The Farce of Physics
Bryan Wallace
In an effort to communicate interesting arguments, I will send
a 311KB ASCII email copy of my current book to anyone who sends a
request to my below email address. This book is my independent
work and not the opinions of the physics department. Of the many
interesting comments on the book that I've received to date, John
Archibald Wheeler of Princeton University wrote:
"A dynamic ether, a compressible fluid that could move at the
speed of light." I am delighted you take such a deep interest in
a subject so important.
Kurt Pagels of Germany wrote:
The reading of this book was for me very interesting and very
informative! The factual material and the wealth of ideas is in
your book in such a manner great, that a second and third reading
is needed, therewith all arguments come to consciousness.
But the comment I liked the best came from Rudolf Nedved of
Czechoslovakia, who wrote:
I have studied up the preprint of your book "The Farce of
Physics" and an very surprised. For me, it was better than a
thrilling crime novel.
Steven L. Mitchell, the Editorial Director of Prometheus Books
wrote:
Thank you for sharing with us your manuscript titled "The Farce
of Physics." The idea of publishing an internal critique of the
scientific mindset is most intriguing. Naturally, it would run
counter to many prevailing opinions and this could negatively
effect the market. Since the audience for your book would be the
dedicated reader of science, the risks facing publication are
considerable.
Mitchell wanted a substantial grant to assist publication and share
the risks, and I have found no other publisher willing to give me
better terms, so I have decided to distribute the book free on the
Internet. If one prefers to obtain a copy by anonymous ftp, they
can get it from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory
/pub/books/wallace, by using get farce.txt. The file in the directory is
in a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz
the system will send you the uncompressed text.
Bryan G. Wallace
wal...@eckerd.edu
Jack Sarfatti
Wallace) writes:
>
>
> In an effort to communicate interesting arguments, I will send
>a 311KB ASCII email copy of my current book to anyone who sends a
How about posting a synopsis of the key ideas with a few samples of the
writing first? By the way I will soon have a multimedia "Sarfatti
Lectures in Post-Modern Physics" available on a floppy disk for
commercial sale in bookstores and software stores - the main title will
be "The Destiny Matrix" - the CD version will be structured like the
game "Myst".
David M. Cook
Bryan Wallace <wal...@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
>interesting comments on the book that I've received to date, John
>Archibald Wheeler of Princeton University wrote:
> "A dynamic ether, a compressible fluid that could move at the
> speed of light." I am delighted you take such a deep interest in
> a subject so important.
The text in quotes doesn't appear to mean anything out of context. Is the
rest yours or Wheeler's? If it's Wheeler's, it doesn't appear to be
saying anything about whether he agrees with your work or finds it of any
value whatsoever. In fact, I imagine it's what he says to all the cranks.
>Kurt Pagels of Germany wrote:
> The reading of this book was for me very interesting and very
> informative! The factual material and the wealth of ideas is in
> your book in such a manner great, that a second and third reading
> is needed, therewith all arguments come to consciousness.
Huh? Arguments come to consciousness? And who is Kurt Pagels?
>But the comment I liked the best came from Rudolf Nedved
Who?
>of Czechoslovakia, who wrote:
> I have studied up the preprint of your book "The Farce of
> Physics" and an very surprised. For me, it was better than a
> thrilling crime novel.
>Steven L. Mitchell, the Editorial Director of Prometheus Books
>wrote:
> Thank you for sharing with us your manuscript titled "The Farce
> of Physics." The idea of publishing an internal critique of the
> scientific mindset is most intriguing. Naturally, it would run
> counter to many prevailing opinions and this could negatively
> effect the market. Since the audience for your book would be the
> dedicated reader of science, the risks facing publication are
> considerable.
This is a polite way of saying, "Your book is full of shit. Nobody will
buy it. You'll make Prometheus look like idiots if we publish it."
Dave Cook
MIKE CESSNA
: This is a polite way of saying, "Your book is full of shit. Nobody will
: buy it. You'll make Prometheus look like idiots if we publish it."
: Dave Cook
Hmmm, Dave, you take an off-the-wall (and candid) view of The Farce of
Physics. Galileo himself had enemies like you :-) not that I am comparing
Bryan to the great Mr. G. But have you honestly read the book? Can you
prepare a constructive argument concerning your position? I am
interested in your opinion rather than innuendo. Thanks.
Michael Cessna
Bryan Wallace
In reply to David M. Cook's 24 Nov 1994 post:
I have found the Internet to be a wonderful tool for me to use to
advanced the coming scientific revolution. I sent an email
letter offering to send a free email ASCII copy of my book "The
Farce of Physics" to all the American Physical Society members
that had an email address listed in the "APS Membership Directory
1992-1994" and also sent the same letter to addresses in the
"1993-1994 DIRECTORY OF PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY STAFF" and many of
the addresses in ERIC BRAUN's new book THE INTERNET DIRECTORY.
The book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be
found by using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available
from Project Gutenberg archives and on their CDROM's. I have
personally sent out about 5000 copies of the book to date, and
have received many comments and reviews, most of them positive.
A very prominent scientist who is a member of the US National
Academy of Sciences, Gerard de Vaucouleurs, found the provocative
title of my book most intriguing, and he requested the free ASCII
email copy. He read it two times and sent me a 3 page review of
the book by regular mail. My answer to his review was:
In reply to your letter of 4 April, I am pleased that you found
my book of interest. You are correct in seeing the two main themes
in the book, and I like to think that I would be happy to be proven
wrong, because then I would know more about the true nature of the
universe. You are also right in assuming that I would like to
resurrect the "ballistic" theory of light. With regard to the
evidence that contends that spectroscopic binaries present evidence
against the ballistic theory, in a classic astronomy textbook (R.
H. Baker, Astronomy (D. Van Nostrand Co., Princeton, N.J., 1955)
p.414) we find the following ad hoc c constant light velocity
argument to explain observed phenomena in eclipsing binary stars:
Struve concludes that the gas whirlpools cause the seeming
discrepancy in the behavior of a few eclipsing binaries which
long puzzled the investigators. Where the velocity curve of the
binary implies an orbit of considerable eccentricity, the light
curve may require a circular orbit.
Fox has done an extensive investigation of the supposed evidence
against the ballistic Ritz c+v emission theory (J. G. Fox,
"Evidence Against Emission Theories, "Amer. J. Phys., 33,1(1965))
and with regard to binary stars argues:
There are also some difficulties for Struve's hypothesis. The
model would seem to have consequences similar to those of the
Ritz theory.
With regard to your argument "that there must exist publicly
accessible records on planetary or space probes ranging which
should be more precise than the early Venus data you have used and
which could provide a more stringent test of the constancy of the
velocity of light," the original Venus radar data was supposed to
be accurate to within 1.5 km and the current radio to spacecraft
data is reported to be accurate to within 1.5 m, an increase in
accuracy by a factor of 1000 times. The Earth's rotation would
cause a maximum difference in calculated distance between the two
theories of 260 km for the radar observations when Venus is at its
closest point, while a spacecraft orbiting Venus in a low circular
orbit as indicated by its radar altimeter would have a maximum
difference in calculated distance of about 4680 km. This would
provide a dramatic demonstration of whether the c constant velocity
or the c+v variable velocity of light model, or a variation of
either model, is the correct theory. The wrong theory would show
the craft was in a highly elliptical orbit, while the correct
theory would show it to be in its proper circular orbit. The data
already exists, our Magellan spacecraft is orbiting Venus in a low
nearly circular orbit and the data is being used for measurement of
a high-resolution global gravity field of the planet.
On page 4 of the September 19, 1993 issue of the Sunday Newspaper
PARADE MAGAZINE, Carl Sagan wrote:
"It would be demoralizing to learn that our science is
medieval." But by the standards of the next few centuries, at
least some of our present science will be considered medieval,
extraterrestrials or no extraterrestrials.
At the very top of the pile of medieval theories will be
Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate that
for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is
the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed object
travels!
Bryan
Sylvan Jacques
Bryan Wallace <wal...@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
>At the very top of the pile of medieval theories will be
>Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate that
>for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is
>the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed object
>travels!
The speed of light being constant for all observers is not a mythic
postulate, but an observation. I don't know how you manage to explain
away the M-M and subsequent experiments.
Maxwell's eqns. would also be wrong if the speed of light wasn't
const.
I don't know how you explain the mountain of evidence supporting
SR (special relativity) from particle accelerators
and other sources, as well as
the evidence in support of Maxwell's eqns., which does not allow
light to propagate at a speed different from c. (In particular, no c+v, where
v is the velocity of the source).
In modern terminology, one says that spacetime and the laws of
physics are invariant under
the Lorentz group of transformations, rather than the Galilean
tranformations of Newtonian mechanics.
Einstein argued (correctly) that not only Maxwell's eqns. for
electromagnetic fields (EM) were Lorentz invariant (==> c = const.),
but that the eqns. describing the mechanics of particles and all
matter (like conservation of momentum and energy) were also
Lorentz invariant.
Its difficult to think of anything in physics that has as much
evidence supporting it, or a more satisfactory theoretical explanation.
Anyone claiming that SR isn't valid must deal with these facts.
They can't be ignored, or swept away as some false view of
the physical world.
--
Van (Sylvan Jacques) van...@netcom.com
Jack Sarfatti
writes:
On this matter I agree totally with Van. If he would only apply the same
standard to Penrose's books I am sure he will retract some of his
earlier opinions.
Bryan Wallace
In an effort to communicate interesting arguments, I will send
a 311KB ASCII email copy of my current book to anyone who sends a
work and not the opinions of the physics department. Of the many
Archibald Wheeler of Princeton University wrote:
"A dynamic ether, a compressible fluid that could move at the
speed of light." I am delighted you take such a deep interest in
a subject so important.
