of Plato's Children. Mathematicians do not search for explanations;
their equations are an end in themselves - the fact that the resulting
symbols can be given ANY interpretation they like is just a bonus for
them. The discovery by experimental physicists that nature was
DISCRETE was a terrible shock to these mathematicians in physics who
have absorbed their (CONTINUOUS) differential equations at their
professor's knee and could never dream of mapping the world with any
other mathematical tool. The last 100 years in theoretical physics is
the reality check that these mathematicians have failed - their demise
is imminent and well-earned.
The difference was that Newton proposed that the mutual attraction of
matter (called 'gravitation') was an inherent PHYSICAL PROPERTY of the
real entities known as mass particles - he THEN developed a
phenomenological DESCRIPTION of their relative motion as a consequence
(CAUSALITY) of this universal property.
In contrast, Einstein ASSUMED the validity of Maxwell's theory of the
EM aether (Maxwell's basic physical entity) & then discarded the
physical basis of this theory. Further, he adopted the radar method
for DEFINING the time of reflection at a distant charge (which was
valid when there was no relative motion between the local and remote
charges, as Lorentz had suggested for synchronizing railway clocks)
and extended this idea, WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, to situations when both
charges are in relative (straight-line) motion, as Androcles keeps
telling everyone (but few seem to understand what he's saying).
[/quote]
I have tried to understand Androcle's point - probably my fault - would
you care to try explaining it to me. Surely it follows from the second
postulate.
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 18, 9:10 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:33 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
What else is there to control the speed of light? You only have the
source, the observer and the space in between. You claim it isn't source
dependent. You claim that the space in between contains no aether so it
doesn't control the speed of light - that leaves the observer. BTW don't
bring FoR into it - they do not physically exist.
This is no more correct than saying that the observer controls the
amount of kinetic energy an object contains,
Daft argument - An object does not contain kinetic energy. As I have
pointed out before.
[/quote]
This is where I believe you have a fundamental issue, though I can't
put my finger quite on what it is.
It appears that you believe that physical properties can only be of
two sorts:
1. Innate to an object, in which case it has a single, true, frame-
independent quantity. For these, any frame dependence must be an
illusion of some sort, or an artifact of measurement.
2. Innate to a *pair* of objects, in which case it has a single, true,
frame-independent quantity. For these, any frame dependence must be
the result of a misattribution of the *relational* quantity to a
single object.
This, however, is not what physics says (or observes) or has said (or
observed) for the last 400 years.
There are true, real, physical properties of a closed system, where
the property either applies to the single system or where the system
contains a single object, that are nevertheless frame-dependent. This
is true both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Galileo noted that the property of "stationary" or "moving", which is
as elemental as it gets in physics, is one of those properties. So is
the *shape* of the trajectory of a falling body (straight-line vs
parabolic, for example).
Newton and followers noted that this was also true for velocity,
momentum, kinetic energy, and the like, though they thought that this
was not true for length, duration, temperature, electric field, and
others. What was discovered later was that it was in fact true for
electric and magnetic fields, and length, duration, temperature, QED
coupling constant, and a sample of other properties. However, it
appears that there are still some *other* properties that are frame-
independent, like momenergy, interval, baryon number, and others.
That there simply ARE real, physical properties that are frame-
dependent are a fact of life.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Nov 12, 10:21 am, maxwell <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote:
John, I really enjoy your insights but trying to persuade a
brainwashed follower of the current physics establishment, like PD, is
a complete waste of your time. It's like trying to persuade a Catholic
priest that his theology is fundamentally flawed - it's impossible
since he's been indoctrinated from the age of five. Hopefully, after
many years, people will just stop believing in this nonsense.
What's nonsensical about it?
What do you think are the INDISPENSIBLE elements of a physical theory,
and why do you insist that they are indispensible?
[/quote]
--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 18, 8:15 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]PaulStowewrote:
On Nov 15, 7:33 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
7/ that there was an alternate simpler theory more consistent with light
of a particulate nature, easier to reconcile with the PoR which was
simply ignored despite not having been satisfactorily disproved. That in
fact the history of physics shows a totally lack of objectivity on the
part of physicists which lasted over 6 decades. As an educator the
existence of Ritz's theory would be an embarrassment because having to
teach that the aether does not exist and that light is particulate will
suggest to the bright student that Newton's corpuscular theory is
vindicated by experiment. Once a student finds that there was no
experimental evidence ruling it out and that an eminent physicist had
indeed put forward such a theory then you as an educator are in trouble.