The reading of this book was for me very interesting and very
informative! The factual material and the wealth of ideas is in
your book in such a manner great, that a second and third reading
is needed, therewith all arguments come to consciousness.
Czechoslovakia, who wrote:
I have studied up the preprint of your book "The Farce of
Physics" and an very surprised. For me, it was better than a
thrilling crime novel.
Steven L. Mitchell, the Editorial Director of Prometheus Books
wrote:
Thank you for sharing with us your manuscript titled "The Farce
of Physics." The idea of publishing an internal critique of the
scientific mindset is most intriguing. Naturally, it would run
counter to many prevailing opinions and this could negatively
effect the market. Since the audience for your book would be the
dedicated reader of science, the risks facing publication are
considerable.
the risks, and I have found no other publisher willing to give me
better terms, so I have decided to distribute the book free on the
Internet. If one prefers to obtain a copy by anonymous ftp, they
can get it from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory
/pub/books/wallace, by using get farce.txt. The file in the directory is
in a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz
version is avail. via URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html
Bryan G. Wallace
wal...@eckerd.edu
Aaron Bergman
: At the very top of the pile of medieval theories will be
: Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate that
: for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is
: the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed object
: travels!
Why do you use the phrase "abstract mystic reason."?
That's simply not true. Einstein made the postulate that c was constant
in all reference frames even before he heard of the Michelson-Morley
experiment. Why he made the postulate is Maxwell's equations. If you
look at the equations, they are not the same in all reference frames.
under Galilean relativity.
If you accept the statement (the first postulate of Special Relativity)
that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames,
then there is an inconsistency between Maxwell's Equations and
Galilean Relativity. Which do you want to give up? Einsten kept
Maxwell's equations and the fact that c = 1/sqrt(epsilon-o * mu-o).
From there, you can derive the rest.
So, my question, then, is? Are you giving up Maxwell's equations if you
propose the ballistic theory of light? Also, how do you justify the
Michelson-Morley experiment (the results of, that is.)?
Aaron
Ray Tomes
>Bryan Wallace <wal...@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
>>At the very top of the pile of medieval theories will be
>>Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate that
>>for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is
>>the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed object
>>travels!
>
>The speed of light being constant for all observers is not a mythic
>postulate, but an observation. I don't know how you manage to explain
>away the M-M and subsequent experiments.
Do you know what the result of the M-M experiment was?
According to Miller who did most of the experiments with Morley
(Michelson was only involved in round 1) ALL OF THEIR RESULTS
SHOWED THAT THERE WAS MOVEMENT RELATIVE TO THE ETHER.
The only thing was that it was not the expected result of about
300km/s for the galaxy + 30/km/s for the motion around the sun,
but only about 8 km/s. Einstein assumed zero, it was never
observed. The explanation of this is found in a paper I am
submitting immediately after this reply, titled
"A New Classical Physics". References to Millers paper are
included there.
Ray Tomes rto...@kcbbs.gen.nz
ps Most textbooks lie or dodge this issue, as they like
relativity so much that the facts are a nuisance.
prasad
|> In message <<vanjacD0...@netcom.com>> van...@netcom.com writes:
|> >Bryan Wallace <wal...@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
|> >The speed of light being constant for all observers is not a mythic
|> >postulate, but an observation. I don't know how you manage to explain
|> >away the M-M and subsequent experiments.
|> ... rest deleted
|> (Michelson was only involved in round 1) ALL OF THEIR RESULTS
|> SHOWED THAT THERE WAS MOVEMENT RELATIVE TO THE ETHER.
|> The only thing was that it was not the expected result of about
|> 300km/s for the galaxy + 30/km/s for the motion around the sun,
|> but only about 8 km/s. Einstein assumed zero, it was never
|> observed. The explanation of this is found in a paper I am
|> submitting immediately after this reply, titled
|> "A New Classical Physics". References to Millers paper are
|> included there.
|>
|> Ray Tomes rto...@kcbbs.gen.nz
Was that "8 km/s" figure merely the maximum error in their experiments?
Or is that an observation for real? For it to be an observation,
their estimated inaccuracy should be way less than the 8 km/s figure.
David M. Cook
>David M. Cook (dc...@linux5.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
>
>: This is a polite way of saying, "Your book is full of shit. Nobody will
>: buy it. You'll make Prometheus look like idiots if we publish it."
>Galileo himself had enemies like you :-) not that I am comparing
>Bryan to the great Mr. G.
Galileo's enemies were much more pious and powerful men than lil old me.
>But have you honestly read the book? Can you
>prepare a constructive argument concerning your position? I am
>interested in your opinion rather than innuendo. Thanks.
I must admit that I only skimmed the document. A thorough perusal will
have to wait a few weeks (finals and grades due!)
Dave Cook
Kym Horsell
>In article <3b57c1$s...@acasun.eckerd.edu>,
>Bryan Wallace <wal...@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
>>At the very top of the pile of medieval theories will be
>>Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate that
>>for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is
>>the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed object
>>travels!
>
>The speed of light being constant for all observers is not a mythic
>postulate, but an observation. I don't know how you manage to explain
>away the M-M and subsequent experiments.
After a bit of "historical reading"
lately, I find the following interesting quote by Millikan (who verified
Einstein's photonic theory among other things):
"[Eintein's "theory"]...is a bold, not to say recless, hypothesis".
(found in Resnick & Halliday 1966 edn p 1183)
I would imagine various other authoritative comments from shortly after
that time would say similar about Relativity -- indeed when I was an undergrad
student there were still regular papers from otherwise respected
scientists arguing its "impossibility" on one ground or another.
The only thing needed in a pragmatic sense, granted, is that a
scientific theory "work". And [SG]R presently has enough verifiable
consequences and experimental evidence to back it up on that score.
--
R. Kym Horsell
khor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
Ray Tomes
The experiment was done many times. Each time very many thousands of
measurements were done. These were averaged in groups. The averages of
these groups mainly fell between 5 and 11 km/s. The data look to be
accurate to about +-2 km/s. The seperate experiment results all fell
between 5 and 11 km/s, and showed the same pattern of change depending
on the time of day (this is due to the tilt between the earths axis
of rotation and the earths ether axis I believe) so that these
averages would appear to be well within 2 km/s.
Ray Tomes
Gerard T. Fairley
aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>
>Bryan Wallace (wal...@acasun.eckerd.edu) wrote: : At
>the very top of the pile of medieval theories will be
>: Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the
>postulate that
>: for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed
>of light is
>: the same for all observers, no matter how fast they
>or an observed object
>: travels!
>
>Why do you use the phrase "abstract mystic reason."?
>
>That's simply not true. Einstein made the postulate
Maybe that's why. Because perhaps he wants more than a
postulate, he wants to know the gears and wheels behind that
type of behavior - the quantum geometry of the 'vacuum'?
Gerard.
Joseph C Wang
seems that it could be done for under $1000 with some lasers and a few
mirrors.
It seems to me that since it is trivial to redo M-M, that any
consistent non-zero effect would have been noticed over the past 50
years or so.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wang The opinions expressed here should not be considered
j...@mit.edu official policy of the Globewide Network Academy
explicitly unless marked as such.
Joseph C Wang
Gerard T. Fairley <fai...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>Maybe that's why. Because perhaps he wants more than a
>postulate, he wants to know the gears and wheels behind that
>type of behavior - the quantum geometry of the 'vacuum'?
So do we all.
The trouble is that coming up with a theory that makes concrete
testable predictions that are experimentally verified is extremely
hard work.
Joseph C Wang
light in a moving medium? If you shine some light into water with
index of refraction n that is moving in the direction of the light, it
seems that your theory would predict that light would move at speed v
+ c/n since the light is being carried along with the water. Einstein
would predict some time dilation and a speed of c/n + v (1 - 1/n^2) to
first order.
(Also arguing that the correct "v" to use is the one of the light
source doesn't save you. In that case, the speed of the light would
be c/n and that would still give you a speed that is different from
what is predicted by constant c.)
First of all, do you agree with my analysis, and if not, could your
provide your calculation as to what the speed of light should be in
this situation? It seems to me that whatever the answer your theory
gives it should be very different from the constant c model, and this
should give you a testable prediction that is free from the
uncertainties of astrophysical tests.
You correct in stating that the Michelson-Morley experiments do not
distinguish between constant c and c+v models. However, what I
described is the classic experiment that rules out the c+v models. If
you want the scientific community to accept the c+v model, you need to
demonstrate that it predicts the outcome of this experiment correctly.
Ray Tomes
>seems that it could be done for under $1000 with some lasers and a few
>mirrors.
>
>It seems to me that since it is trivial to redo M-M, that any
>consistent non-zero effect would have been noticed over the past 50
>years or so.
>j...@mit.edu official policy of the Globewide Network Academy
> explicitly unless marked as such.
Be careful. The evidence is that unless you do it outdoors you won't
get a non-zero result. Indoor experiments are a bit like trying to
measure the speed of an ocean liner by putting the speedo in the
swimming pool. Don't laugh, most of the M-M experiments have done
exactly this. Read Millers 1933 paper for all the pitfalls.
I would be very interested in anyone doing it today with lasers, and
outdoors.
Ray Tomes rto...@kcbbs.gen.nz
Joseph C Wang
Ray Tomes <Ray_...@kcbbs.gen.nz> wrote:
>Be careful. The evidence is that unless you do it outdoors you won't
>get a non-zero result.
Warning bells are going off in my head. If you do something indoors,
you can control the conditions of the experiment more closely. If you
do it out of doors, you are at the mercy of the elements, and these
can introduce all sort of systematic effects (wind, vibrations, etc.)
Also, why should it matter if you do it indoors or outdoors? "Ether"
is supposed to be a universal fluid through which all electromagnetic
waves go through. If it can be blocked by building materials, then
you should see light behave systematically differently indoors than
outdoors. If building materials stop the movement of ether, then you
should see some effects due to the interface between where ether is
flowing and where it is stopped. Also, if building materials do stop
the flow of ether, it would be interesting to investigate which
building materials stop it.
>I would be very interested in anyone doing it today with lasers, and
>outdoors.
I don't think that you are going to convince people on this net to do
the experiment. Setting up this experiment would take up time and
effort, and since the likely result is to simply comfirm that Miller
had systematic effects in his experiment and that M-M was right all
along, people aren't going to stop their new experiments to do old
ones.
But since the experiment is not too difficult to set up, why don't you
set it up yourself?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ds...@orion.alaska.edu
> > I don't know how you explain the mountain of evidence supporting
> SR (special relativity) from particle accelerators
> and other sources, as well as
> the evidence in support of Maxwell's eqns., which does not allow
> light to propagate at a speed different from c. (In particular, no c+v, where
> v is the velocity of the source).
>
are several sections that deal with your problems. Your comments would be
mmore credible if you were responding to Wallace's explanations rather than
posting without knowledge.
Additionaly, the quality of your posts indicate you do not undrstand one
of the most fundemental givens of science - that you do not treat
theory - particularly mathematical theory as fact simply because there
is some interpretive supportive evidence.
Ray Tomes
>Ray Tomes <Ray_...@kcbbs.gen.nz> wrote:
>>Be careful. The evidence is that unless you do it outdoors you won't
>>get a non-zero result.
>
>Warning bells are going off in my head. If you do something indoors,
>you can control the conditions of the experiment more closely. If you
>do it out of doors, you are at the mercy of the elements, and these
>can introduce all sort of systematic effects (wind, vibrations, etc.)
>
>Also, why should it matter if you do it indoors or outdoors? "Ether"
>is supposed to be a universal fluid through which all electromagnetic
>waves go through. If it can be blocked by building materials, then
>you should see light behave systematically differently indoors than
>outdoors. If building materials stop the movement of ether, then you
>should see some effects due to the interface between where ether is
>flowing and where it is stopped. Also, if building materials do stop
>the flow of ether, it would be interesting to investigate which
>building materials stop it.
Do you actually read anything that someone writes in reply to you,
or are you too clever for that. Have you actually read my original
paper, or is that beneath you?
Do you actually read the journals to get your facts or just make them
up as you go along?
I already explained why you must do it outdoors. I said that doing
it indoors is like trying to measure the speed of an ocean liner by
installing the speedo in the swimming pool. If you would go and
actually look up the reference by Miller, you would see that this has
been proven consistently in the results of all M-M experiments.
You would also see that most of the so called Michelson-Morley
measurements were actually done by Morley and Miller. So they can't
contradict the M-M experiments BECAUSE THEY ARE THEM. Even the one
in which Michelson participated got the same answer, but its error
margin is such that that doesn't mean much.
I also explained that I believe the ether is the substance in which all
things are waves, including matter. So of course matter will affect it.
>
>>I would be very interested in anyone doing it today with lasers, and
>>outdoors.
>
>I don't think that you are going to convince people on this net to do
>the experiment. Setting up this experiment would take up time and
>effort, and since the likely result is to simply comfirm that Miller
>had systematic effects in his experiment and that M-M was right all
>along, people aren't going to stop their new experiments to do old
>ones.
>
>But since the experiment is not too difficult to set up, why don't you
>set it up yourself?
>
>
I don't have a laser.
Joseph C Wang
Ray Tomes <Ray_...@kcbbs.gen.nz> wrote:
>Do you actually read anything that someone writes in reply to you,
>or are you too clever for that. Have you actually read my original
>paper, or is that beneath you?
Just because I read something doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I
did skim through your original paper on Total Harmonic Oscillations to
see if I could pick out the important points.
>Do you actually read the journals to get your facts or just make them
>up as you go along?
I read the journals to get the facts. As for the theories to explain
the facts, I make those up as I go along.
>I already explained why you must do it outdoors. I said that doing
>it indoors is like trying to measure the speed of an ocean liner by
>installing the speedo in the swimming pool.
I read that.
And I'm proposing an alternate hypothesis, namely that the speed of
light is constant and that the non-zero result he was getting was due
to systematic errors. Also, I'm speculating on the consequences of
the situation if there were ether.
One thing that is definite is that the M-M experiments blow away the
late 19th century view of what ether is.
>I also explained that I believe the ether is the substance in which all
>things are waves, including matter. So of course matter will affect it.
So lets go one step further. How does matter effect it, and what are
the observable consequences of matter affecting ether? If concrete
stops ether, then what about aluminum. How thick does the concrete
have to be to stop ether? What about gases? Won't the earth's
atmosphere affect ether? If so how?
>>But since the experiment is not too difficult to set up, why don't you
>>set it up yourself?
>I don't have a laser.
Buy one.
David M. Cook
>: At the very top of the pile of medieval theories will be
>: Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate that
>: for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is
>: the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed object
>: travels!
Let's get specific here. Could you give your arguments against Einstein's
original paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (widely available
from Dover in the paperback reprint anthology _The Principle of
Relativity_) on a point by point, page by page basis. I think many of us
on this group have our own copies and we can follow along.
Dave Cook
Bryan Wallace
In reply to the Aaron Bergman aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu 29 Nov 1994
20:20:06 post in Re: The Farce of Physics in sci.physics:
>Why do you use the phrase "abstract mystic reason."?
As I state on pages 30d.s./15s.s., 82/41 - 90/45, of my book "The Farce of
Physics", Einstein believed that the ether sea exists but that it is invisible
and can't be detected by experiments. On page 8/4 I present the official
statement of The Council of the American Physical Society opposing teaching
the biblical story of creation in science classes in public schools. The
following was taken from that statement: ... In contrast to "Creationism," the
systematic application of scientific principles has led to a current picture
of life, of the nature of our planet, and of the universe which, while
incomplete, is constantly being tested and refined by observation and
analysis. This ability to construct critical experiments, whose results can
require rejection of a theory, is fundamental to the scientific method. ...
Since neither Einstein's relativity ether theory nor biblical creation theory
can be tested by the scientific method, it is logical to assume that they are
both not legitimate scientific theories! The title of my book was inspired by
Fritjof Capra's book The Tao of Physics. Capra, a theoretical physicist
states on page 5/2:
The purpose of this book is to explore this relationship between the
concepts of modern physics and the basic ideas in the philosophical and
religious traditions of the Far East. We shall see how the two
foundations of twentieth-century physics--quantum theory and relativity
theory--both force us to see the world very much in the way a Hindu,
Buddhist, or Taoist sees it, and how this similarity strengthens when we
look at the recent attempts to combine these two theories in order to
describe the phenomena of the submicroscopic world: the properties and
interactions of the subatomic particles of which all matter is made.
Here the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism are most
striking, and we shall often encounter statements where it is almost
impossible to say whether they have been made by physicists or Eastern
mystics. [1 p.4]
The physicist that thinks that the mysticism that is at the heart of modern
physics does not matter, would do well to read the an article published
11/15/94 on pages 1 and 28 in the prominent newspaper the Boston Globe. The
title of the article by Anthony Flint was "Science isn't immune to cultural
critique" and the following 4 paragraphs were taken from it:
At the annual meeting of the National Association of Scholars last weekend,
the No. 1 topic was the growing influence of theorists who say science
doesn't deserve its reputation -- and reverence -- as a method of finding
objective truth. There is no such thing as a scientific fact, they argue
-- only realities constructed by those in power, who happen to be mostly
privileged white males seeking to remain in positions of dominance.
At the association's three days of seminars on trends in academia, the
hallways of the Marriott Hotel here buzzed with talk of the attack on
traditional science. ``Yes, I am scared,'' Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg,
a professor of physics at the University of Texas, said at a session on
Friday.
``More people in the academic world are questioning the notion of
scientific objectivity,'' said Sheldon Krimsky, professor of urban and
environmental policy at Tufts University. Their point is ``that science
can be bought, affected by politics, by bias and by funding sources, and by
human beings who have a tendency to want their hypotheses to be
successful.''
The end of the Cold War brought an end to the public's reverence for
science, Holton said, because the public no longer sees science as its
defense against nuclear Armageddon. ``There is an ebb and flow in the way
science is seen by a culture,'' he said. ``The euphoria for science after
World War II is gone. The pendulum has now swung the other way.''
With regard to Aaron's last 2 questions:
>So, my question, then, is? Are you giving up Maxwell's equations if you
>propose the ballistic theory of light? Also, how do you justify the
>Michelson-Morley experiment (the results of, that is.)?
Obviously Maxwell's arguments will have to be modified so as to be consistent
with the modern solar system experimental evidence that shows the transit time
of photons must be based on the particle/ballistic/emission/c+v model, and
not the wave/ether/vacuum/c model for light. With regard to the 2nd question,
Fox has done an extensive investigation of the supposed evidence against the
ballistic Ritz c+v emission theory (J. G. Fox, "Evidence Against Emission
Theories," Amer. J. Phys., 33, 1 (1965)) and on page 2 states:
...It may be noticed that the list does not include the most famous of all
relativistic phenomena--the Michelson-Morley experiment. The reason is
that the Ritz theory was relativistic (in the Galilean sense) and thus
automatically explained the negative results of this experiment as well as
the Kennedy-Thorndike and Trouton-Noble experiments.
In reply to the Joseph C Wang j...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU 03 Dec 1994 11:08:04 post in
Re: The Farce of Physics in sci.physics:
>Have you considered the implications of your theory on the speed of
>light in a moving medium?
Fox considers this in his section 8. CONVECTION OF LIGHT BY MOVING MEDIA
starting on page 8 of his article.
Bryan
Sylvan Jacques
Ray Tomes <Ray_...@kcbbs.gen.nz> wrote:
>In message <<3bt0vd$n...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>> j...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU writes:
>>Ray Tomes <Ray_...@kcbbs.gen.nz> wrote:
>>>Be careful. The evidence is that unless you do it outdoors you won't
>>>get a non-zero result.