The student would want to know what happened to the theory and why it
was abandoned. "Ritz died and the theory was simply ignored for no good
reason" does not fit with the 'objective' image of physics you are
trying to portray. The image is therefore a sanitized one. IT DOESN'T
MATTER is an admission that physics got where it is for all the wrong
reasons and I believe that anyone intending to base their life around
physics should be made aware of that.
I am confused by your reference to Ritz. This model is proven to be
falsified by direct observation.
According to Fox none of the experiments prior to 1964 actually stood up
to close scrutiny. Physicists had been a bit too eager to dismiss a
theory they didn't want anything to do with anyway. Even if your
statement is now correct "Ritz died and the theory was simply ignored
for no good reason" is a valid statement and an indictment of physics as
an objective science over a period of nearly 60 years.
If you take a modern theory, BB for example and its prediction fails it
is not abandoned. Essentially its champions try to find a way to make it
work and invent dark energy and dark matter. A theory is not abandoned
simply because it is falsified, only if those who champion it cannot
find an explanation which explains the experimental results.
[/quote]
I understand that and have been pressing this point home to PD also.
Modernist are extremely selective in deciding that which 'they'
consider evidence. Kuhn hit the nail on the head, basic human
poltical nature. But ballistic theory is fatally flawed. Let's
forget Sagnac and the other things, the very nature of the E-B
relationships and their transverse natures isn't compatible with a
simple ballistic model. The KISS principle appies here. If wave
speed is independent of the speed of the emitter/receiver then saying
the speed of light emitted by someting moving at v is v + c is, by
definition, in confict with the statement. Thus my point about being
in conflict with the second postulate and well known medium behavior.
[quote]The problem with emission type theories is that they have never had a
champion and for that reason cannot be considered disproved. The only
serious attempt to update the emission theory was Waldron's Ballistic
theory which was based on the known experimental evidence available at
that time. Can he be counted as a serious champion? - He wasn't a
physicist and he was ignored anyway.
[/quote]
Probably because a cursory evaluation of the premise (examples given
above) indicates the basic premise is not viable.
[quote]In a sense the emission theory has never been disproved because there
isn't one. Waldron's paper "The electrodynamics of Ritz" states "If more
experimental evidence had been available to Ritz, he might have
formulated a theory of a similar type but different in detail" He points
out that Ritz theory is wrong in many respects. Ritz theory itself
cannot be taken seriously. Waldron's theory was a better match with
experiment but no one tries to disprove either theory. Experiments
disprove what the experimenter thinks an emission theory would say.
There exist no emission theory champions to either pick holes in such
experiments or devise experiments to disprove relativity.
As Beckman and Mandics put it The possibility exists that the Lorentz
transforms are simply equivalence formula distorting time and space so
as to give the correct answer from a wrong theory - as per the
geocentric theory. The fact that SR/Lorentz gives the correct answer in
many cases proves nothing unless it can be shown that emission theory
predicts something different. Most relativists have no idea how many
things - including instances of "time dilation" are predicted equally by
both theories:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/10780cf53003ee23?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Does+SR+transform+to+Ballistic+theory1
Both by measured time dilation,
Both the Beckman and Mandics experiment and GPS time correction are
explained by Waldron's theory.
[/quote]
What about,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives-Stilwell_experiment
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
[quote]Sagnac, and long range observation.
It is also in conflict with
Einstein's second postulate which is founded upon well understood
behavior of discrete media...
???? If the MMX was the only challenge to Maxwell's wave in aether
theory then Lorentz solved that problem - but it wasn't. Light is
particulate. The continuous fields in a continuous aether do not exist.
Why should one still expect the aether to prevent the source's speed
affecting the speed of the light particles it emits?
[/quote]
MMX wasn't a challenge to Maxwell's theory it was expected to help
confirm it.
[quote]This is described well in the section
titled Emission Theory of Wiki's MMX entry,
"Walter Ritz's emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also
consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring
aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same
velocity in respect to the source.[6] However it also led to
several "obvious" optical effects that were not seen in
astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary
stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured
in an interferometer. If this was correct, the light from the
stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the
stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no
such effect could be seen.