>>
>>Warning bells are going off in my head. If you do something indoors,
>>you can control the conditions of the experiment more closely. If you
>>do it out of doors, you are at the mercy of the elements, and these
>>can introduce all sort of systematic effects (wind, vibrations, etc.)
>Do you actually read anything that someone writes in reply to you,
>or are you too clever for that. Have you actually read my original
>paper, or is that beneath you?
>Do you actually read the journals to get your facts or just make them
>up as you go along?
I hate this kind of stuff.
One can respond to your posts and assertions that we are moving
through the ether at 8 km/s without reading "The Farce of Physics".
>I already explained why you must do it outdoors. I said that doing
>it indoors is like trying to measure the speed of an ocean liner by
>installing the speedo in the swimming pool.
If anyone thought it was important, I am sure that this experiment
could and should be done inside (we have 2 mile long acclerators
--maybe one could use that building ;-)
The thought that the 8 km/sec was a systematic error is what occurred
to me. Its about the amount of error one would expect. Its certainly
not a number to base a theory on, and for that time, its close enough
to 0 for me--and for most everyone else who studied the experiments
regarding the ether and the speed of propagation of light when the earth
is moving in different directions.
As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to question SR, or
the constant speed of light, or SR. There are mountains of evidence
confirming the theory.
Sylvan Jacques
Relativity", which contains a reprint of Michelson's
"fundamental paper about the velocity of the earth relative the
assumed medium of transmission of light (the ether)":
"The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether",
Amer. J. Sci. Vol. 22, 20 (1881).
The results of this paper are clear (see Fig 4):
(He expects a sine wave, but gets shifts in the interference
fringes which are smaller than his margine of error).
Quoting, the displacements of the interference fringes are
"too small to be considered as showing a displacement ...
The numbers are simply outstanding errors of experiment."
"The interpretation of these results is that there is no
displacement of the interference bands. The result of the
hypothesis of a stationary either is thus shown to be incorrect,
and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.
This was 1881, long before SR, and not what he expected to find.
Kilmister and others say that later work confirmed his results.
Kevin Moore
>Have considered actually doing the Michelson-Morley experiment? It
>seems that it could be done for under $1000 with some lasers and a few
>mirrors.
>It seems to me that since it is trivial to redo M-M, that any
>consistent non-zero effect would have been noticed over the past 50
>years or so.
Michelson interferometers are a common tool in fourier transform spectroscopy,
so you might indeed imagine that it would have been noticed. However, to
detect the pruported aether requires very long baselines. To do it outside
would require compensation for the expansion and contraction of the equipment
due to daily temperature changes. This would not be a trivial exercise
requiring a few hundred bucks.
There is far too much independent confirmation of relativity from other
experiments to make such an exercise worthwhile.
Kevin Moore
Ray Tomes
>"fundamental paper about the velocity of the earth relative the
>assumed medium of transmission of light (the ether)":
>
>"The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether",
>Amer. J. Sci. Vol. 22, 20 (1881).
>
>The results of this paper are clear (see Fig 4):
>(He expects a sine wave, but gets shifts in the interference
>fringes which are smaller than his margine of error).
>
>Quoting, the displacements of the interference fringes are
>"too small to be considered as showing a displacement ...
>The numbers are simply outstanding errors of experiment."
>
> "The interpretation of these results is that there is no
>displacement of the interference bands. The result of the
>hypothesis of a stationary either is thus shown to be incorrect,
>and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.
Yes, look at those words carefully...
thr hypothesis of a STATIONARY ETHER si shown to be incorrect ...
I agree with that. I am proposing a moving ether. The motion of the
ether in a vortex is explicable by fluid dynamics alone. This means
that one hypothesis explains two present theories, electromagnetism
and gravity. However that hypothesis predicts one or two small
differences to relitivity. One of these is the small ether velocity
measured in the later experiments done by Morley and Miller (much
more accurate than the original Michelson one) which was confirmed
over many runs with a consistent daily variation explicable under
my hypothesis as a tilt between the earth's ether axis and its
rotational axis.
>
>This was 1881, long before SR, and not what he expected to find.
>
>Kilmister and others say that later work confirmed his results.
>--
In my view the 1933 paper by Miller does an excellent job of summarising
all the experiments, and reconciling the different results. His
proposed theory to explain the results I do not agree with though.
>
>Van (Sylvan Jacques) van...@netcom.com
Ray Tomes rto...@kcbbs.gen.nz
Ray Tomes
>
>>Have considered actually doing the Michelson-Morley experiment? It
>>seems that it could be done for under $1000 with some lasers and a few
>>mirrors.
>
>>It seems to me that since it is trivial to redo M-M, that any
>>consistent non-zero effect would have been noticed over the past 50
>>years or so.
>
>Michelson interferometers are a common tool in fourier transform spectroscopy,
>so you might indeed imagine that it would have been noticed. However, to
>detect the pruported aether requires very long baselines. To do it outside
>would require compensation for the expansion and contraction of the equipment
>due to daily temperature changes. This would not be a trivial exercise
>requiring a few hundred bucks.
You are right that lasers don't make it any easier, and about the
complexity.
>
>There is far too much independent confirmation of relativity from other
>experiments to make such an exercise worthwhile.
Yes but consider the following...
(a) There is an ether and gravity results from a vortex in it.
This replaces two laws (e/m and gravity) by one (fluid dynamics)
(b) Therefore the expected motion is not 300km/s but 8km/s approx.
(c) This agrees with virtually every experiment done (when allowing
that indoor enclosed experiments are expected to get a zero result).
(d) There is a theory that can fit all the results including relativity
successes which gets this one right too.
SURELY that deserves consideration. I have not seen one fact put
forward that in any way refutes any of the above points.
>
>Kevin Moore
>
Ray Tomes rto...@kcbbs.gen.nz
Sylvan Jacques
<ds...@orion.alaska.edu> wrote:
>Additionaly, the quality of your posts indicate you do not undrstand one
>of the most fundemental givens of science - that you do not treat
>theory - particularly mathematical theory as fact simply because there
>is some interpretive supportive evidence.
There is not just "some interpretive supportive evidence", there are
mountains of direct evidence in support of SR, and no credible
evidence contradicting it. No part of physics stands on ground that
is more solid than SR (that I can think of).
I understand science and physics in general very well.
SR is not just a mathematical theory, it is the basis for all
physical theories (even gravity can be view as a generalization
of SR), by describing the physical structure of spacetime, and
kinematics and dynmaics of particles and fields in (gravity free)
spacetime.
What could possibly be more physical?
It is not only logically and mathematically consistent, it agrees
with all experiments, whether they were done to test SR or not, and
it gets tested everyday, and constantly in new ways.
I posted what Michelson said about his results--he could not even get
results of more than a few % of those he expected, and his curve was
not at all like a sine wave--it varied randomly, just as one would
expect from random errors.
In view of the evidence, results "varying from 6 to 11 km/sec"
can clearly be put down to systematic and random errors in the experiment,
as Michelson did.
Anyone who thinks this is meaningful data is living in a fantasy world.
It is for you who doubt relativity and/or believe in the ether to
redo the experiments, not everyone else.
In the opinion of most it is absurd to attach any meaning to these
numbers. Those who want to will have to get hard data that anyone
could get for themselves if they wanted.
Anyone who can show that SR is wrong, or either exists, is bound
to get the Nobel prize and go down in history as a great scientist.
If I thought there was a remote chance of getting meaningful and
repeatable results I would rush to do the experiment, no matter
what I had to do. If any one with money thought there was the
remotest chance of getting any results they would back someone to
do this.
Its been done in the 1880's, and several times after, which only
confirmed Michelson's 1881 conclusion that he had a NULL result--
his measurements were 0 to _well_ within expected error (his words).
Bryan Wallace
In reply to the Joseph C Wang j...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU 04 Dec 1994 13:15:09 post in
Re: The Farce of Physics in sci.physics:
>Warning bells are going off in my head. If you do something indoors,
>you can control the conditions of the experiment more closely. If you
>do it out of doors, you are at the mercy of the elements, and these
>can introduce all sort of systematic effects (wind, vibrations, etc.)
Consistent with Joseph's argument, Loyd S. Swenson Jr in his article titled
"Michelson and measurement" that was published in the May 1987 issue of
PHYSICS TODAY, states in a paragraph on page 26:
Already in the late summer of 1880 Michelson must have conceived his hope
of comparing the paths of light at right angles as a method for finding the
motion of the Earth relative to the ether, for he wrote to Newcomb from
Berlin on 22 November 1880 saying that Helmholtz "could see no objection to
it, except the difficulty of keeping a constant temperature." That
objection, it turned out in the long run over the next half-century, was to
be a major one indeed. Throughout the few years (1883-89) that Michelson
collaborated with his neighboring chemist Edward W. Morley, temperature
control plagued their experiments. And until the end of Dayton C. Miller's
complementary work in the 1930s, temperature control was a perpetual problem
in interferometry.
On page 28 Swenson writes:
Michelson's interferometry grew out of his embarrassment in failing to
find "the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous ether." With
his 1881 experiment he hoped to discover the resultant velocity of all the
Earth's motions through the ether of space. Its null results he interpreted
as falsifying the hypothesis of a stationary ether. ...
Then in the classic Michelson-Morley paper of 1887, "On the relative
motion of the Earth and the luminiferous ether," they set a more modest goal
for their improved ether drift experiment. Couching their argument in terms
of corpuscular versus undulatory theories of astronomical aberration, their
report begins by stating the rationale for testing the hypothesis of a
stationary ether through which the Earth moves. ...
They had expected a change corresponding to about 0.4 wavelength. They
observed a change of less than 0.04 wavelength. Less than 10% of their
expectation meant a *conclusive* null result. Yet in their supplement to
that classic paper, Michelson and Morley offered at least seven ideas--four
possibilities for laboratories and three for observatories--for attacking
all over again the problem of the motion of the whole Solar System through
space! ...
Joseph writes:
>I don't think that you are going to convince people on this net to do
>the experiment. Setting up this experiment would take up time and
>effort, and since the likely result is to simply confirm that Miller
>had systematic effects in his experiment and that M-M was right all
>along, people aren't going to stop their new experiments to do old ones.
I agree with Joseph's arguments, why do the M-M experiment outdoors to
determine the relative velocity of light in space, when you can use modern
technology to do new equivalent experiments in outer space. Starting on page
94d.s./47s.s. of my book "The Farce of Physics" I start to detail my long
struggle to get the physics community to accept the fact that the analysis of
signal transit times in the solar system is the ultimate test of
corpuscular/dynamic versus undulatory/stationary ether theories of light. I
suspect that future science historians will argue that my 1969 published
analysis of the published 1961 Venus radar data proved beyond a reasonable
shadow of doubt that the corpuscular/dynamic ether is the correct model for
the transit time of light signals in space. I expect that eventually some
group of the involved radio astronomers will come up with an objective
independent evaluation of the relative speed of light in space based on the
more accurate modern space data that will be far more dramatic than my 1969
paper. When this happens physics will undergo a revolution that will be as
sensational to science as the fall of the Berlin Wall was to world politics.
For example, the original Venus radar data was supposed to be accurate to
within 1.5 km and the current radio to spacecraft data is reported to be
accurate to within 1.5 m, an increase in accuracy by a factor of 1000 times.
The Earth's rotation would cause a maximum difference in calculated distance
between the two theories of 260 km for the radar observations when Venus is at
its closest point, while a spacecraft orbiting Venus in a low circular orbit
as indicated by its radar altimeter would have a maximum difference in
calculated distance of about 4680 km. This would provide a dramatic
demonstration of whether the dynamic ether model or the stationary ether model
is the correct theory. The wrong theory would show the craft was in a highly
elliptical orbit, while the correct theory would show it to be in its proper
circular orbit. The data already exists, our Magellan spacecraft was orbiting
Venus in a low nearly circular orbit and the data was used for measurement of
a high-resolution global gravity field of the planet.
My book "The Farce of Physics" is now archived in many Internet libraries
and can be found by using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from
Project Gutenberg archives and on their CDROM's. Also a free Hypertext
version for Windows 3.1 will soon be available from OmniMedia via anonymous
ftp: ftp.netcom.com and the free standard 311KB ASCII version can be obtained
by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory /pub/books/wallace
by using "get farce.txt". The file in the directory is in a compressed form
and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the system will send you
the uncompressed text. The stats for November 1994 from EUNet showed that
2013 copies of the book were downloaded. The HTML/World-Wide Web version of
the book is available via URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html
If one prefers to obtain a copy by email they can send the request to my
wal...@eckerd.edu address, and if their system has a size limit for email I
can send the book in segments, with the largest being 55KB for Chapter 3.
Bryan
Jonathan Scott
>.... I expect that eventually some
>group of the involved radio astronomers will come up with an objective
>independent evaluation of the relative speed of light in space based on the
>more accurate modern space data that will be far more dramatic than my 1969
>.... The data already exists, our Magellan spacecraft was orbiting
>Venus in a low nearly circular orbit and the data was used for measurement of
>a high-resolution global gravity field of the planet.
In that case, kindly focus your efforts on obtaining this evidence,
rather than making unsupported assertions that it exists. Stronger
evidence would far more helpful to your cause than stronger accusations.
I find the idea of a large number of very intelligent people hiding such
interesting data almost as hard to swallow as the c+v ballistic light
theory. Scientists may not be interested in your theory, but I'd bet
that they'd be fascinated to find a systematically reproducible but
inexplicable phenomenon like the one you are suggesting.
Jonathan Scott
jonatha...@vnet.ibm.com or jsc...@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com
Jerry Cordaro
Unless I'm mistaken, that evidence would already exist, and have
nothing to do necessarily with the mapping of Venus. If the speed of light
is actually dependent upon the velocity of the source, wouldnt the
communications time for Magellan (or any other space probe) show a
systematic variation dependent on the relative speed of the probe and the
receiver?
Jerry
Thomas Mellin
Jerry Cordaro <as...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, that evidence would already exist,
(Mr. Cordaro is referring to evidence that the speed of light is not
independent of relative motion between the source and the observer)
>and have
>nothing to do necessarily with the mapping of Venus. If the speed of light
>is actually dependent upon the velocity of the source, wouldnt the
>communications time for Magellan (or any other space probe) show a
>systematic variation dependent on the relative speed of the probe and the
>receiver?
> Jerry
NASA must have failed to recognize and/or properly interpret the
data that Mr. Cordaro is suggestively referring to. They're really sloppy
about that. Mr. Cordaro or whoever has made the analysis suggested above
will surely be publishing the results soon in academic circles instead of
alluding to them on a newsgroup. This is amazing! I can't wait!
:-/
(Sarcasm not meant to offend Mr. Cordaro)
Jerry Cordaro
'S okay. I'm not easily offended; I've even been known to be
sarcastic once or twice myself. :)
By the way, something else occurred to me after posting this last:
If the speed of light is c+v, NASA (or any other space agency) would've
discovered it long ago, when they were unable to make contact with deep
space probes at the predicted times.
Jerry
Gary Steckly
>From: as...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jerry Cordaro)
>Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
>Date: 11 Dec 1994 22:30:11 GMT
It appears that JPL already knows something of this. Have you read Mr.
Wallace's book? Here is an interesting excerpt from Chapt 5 of "the Farce of
Physics:
"Dr. T. D. Moyer of the JPL, in his 1981 Celestial Mechanics
paper[36] evaluates the distance at the time the signal returns
to the transmitter, does not include the -tv/2 term that would
make the evaluation relativistic in the Einstein c sense, renames
the terms and rearranges the equations, adds the smaller
corrections due to time dilation, gravity, and the troposphere
and charged particles in the beam path, and correctly identifies
his major term as the Newtonian light time. What Moyer does not
do is clearly explain the enormous implications of his
mathematics, or explain how the transit time of light signals in
the solar system is the ultimate test of the Einstein wave in
ether c model and the Newtonian particle c+v model of light. The
fact that he does not present an analysis that compares the
results of the c and c+v models tends to maintain the illusion
that there is nothing wrong with the Einstein general relativity
model! I have sent Moyer reprints of the articles I've published
that present the argument that his mathematics is relativistic in
the c+v sense, and he has not chosen to rebut this argument
either by correspondence or publication. Moyer's sin is the sin
of omission, he has not lied, but has simply refused to present
the full truth...."
regards
Gary
Randall C. Poe
you first run into it: Cerenkov radiation is produced by particles
moving faster than light. It can be described classically by a wave
solution very similar to a "sonic boom". How is this possible?
Simple: light propagates in a medium with speeds slower than vacuum c,
(the ratio is given by the index of refraction), so particles near c
can easily strike the medium at speeds "faster than light".
Bryan Wallace
In reply to the David M. Cook dc...@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu 05 Dec 1994 17:24:00
post in Re: The Farce of Physics in sci.physics:
>Let's get specific here. Could you give your arguments against Einstein's
>original paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (widely available
>from Dover in the paperback reprint anthology The Principle of
>Relativity_) on a point by point, page by page basis. I think many of us
>on this group have our own copies and we can follow along.
The Dover publication is reference number 57 of my book The Farce of Physics.
On page 29 (the page numbers are for my double spaced printed manuscript,
divide them by 2 to find the approximate location in the standard ASCII single
spaced version) of my book I state:
In an evaluation of modern physics based on Langmuir's arguments, we
find that many of the dominant theories should be classed as pathological
science. For example, starting with his first characteristic rule "The
maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely
detectable intensity."; we find that Einstein's special relativity theory
which is generally acknowledged as the foundation of the rest of the
dominant theories of 20th century physics, is based on the fact that the
Michelson-Morley experiment could not detect the motion of the earth
through the ether! As I have shown in Chapter 3 "Mathematical Magic",
Einstein believed that the ether sea exists but that it is invisible and
can't be detected by experiments.
On page 81 I present the following:
My main insight into Einstein and his work came from a book by Dr. Abraham
Pais titled 'Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and the Life of Albert
Einstein.[37] Pais is an award-winning physicist who knew Einstein personally
during the last nine years of his life. On page 13 we find that in Einstein's
own words he had been an "unscrupulous opportunist." On page 44 we learn that
Einstein did not attend lectures or study, but instead used Marcel Grossman's
lecture notes to pass his college examinations. With regard to the mathematics
of relativity, page 152 states:
Initially, Einstein was not impressed and regarded the transcriptions of
his theory into tensor form as 'uberglussige Gelehrsamkeit,' (superfluous
learnedness). However, in 1912 he adopted tensor methods and in 1916
acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski for having greatly facilitated
the transition from special to general relativity.
Since most scientists do not use or are conversant in tensor mathematics, its
use has tended to obscure the intimate meaning behind the relativity
theoretical arguments. On page 164 Pais asks:
Why, on the whole, was Einstein so reticent to acknowledge the influence of
the Michelson-Morley experiment on his thinking?
On page 168 we find the answer to this question in the second volume of Sir
Edmund Whittaker's masterpiece book entitled "History of the Theories of
Aether and Electricity", where:
Whittaker's opinion on this point is best conveyed by the title of his
chapter on this subject: 'The Relativity Theory of Poincare' and Lorentz.'