The Sagnac experiment placed a modified apparatus on a
constantly rotating turntable; the main modification was that
the light trajectory encloses an area. In doing so any
ballistic theories such as Ritz's could be tested directly,
as the light going one way around the device would have a
different length to travel than light going the other way (the
eyepiece and mirrors would be moving toward/away from the light).
In Ritz's theory there would be no shift, because the net
velocity between the light source and detector was zero (they
were both mounted on the turntable). However in this case an
effect was seen, thereby eliminating any simple ballistic theory.
This fringe-shift effect is used today in laser gyroscopes"
Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment#Emission_theory.
A highly superficial description if I may say so. The Double star
evidence is now largely discredited. Some double star phenomena are
better explained by emission theory some by SR it is certainly not a a
totally one horse race despite 99.9% championing one theory and 0.1%
championing the other.
[/quote]
Except for the niggling problem E-B orientation & nature. I have a
pretty open mind so if you can provide a plausable explanation for
this and other purely wave-like behavior I'll certainly look into it
further.
[quote]Ritz theory disproved - big deal it is 100 years old has had no
development and no champions. It does not mean the basic idea isn't
viable. Who knows if nobody tries. Who wants to ruin his career by even
suggesting the subject interests him?
[/quote]
Why try to invent a complicated explanation when a much simpler one
exists and matches observations?
[quote]--
John Kennaugh[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 8:41 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 16, 9:11 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 3:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 3:59 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Why? That's not a good example. What are good examples are the
Pioneer Effect, Allias Effect, Galactic rotation profiles. Any one
alone would, by strict interpretation of the scientific method
'falsify' a theory that cannot 'predict' them. And here I MEAN P-R-E-
D-I-C-T! not ad hoc post-dictions...
Sorry, but let's be clear about something. A theory is not falsified
by failure to predict a certain observation. A theory is falsified if
it predicts ONE thing, and observation says ANOTHER thing. Do you
understand the difference?
Bullshit, in the domain that a theory is suppose to cover the failure
to predict a process that is observed is a clear example of it
predicting one thing (no effect) and observation showing another
thing. In Pioneer/Ulysses case, spacial drag. In the case of the
Allais Effect a perturbation in the gravitational field. In the case
of galactic rotation the difference in rotation verses distance
rates. And, of course, there is also the issue of what the word
'predict' means. It seems to have been conveniently changed for
physics.
No sir. We talked about this already. In the case of Newton's 2nd law,
the failure of a projectile to land where predicted is not necessarily
an indication that the *relationship* in the 2nd law is incorrect..
Predicted by what?
What it may indicate ...
May indicate???
... instead is that the *inputs* in the relationship
are not as well understood as they need to be, and this is the reason
why the relationship appears to fall short. Specifically, if not all
the forces on the left-hand side of Newton's 2nd law are properly
accounted for, then it is no wonder that the predictions of the right-
hand side do not match observation.
Classic political waffling.
As it is applied to *Newton's 2nd law*! If you think this is
inappropriate for science to do, then you perhaps should be
questioning the historical development and political machinations that
went into Newton's 2nd law!
No! Thus the questions you ignored..., like PREDICTED BY WHAT? Your
example is pure BS, handwaving, an attempt at distraction.
Not at all. It is an EXACT parallel. The fact that you want to dismiss
it as a distraction tells me a lot. Uncomfortable, or just persistently
delusional?
[/quote]
If you think so, explain what 'input data' you think is not well known
for the examples given. I note that you throw insults but provide no
explanations!
[quote]Like
terminal velocity doesn't match 2gh, irrelevent to the question.
Newton's second law is not, nor was it ever, an issue
WHY NOT? It fails to get some things right, especially when the input
data is not well known.
[/quote]
Wrong. It gets things 'right' within its defined 'domain'... Let's
get back to the orginal topic, specifically, 'people' will be inclined
NOT! to follow the strict tenets of the scientific method of
falsification. That was John's point, and the basis for my examples.
You're proving it each time you respond.
[quote]Now I await your response detailing why it is perfectly understandable
that this be done in the case of Newton's 2nd law but completely
unforgivable with relativity.
Simple, is the Pioneer Effect, the Allais Effect, or even spiral
galaxy rotation profiles 'predicted' without ad hoc (like Lorentz et
al was accused of) plucked from the air fixes? Yes or No?! If you
want to use your BS example name the effects that have not been ruled
out that can modify the results expected by GR. BTW, I never
mentioned GR, it was not the central point. The point was what John
originally said, people are 'selective' about what will be considered
as falsification of a theory, the paradigm effect!