In effect Whittaker showed that Einstein's special relativity theory was not
original work, but just a clever restatement of the theoretical work of
Poincare' and Lorentz. The translation of Lorentz's 1904 relativity paper[57
p.12] states:
...Poincare' has objected to the existing theory of electric and optical
phenomena in moving bodies that, in order to explain Michelson's negative
result, the introduction of a new hypothesis has been required, and that
the same necessity may occur each time new facts will be brought to light.
Surely this course of inventing special hypotheses for each new
experimental result is somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory
if it were possible to show by means of certain fundamental assumptions and
without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many
electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the
system.
The translation of Einstein's 1905 special relativity paper[57 p.37] presented
the argument that one could explain many electromagnetic actions by
fundamental assumptions based on two postulates and that the "introduction of
a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous", and his paper made no
direct reference to the Michelson-Morley experiment or the work of Poincare'
and Lorentz. On page 313 of Pais' book we learn that in 1920, after Einstein
had become famous, he made an inaugural address on aether and relativity
theory for his special chair in Leiden. In the address he states:
The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without
mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and
electromagnetic events.
So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this
ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics! This
illustrates the arbitrary nature of relativity, most physicists, and for that
matter, most physics text books, present the argument that relativity is not
an ether theory. On page 467 we find that near the end of his life, Einstein
wrote to his dear friend M. Besso in 1954:
I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of
my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest
of modern physics.
With regard to the problem of the average physicist not understanding
relativity theory, Dr. S. Chandrasekhar, a Nobel laureate physicist, writes in
an article[46] titled "Einstein and general relativity: Historical
perspectives":
The meeting of November 6, 1919 of the Royal Society also originated a
myth that persists even today (though in a very much diluted version):"Only
three persons in the world understand relativity." Eddington explained the
origin of this myth during the Christmas-recess conversation with which I
began this account.
Thomson, as President of the Royal Society at that time, concluded the
meeting with the statement:"I have to confess that no one has yet succeeded
in stating in clear language what the theory of Einstein really is." And
Eddington recalled that as the meeting was dispersing, Ludwig Silberstein
(the author of one of the early books on relativity) came up to him and
said: "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world
who understands general relativity." On Eddington demurring to this
statement, Silberstein responded, "Don't be modest Eddington." And the
Eddington's reply was, "On the contrary, I am trying to think who the third
person is!"
This lack of comprehension of Relativity theory, is not uncommon among
physicists and astronomers. Over the years, in many intimate conversations
and correspondence with them, I've found few scientists willing to admit to an
indepth understanding of the theory, yet most of them will argue of their
belief in it. I have also discovered that even the scientists that are
willing to admit to full comprehension of the theory, have serious gaps in
their knowledge of it. For example, Prof. William H. McCrea of England wrote
the counter argument to Prof. Herbert Dingle's controversial attack on the
inconsistent logic in the theory, which was published in the prestigious
journal NATURE.[47] Dingle was an interesting fellow, at one time he was a
leading proponent of the relativity theory, and even was a member of several
British solar eclipse expeditions. He was a professor at University College
in London, and the author of many books and papers on astrophysics,
relativity, and the history of science. I was introduced to McCrea by Prof.
Thornton Page, at the 1968 Fourth Texas Symposium on Relativistic
Astrophysics. McCrea who is considered to be an authority on relativity
theory, was surprised to find that Einstein considered relativity to be an
ether theory. With regard to the argument that I showed McCrea that
represented relativity as an ether theory, Einstein and Infeld state:
...On the other hand, the problem of devising the mechanical model of ether
seemed to become less and less interesting and the result, in view of the
forced and artificial character of the assumptions, more and more
discouraging.
Our only way out seems to be to take for granted the fact that space has
the physical property of transmitting electromagnetic waves, and not to
bother too much about the meaning of this statement. We may still use the
word ether, but only to express some physical property of space. This word
ether has changed its meaning many times in the development of science. At
the moment it no longer stands for a medium built up of particles. Its
story, by no means finished, is continued by the relativity theory.[20
p.153]
There is a very interesting article on this question published in the August
1982 issue of Physics Today by Prof. Yoshimasa A. Ono. The article begins:
It is known that when Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for
Physics in 1922, he was unable to attend the ceremonies in Stockholm in
December of that year because of an earlier commitment to visit Japan at
the same time. In Japan, Einstein gave a speech entitled "How I Created
the Theory of Relativity" at Kyoto University on 14 December 1922. This
was an impromptu speech to students and faculty members, made in response
to a request by K. Nishida, professor of philosophy at Kyoto University.
Einstein himself made no written notes. The talk was delivered in German
and a running translation was given to the audience on the spot by J.
Isiwara, who had studied under Arnold Sommerfeld and Einstein from 1912 to
1914 and was a professor of physics at Tohoku University. Isiwara kept
careful notes of the lecture, and published his detailed notes (in
Japanese) in the monthly Japanese periodical Kaizo in 1923; Ishiwara's
notes are the only existing notes of Einstein's talk....
Ono ends his introduction to his translation with the statement:
It is clear that this account of Einstein's throws some light on the
current controversy as to whether or not he was aware of the Michelson-
Morley experiment when he proposed the special theory of relativity in
1905; the account also offers insight into many other aspects of Einstein's
work on relativity.
With regard to the ether, Einstein states:
Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth is moving.
In other words, the ether is moving with respect to the Earth....
With regard to the experiment he argues:
Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth
with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result
as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of
relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth
cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving
around the Sun.[48]
The above information gives us insight into the nature of Einstein's
relativity theory. He believes that the sea of ether exists, but he also
believes that it cannot be detected by experiments, in other words, he
believes it is invisible. The situation in modern physics is very much like
the Hans Christian Andersen tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes", with Einstein
playing the part of the Emperor. The tale goes that the Emperor, who was
obsessed with fine clothing to the point that he cared about nothing else, let
two swindlers sell him a suit of cloth that would be invisible to anyone who
was "unfit for his office or unforgivably stupid." It turned out that no one
could see the suit--not the emperor, not his courtiers, not the citizens of
the town who lined the street to see him show off his new finery. Yet no one
dared admit it until a little child cried out, "But he doesn't have anything
on!"
In regard to Einstein's reluctance to acknowledge the influence of the
Michelson-Morley experiment on his thinking, and Whittaker's argument that his
special relativity theory was a clever restatement of the work of Poincaré and
Lorentz, I report the following published[56] statements which Einstein made
to Prof. R. S. Shankland on this matter:
The several statements which Einstein made to me in Princeton concerning
the Michelson-Morley experiment are not entirely consistent, as mentioned
above and in my earlier publication. His statements and attitudes towards
the Michelson-Morley experiment underwent a progressive change during the
course of our several conversations. I wrote down within a few minutes
after each meeting exactly what I recalled that he had said. On 4 February
1950 he said,"...that he had become aware of it through the writings of H.
A. Lorentz, but only after 1905 had it come to his attention." But at a
later meeting on 24 October, 1952 he said, "I am not sure when I first
heard of the Michelson experiment. I was not conscious that it had
influenced me directly during the seven years that relativity had been my
life. I guess I just took it for granted that it was true." However, in
the years 1905-1909 (he told me) he thought a great deal about Michelson's
result in his discussions with Lorentz and others, and then he realized (so
he told me) that he "had been conscious of Michelson's result before 1905
partly through his reading of the papers of Lorentz and more because he had
simply assumed this result of Michelson to be true."...
With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S.
Chandrasekhar's article[46] states:
In 1917, after more than two years of war, England enacted conscription
for all able-bodied men. Eddington, who was 34, was eligible for draft.
But as a devout Quaker, he was a conscientious objector; and it was
generally known and expected that he would claim deferment from military
service on that ground. Now the climate of opinion in England during the
war was very adverse with respect to conscientious objectors: it was, in
fact, a social disgrace to be even associated with one. And the stalwarts
of Cambridge of those days--Larmor (of the Larmor precession), Newall, and
others--felt that Cambridge University would be disgraced by having one of
its distinguished members a declared conscientious objector. They
therefore tried through the Home Office to have Eddington deferred on the
grounds that he was a most distinguished scientist and that it was not in
the long-range interests of Britain to have him serve in the army.... In
any event, at Dyson's intervention--as the Astronomer Royal, he had close
connections with the Admiralty--Eddington was deferred with the express
stipulation that if the war should have ended by 1919, he should lead one
of two expeditions that were being planned for the express purpose of
verifying Einstein's prediction with regard to the gravitational deflection
of light.... The Times of London for November 7, 1919, carried two
headlines: "The Glorious Dead, Armistice Observance. All Trains in the
Country to Stop," and "Revolution in Science. Newtonian Ideas Overthrown."
Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a
paper[49] titled "The Einstein Shift -- An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of
shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions,
many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in
the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data
originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger
shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the
measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.
So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world's greatest
scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the
eclipse data to present the illusion that Einstein's general relativity theory
was correct in order to prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced
because one of its distinguished members was close to being declared a
"conscientious objector"!
Matt McIrvin
Bryan Wallace <wal...@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
> In an evaluation of modern physics based on Langmuir's arguments, we
> find that many of the dominant theories should be classed as pathological
> science. For example, starting with his first characteristic rule "The
> maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely
> detectable intensity."; we find that Einstein's special relativity theory
> which is generally acknowledged as the foundation of the rest of the
> dominant theories of 20th century physics, is based on the fact that the
> Michelson-Morley experiment could not detect the motion of the earth
> through the ether! As I have shown in Chapter 3 "Mathematical Magic",
> Einstein believed that the ether sea exists but that it is invisible and
> can't be detected by experiments.
This is the opposite of what Langmuir was talking about! From the
absence of a detected effect, it is concluded that nothing is causing
such an effect; this is hardly pathological.
Langmuir was talking about situations in which one takes a barely
detectable effect as *positive* evidence of something. Whether or not
Einstein or Lorentz believed in an ether, I doubt they would take the
M-M experiment as evidence *for* its existence! They specifically
believed that if their sort of ether did exist, the M-M experiment
could say nothing either way.
If I do an experiment and observe that I cannot detect radio waves
with my ears, surely you would not regard it as "pathological science"
to conclude that I do not have the ability to detect radio waves with
my ears, *even if* I in fact believe in the existence of radio waves.
If I were to take this experiment as evidence *for* the existence of
radio waves, that might be evidence of pathological science.
Finally, does it matter whether Einstein believed there was an ether?
It is *not* one of the foundations of relativity that there is one, no
matter what Einstein said about the subject.
> My main insight into Einstein and his work came from a book by Dr. Abraham
>Pais titled 'Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and the Life of Albert
>Einstein.[37] Pais is an award-winning physicist who knew Einstein personally
>during the last nine years of his life. On page 13 we find that in Einstein's
>own words he had been an "unscrupulous opportunist." On page 44 we learn that
>Einstein did not attend lectures or study, but instead used Marcel Grossman's
>lecture notes to pass his college examinations.
Again, this doesn't matter. The evidence in favor of relativity has
nothing to do with the character of the theory's creator. Even if you
had conclusive proof that Einstein was a jerk and an idiot and wore
Bozo the Clown shoes and picked his nose in the street, it wouldn't
cast doubt on relativity at all.
>On page 313 of Pais' book we learn that in 1920, after Einstein
>had become famous, he made an inaugural address on aether and relativity
>theory for his special chair in Leiden. In the address he states:
>
> The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without
> mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and
> electromagnetic events.
>
>So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this
>ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics!
Relativity is an ether theory because Einstein said so in 1920, after
denying it in the original papers?
Einstein is using the word "ether" here differently than he was
before, and, I think, in an unfortunate way. For one thing, he's
talking about GR, not SR; for another, he does *not* mean that GR
dynamics possesses a preferred frame of reference, but that spacetime
is a dynamic entity in GR. I think his choice of words here is unwise
because of the potential for precisely this kind of confusion. If
you're not talking about a preferred reference frame determined by the
dynamics, it's a bad idea to call it an ether, because a *dynamically
preferred frame* is what Einstein was originally talking about when he
said that the luminiferous ether was superfluous, and to speak of a GR
"ether" later gives the false impression that he was contradicting his
earlier words (*unless* there is qualifying context here you've
removed, which there may well be). There *is no* preferred reference
frame specified by the dynamical equations of general relativity.
>The above information gives us insight into the nature of Einstein's
>relativity theory. He believes that the sea of ether exists, but he also
>believes that it cannot be detected by experiments, in other words, he
>believes it is invisible. The situation in modern physics is very much like
>the Hans Christian Andersen tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes", with Einstein
>playing the part of the Emperor. The tale goes that the Emperor, who was
>obsessed with fine clothing to the point that he cared about nothing else, let
>two swindlers sell him a suit of cloth that would be invisible to anyone who
>was "unfit for his office or unforgivably stupid." It turned out that no one
>could see the suit--not the emperor, not his courtiers, not the citizens of
>the town who lined the street to see him show off his new finery. Yet no one
>dared admit it until a little child cried out, "But he doesn't have anything
>on!"
What? First you complain that no modern physicists even *know* that
Einstein believed in an ether, and now you seem to be asserting that
we all believe in the same ether on Einstein's authority, and refuse
to admit that it doesn't exist! Which is it?
If you want someone to be the kid who cries out "there is no ether,"
I'll do it. There is no ether! There's a dynamic geometry; there's a
quantum vacuum; there's even a preferred frame specified by the
*solution* to the GR equations in which we live, rather than the
dynamics themselves; but there is no ether, and to describe any of
this other stuff as ether is a bad thing to do, because the word
"ether" is used historically to mean something else, for which there
is no evidence. I don't care if the word was misused by Einstein or
by the man in the moon.
Of course, I should really say "there is absolutely no reason to
believe there is an ether," but, as was mentioned in the thread on
nonscientific culture, many would probably regard this more correct
statement as "weasel words," and I think it's pretty safe by now to
stick with the more unambiguous statement.
--
Matt 01234567 <-- Indent-o-Meter
McIrvin ^ Harnessing tab damage for peaceful ends!
David M. Cook
>post in Re: The Farce of Physics in sci.physics:
>
>>Let's get specific here. Could you give your arguments against Einstein's
>>original paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (widely available
>>from Dover in the paperback reprint anthology The Principle of
>>Relativity_) on a point by point, page by page basis. I think many of us
>>on this group have our own copies and we can follow along.
Bryan, you produce a lot of volume, so I'll only address a few things at
a time. (I am disappointed that you haven't answered the original query.)
Since trn doesn't let me post with a lot of include text, I've edited
ruthlessly. Hopefully readers can refer to your original post for more
context.
I should also mention that I am by no means an expert in the field. I'm
completely self-educated as far as GR goes.
Anyone who wants real info should consult one of Clifford Will's books or
a recent preprint:
Title: General relativity and experiment Authors: T. Damour Comments: 13
pages, LATEX Report-no: IHES/P/94/56
at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/gr-qc?damour
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Langmuir stuff covered by another poster]
> My main insight into Einstein and his work came from a book by Dr. Abraham
>Pais titled 'Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and the Life of Albert
>Einstein.[37] Pais is an award-winning physicist who knew Einstein personally
>during the last nine years of his life. On page 13 we find that in Einstein's
>own words he had been an "unscrupulous opportunist."
This is WAY out of context. An "unscrupulous opportunist" at what? In
any case, this would is simply ad hominem in your usage (Pais may
have meant it in a good sense :) ).
On page 44 we learn that
>Einstein did not attend lectures or study, but instead used Marcel Grossman's
>lecture notes to pass his college examinations.
Ach, the lazy bastard! At least he didn't have DoomII and Usenet.
>With regard to the mathematics
>of relativity, page 152 states:
> Initially, Einstein was not impressed [...]
Good for him! :)
>Since most scientists do not use or are conversant in tensor mathematics, its
>use has tended to obscure the intimate meaning behind the relativity
>theoretical arguments. On page 164 Pais asks:
"Tensor mathematics" just isn't a big deal anymore. It can be learned in
a semester or so with only a strong background in calculus and linear
algebra (which any good engineering student should have.) You've picked it
up yourself, I presume. You'd have to if you wanted to attempt a serious
critique of the theory.
> Why, on the whole, was Einstein so reticent to acknowledge the influence of
> the Michelson-Morley experiment on his thinking?
What does Pais say? Says a lot about this, doesn't he.
>On page 168 we find the answer to this question in the second volume of Sir
>Edmund Whittaker's masterpiece [...]
Most historians of physics have found Whittaker's dismissal rather
puzzling. I believe Pais had some words on the subject.
[...]
[stuff about "the" aether]
>So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all,
[...]
>This lack of comprehension of Relativity theory, is not uncommon among
>physicists and astronomers.
Most physicists and astronomers don't work with GR and don't need to.
Still, I could easily find a dozen people here who understand the theory
extremely well and probably a dozen more who have a pretty decent grasp of
it.
Considering the explosion in our knowledge of particle physics in the
last 50 years, it is one of the easier fundamental theories to learn,
actually. Learning QCD takes quite a bit more investment of time.
>Over the years, in many intimate conversations
>and correspondence with them, I've found few scientists willing to admit to an
>indepth understanding of the theory,
We're all too modest...
>yet most of them will argue of their
>belief in it.
...and trusting.
>I have also discovered that
>even the scientists that are
>willing to admit to full comprehension of the theory, have serious gaps in
>their knowledge of it.
You could close a few gaps there yourself, fella.
>[...] McCrea who is considered to be an authority on relativity
>theory, was surprised to find that Einstein considered relativity to be an
>ether theory.
This is a serious gap? Considering the usual pre-1905 connotation of
"aether", it's not surprising at all.
[quote about aether]
The quote itself does not lend you the support you think it does,
especially the part about "This word ether has changed its meaning many
times..." Einstein was using the word in a radically different context
after 1916.
[...]
>The above information gives us insight into the nature of Einstein's
>relativity theory. He believes that the sea of ether exists, but he also
>believes that it cannot be detected by experiments, in other words, he
>believes it is invisible.
So this is it? Your whole thesis is based on this willful semantic
confusion of how the word aether was used prior to 1905 and how it was
used by Einstein after 1916?
Your whole argument seems to consist of pasting together quotes and
asserting meaning to them that was not intended.
[stuff about what/when E. knew about M/M]
I see nothing inconsistent there. Just the hindsight of an older man
into the thinking of a younger man.
> With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S.
>Chandrasekhar's article[46] states:
Politics? We're not done with the physics yet! In fact, you haven't
shown us any yet!
> In 1917, after more than two years of war, England enacted conscription
> for all able-bodied men. Eddington, who was 34, was eligible for draft.
> But as a devout Quaker, he was a conscientious objector; [...]
More ad hominem. And of zero relevance.
>Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a
>paper[49] titled "The Einstein Shift -- An Unsettled Problem,"
Hey! you dropped about 70 more years of observations.
Much more accurate observations have been done for quasars at the limb of
the sun.
That the original light shift observations weren't that accurate
is not earth shattering news. I believe they were good to about 10%
accuracy, though. I'll have to check that one.
>So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world's greatest
>scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the
>eclipse data
Many other confirming experiments and observations conveniently omitted.
Einstein's work in statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics
conveniently omitted.
>to present the illusion that Einstein's general relativity theory
>was correct in order to prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced
>because one of its distinguished members was close to being declared a
>"conscientious objector"!
And we've been covering up for Cambridge ever since. Don't tell Lyndon
LaRouche, please.
[...]