[/quote]
Well? For all reading this, note the lack of any response or
answers... You just want to change the subject.
[quote]You'll defend that which you 'believe' in
(regardless of evidence to the contrary) and blow off proposed
explanations and ideas that you don't (with the same level of
percieved contradictory observation). That called being selective &
biased, not sticking to a common standard. That WAS! whole point, it
become a political decision on what is falsified and what is not, it
is not solely based upon cold hard observations/experiments. Kuhn
descibes this behavior well as a paradigm. He specifically notes that
it will be irrationally defended going so far as to ignore or even
falsify observations and evidence, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm
Where a failure occurs is when the inputs are claimed to be very well
known, and the purported relationship still fails to produce an output
that matches observation.
In the case of the examples provvided, what 'inputs'???
MASS DISTRIBUTIONS!
Explain this for Pioneer or Allais
[/quote]
Again, you have no answers... You answer above Handwaving BS, not
even relevent to the issues, the fact is, ALL INPUTS for these have
been repeatedly identified and evaluated.
[quote]The Pioneer/Ulsses deceleration has been studied for over a quarter
century, the investigators waited nearly twenty years and exhausted
all possible causes before even releasing their finding.
All possible causes?? Really?
Yes, really, read up on the topic...
Why, because
it could not possibly be true, right... I gave you a perfectly valid
explanation based solely on your own definition of the scientific
method and you fell silent... You couldn't possibly acknowledge
validity because of what?
Yup, actions speak louder than any words (and, in this case, lack
thereof)
No, it does not become nonconservative. The conservation of momentum
is not even a statement that is INTENDED to bridge reference frames.
Again, this is a CLASSICAL concept, and if you have difficulty with
this, then your problems are with CLASSICAL physics, not with
relativity.
No, it is either globally true or false, which is it?
OK, so you do not understand classical physics, either. Very good to
set the bar at the appropriate place, Paul.
Foam and blather on, and please do clearly continue to claim that the
law of conservation of momentum is misrepresented in physics
classrooms today.
I asked you a question, is momentum in our universe (the global
system) a conserved property or not.
It is conserved in any SINGLE inertial reference frame looking at the
global system. It is NOT the same quantity in any two different
inertial reference frames looking at the global system, but this does
not imply nonconservation.
[/quote]
I know, as my simple example demonstrated... I do know the cureent
viewpoint. It is not worth my effort to try to get you to think in an
integrated and unifying manner.
[quote]Are you having difficulty with this concept?
[/quote]
No
[quote]If it is, then it can only be
transfered from one mass to another by, hey, that through forces, not
just momentum. Momentum is Newton's first law... Now, we get to 'our
definition of momentum' (as opposed to the actual 'real' physical
property) which is defined as mv
Whoa, who told you that momentum is DEFINED as "mv"? (Be careful. This
is one of those things that is taught early in first semester physics
and then RETRACTED in the second semester.)
[/quote]
It's mv, even for a so called photon. In that case m = h(nu)/c^2 and
since v = c, p = h(nu)/c The real question there should be if the
'stuff' constituting a photon isn't 'massive' how does it have
momentum at all? I already know what you'll say, don't bother...
[quote], and v is frame dependent. Thus we
can play games with perspective and make momentum appear and/or
disappear but, for the entire system (our universe) to be conservative
the physical content of momentum of a mass cannot actually be changed
by such imagined shifts if it really is a conserved property.
I'm sorry, but momentum is not an inherent property of a system with a
single, correct value. It appears that you were not even taught
classical physics properly.
[/quote]
I see that concepts which lead to integration and unification are
beyond your grasp. Classic concepts aren't isolated and insulated
from the whole system.
[quote]I am
beginning to wonder about your capacity to think deeply about a
topic...
That being what you claim you are doing when a basic error in your
understanding is pointed out?
[/quote]
It's actually probably a mixture of you being sanctimonious and
obstinate, overtly unwilling to look at another perspective.
[quote]Is your reading comprehension that poor? Stopping at vague claims
that QM is too strange to understand, pathetic...
Who says that QM is too strange to understand? It's not.
Ah good, then you can explain the basis for renormalization.
It's the technique for setting the scale in a perturbative expansion,
where the expansion cannot be shown to converge. What don't you
understand about it? Do you understand the perturbative expansion
methodology and why that calculational approach was tried first?
You left out that the series yields infinities the cutoff is arbitrary
and has no basis other than set to match observation.
That's correct -- it is a CALCULATIONAL method that provides numerical
results that match the precision of measurements to be made. This is
true for perturbative expansion methods in classical physics as well,
including basic mechanics and electrodynamics. It appears you weren't
taught this either.
Feynman, Dirac,
and others all agreed that it's a failure of the model.
Nonsense. It's not a failure of the model. It's a little surprising
that the perturbative expansion doesn't converge as reliably as it did
in classical cases, but that doesn't mean it is a failure. What comic
books and coffee table books have you been reading? Renormalization is
thoroughly discussed and JUSTIFIED physically in a 3rd year quantum
mechanics course.
[/quote]
"The general unease was almost universal in texts up to the 1970s
and 1980s. Beginning in the 1970s, however, inspired by work on
the renormalization group and effective field theory, and despite
the fact that Dirac and various others—all of whom belonged to
the older generation—NEVER withdrew their criticisms, attitudes
began to change, especially among younger theorists. Kenneth G.
Wilson and others demonstrated that the renormalization group is
useful in statistical field theory applied to condensed matter
physics, where it provides important insights into the behavior
of phase transitions. In condensed matter physics, a real
short-distance regulator exists: matter ceases to be continuous
on the scale of atoms. Short-distance divergences in condensed
matter physics do not present a philosophical problem, since the
field theory is only an effective, smoothed-out representation of
the behavior of matter anyway; there are no infinities since the
cutoff is actually always finite, and it makes perfect sense that
the bare quantities are cutoff-dependent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization
Can you say aether granularity (entities & spacing). BTW, this is
also an example of Planck's rule...
[quote]So, 'splan it
to me Fred'? Maybe you do have a physical basis.
Yes, I do. But you've already said you don't want to submit yourself
to a learning environment. So what is it you want, exactly?
[/quote]
Why did you not do what I just did? Point to an easy reference? I
was interested in discussing concepts, ideas relating to physics.
Most around here are, instead, most interesting in defending their
faith and throwing insults. Defending a point of view is fine for
argument sake
[quote]And you wonder why physics is being rejected by the current generation
of students for a realistic science, like biology: go back to counting
angels on pinheads!
Planck's rule...
Eh?
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up
that is familiar with it."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_planck.html
Planck's Rule for scientific process. It is a statement of the human
political nature.
Planck's pithy comment can also be taken as a commentary to you that
you have not yet been able to absorb the new physical ideas because
you are wedded to the older ways of thinking and that it will only be
the death of people like you that allow it to move forward.
Do you actually believe that I'm holding physics back? Amazing...
People LIKE you, certainly. You are in sympathy with Kelvin, who also
held many of the same precepts that you and Kennaugh both hold. Kelvin
is dead, as are most people of his generation that found 20th century
physics incomprehensible.
But, on the contrary, I do not think physics is, or should be,
abstract and/or incomprehensible.
It ISN'T. That's the point. It's really rather simple and straightforward..
The fact that some people FOUND it incomprehensible is a function of
their *prejudices* and is not a property of the model. The model is
concrete and comprehensible, very much so.
I note that Kennaugh is operating off an IMPRESSION from books he read
40 years ago and which he no longer has, nor can remember. He claims
to be able to quote lines from the books, but cannot remember titles
or authors.
Time passes but, if physics has the right foundations, those should be
immutable... If so, the date of a book should not matter.
Sorry, but this not the case. What is in physics books is *our
understanding* of nature, and that DOES change over time, including
the manner in which to make it more understandable. As I mentioned to
you several times, what is presented in early chapters of a first
semester physics book is content that is KNOWN to be wrong, and it is
later discussed why it is wrong, how we know it is wrong, what is more
likely right, and how the replacement is tested. What you are implying
is that the early statements in chapter 2 had the right foundations,
then those statements would be immutable. But they are NOT, and it is
part of the education about physics to understand WHY not.
I'm sorry if you missed the point in your education. I'm sorry if you
find this shifting sand to be disconcerting and uncomfortable. I'm
sorry that your eduacational experience left you so suspicious that
any hope of reliable re-education is rendered hopeless and futile.
[/quote]
And you totally missed or ignored my comment, please note the phrase
'right foundations'. If as much changed as you seem to imply then
what makes you think it right, now? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:18 am
|
|