Dave Cook
Ray Tomes
>If you want someone to be the kid who cries out "there is no ether,"
>I'll do it. There is no ether! There's a dynamic geometry; there's a
>quantum vacuum; there's even a preferred frame specified by the
>*solution* to the GR equations in which we live, rather than the
>dynamics themselves; but there is no ether, and to describe any of
>this other stuff as ether is a bad thing to do, because the word
>"ether" is used historically to mean something else, for which there
>is no evidence. I don't care if the word was misused by Einstein or
>by the man in the moon.
>
>Of course, I should really say "there is absolutely no reason to
>believe there is an ether," but, as was mentioned in the thread on
>nonscientific culture, many would probably regard this more correct
>statement as "weasel words," and I think it's pretty safe by now to
>stick with the more unambiguous statement.
>--
>Matt 01234567 <-- Indent-o-Meter
>McIrvin ^ Harnessing tab damage for peaceful ends!
In that case let me be the defender of the ether.
First I accept your suggestion that it doesn't matter what Einstein
or anyone else said. The evidence of observation is all that counts.
I hope you agree with that.
Now, TWO reasons to believe in the ether..
1. With the assumption of an ether (as a fluid which is the only
thing in existence) there are two main types of lasting effects
in the ether. First, pressure waves, which we see as e/m waves.
Second, vortices which we see as gravity wells (or matter).
In a low pressure region (such as a vortex) the velocity of sound
in the fluid (in this case the velocity of light) is reduced.
This explains the gravitational red shift. The gravitational
bending of light can also be calculated.
So, what I am claiming is that my ether theory unites gravity and
electromagnetism. This saves one theory which is an advantage.
2. The M-M experiment actually detected a small motion relative to the
ether (about 8 km/s on average). This is correctly predicted by my
theory, but inconsistent with relativity.
Please see the following posting to this (my ether theory)
"A New Classical Physics" for the details of this plus references.
Ray Tomes rto...@kcbbs.gen.nz
Lamont Granquist
>it free on the Internet, was to try and force an investigation of the speed of
>light in space coverup. While I'm not at liberty to discuss the details, I
>will risk saying that I have been contacted by a federal official on a number
>of occasions regarding the instigation of such an investigation. Considering
>your bias on this matter, you probably won't believe it even after it breaks
>out into heavy media coverage. I suspect it will be a real embarrassment to
>many physicists and astronomers, and the humiliation regarding the total lack
>of scientific objectivity and integrity on this issue will never disappear.
Sure, D00d.
--
Lamont Granquist (lam...@u.washington.edu)
Dumb and Dumber: Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms.
Lamont Granquist
>That the original light shift observations weren't that accurate
>is not earth shattering news. I believe they were good to about 10%
>accuracy, though. I'll have to check that one.
I'm quite certain i read of the inaccuracy of the original measurements
in one of the papers in "300 years of Gravitation" by Hawking and Israel
(eds), 1987. This isn't any kind of suppressed fact.
Bryan Wallace
This post is in reply to the Patrick De Visschere p...@elis.rug.ac.be 20 Dec
1994 01:53:51 post in the Thread (The farce of physics) in sci.physics that
appeared on my system 12/25/94. I am making my reply on this Thread (The
Farce of Physics) and leaving a message to this effect on the other Thread.
Patrick's argument are so involved that they must be read in their entirety
in order to fully comprehend them. He ends his post with the following
statement:
>I can't see where B.G.Wallace has discovered that this analysis is based
>on c+v instead of on c. Maybe he can explain it in more detail.
In reply to Patrick, the following paragraph is an ASCII version of a
paragraph taken from my published 1969 article titled RADAR TESTING OF THE
RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE (book reference number [18]):
I made both a c and c+v analysis of eight of the published 1961
observations. Equation (1) was used to calculate the distance from
the radar station to the surface of Venus for the c theory.
DE = tc/2 - tv/2 (1)
Here t is the radar beam's transit time; v = dc/2f the relative
radial velocity, positive during approach and negative during
recession; d is the Doppler shift; f is the frequency; DE = tc/2
during the instant of reflection which is t/2 in the c theory but
not in the c+v theory.
Equation (2) gives the distance for the c+v theory and is based
on the fact that c + (c+2v) = 2(c+v). The second term of both
equations (1) and (2) corrects the distance to the time the beam
returned to the transmitter. If it is made positive it will
correct the distance to the time the beam left the transmitter.
DG = t(c+v)/2 - tv/2 = tc/2 (2)
The reference [60] published TABLE II Millstone radar summary of Venus
observations in the spring of 1961 gives the time of measurement referred to
the instant of reflection which is the time the distance to the planet surface
equals tc/2 for the c theory. The FIG. 4 plot of the values of the a. u.
calculated from the radar data shows variations that are far larger than their
maximum estimate of all possible errors, and they contain a daily component
that is proportional to the velocity changes due to the Earth's rotation, a
30-day component that is proportional to changes in the Earth-Moon rotation,
and a synodic component that is proportional to changes in the relative solar
orbital velocities. The published TABLE IV Venus 1964 flight time and Doppler
results give only one observation per day for a pulse that arrives at the
receiver precisely at 1200 UT, the time the distance equals tc/2 in the c+v
theory.(J.V.Evans,etal., Astron. J. 70, 486 (1965)) The results were from the
MIT Lincoln Lab and the funding was from the U. S. Air Force. On double-space
page 134 of my book I detail my attempt to get radar data for a more elaborate
evaluation of the relative velocity of light in space from the MIT principle
investigator, I. I. Shapiro. I finally obtained the data from L. M.
Hollingsworth, the Technical Advisor for Electronics of the Air Force. As I
explained to Shapiro on page 138, the data could not be used because there was
no significant difference in the location of the stations or the observing
times. As I explain on page 142 regarding my meeting with Hollingsworth, he
admitted the data I wanted existed, but refused to release it. As I explain
on page 96 of my book, At the December 1974 AAS Dynamical Astronomy Meeting,
E. M. Standish Jr. of JPL reported that significant unexplained systematic
variations existed in all the interplanetary data, and that they were forced
to use empirical correction factors that had no theoretical foundation. He
made a very dramatic plea for help on this matter, and after he was finished I
talked with him and found that they had received very little cooperation from
the MIT group. I explained to him my own research on this matter and how I
had found the velocity of light was c+v. I could see from his reaction that
he realized that this was the answer he was looking for, and he thanked me
profusely. On page 106 I explain that T. D. Moyer of JPL had published a
paper that used c+v calculations for the transit time of light in space.[36]
The key sentence is on page 46 of his paper where he states: The "time tag"
associated with each range observable is the known reception time t3(TAI).
The one way light distance from a satellite to an observer would be DG =
t(c+v) - tv = tc at the reception time for the c+v theory. The left hand side
of his (A5) equation is t3(ET) - t2(ET) and is the transit time t from the
satellite to the observer. The principle first term on the right-hand side of
the equation is r23/c and is called the Newtonian light time, with r23 being
equivalent to DG or the distance from the satellite to the observer in the c+v
theory. So t3(ET) - t2(ET) = r23/c is equivalent to t = DG/c which translates
to DG = tc for the distance from the spacecraft to the receiver at the time
the signal is received in the Galilean/Newtonian/corpuscular/c+v theory. In
the References section of Moyer's paper he references a paper published by E.
M. Standish, Jr.! I've sent email copies of the book to the concerned radio
astronomers, and have yet to receive any objections to my arguments.
A very prominent scientist who is a member of the US National Academy of
Sciences, Gerard de Vaucouleurs, found the provocative title of my book most
intriguing, and he requested the free ASCII email copy. He read it two times
and sent me a 3 page review of the book by regular mail. My answer to his
review was:
In reply to your letter of 4 April, I am pleased that you found my book
of interest. You are correct in seeing the two main themes in the book,
and I like to think that I would be happy to be proven wrong, because then
I would know more about the true nature of the universe. You are also
right in assuming that I would like to resurrect the "ballistic" theory of
light. With regard to the evidence that contends that spectroscopic
binaries present evidence against the ballistic theory, in a classic
astronomy textbook (R. H. Baker, Astronomy (D. Van Nostrand Co., Princeton,
N.J., 1955) p.414) we find the following ad hoc c constant light velocity
argument to explain observed phenomena in eclipsing binary stars:
Struve concludes that the gas whirlpools cause the seeming discrepancy
in the behavior of a few eclipsing binaries which long puzzled the
investigators. Where the velocity curve of the binary implies an orbit
of considerable eccentricity, the light curve may require a circular
orbit.
Fox has done an extensive investigation of the supposed evidence against
the ballistic Ritz c+v emission theory (J. G. Fox, "Evidence Against
Emission Theories, "Amer. J. Phys., 33,1(1965)) and with regard to binary
stars argues:
There are also some difficulties for Struve's hypothesis. The model
would seem to have consequences similar to those of the Ritz theory.
With regard to your argument "that there must exist publicly accessible
records on planetary or space probes ranging which should be more precise
than the early Venus data you have used and which could provide a more
stringent test of the constancy of the velocity of light," the original
Venus radar data was supposed to be accurate to within 1.5 km and the
current radio to spacecraft data is reported to be accurate to within 1.5
m, an increase in accuracy by a factor of 1000 times. The Earth's rotation
would cause a maximum difference in calculated distance between the two
theories of 260 km for the radar observations when Venus is at its closest
point, while a spacecraft orbiting Venus in a low circular orbit as
indicated by its radar altimeter would have a maximum difference in
calculated distance of about 4680 km. This would provide a dramatic
demonstration of whether the c constant velocity or the c+v variable
velocity of light model, or a variation of either model, is the correct
theory. The wrong theory would show the craft was in a highly elliptical
orbit, while the correct theory would show it to be in its proper circular
orbit. The data already exists, our Magellan spacecraft is orbiting Venus
in a low nearly circular orbit and the data is being used for measurement
of a high-resolution global gravity field of the planet.
My book "The Farce of Physics" is now archived in many Internet libraries
ds...@orion.alaska.edu
>
> I'm quite certain i read of the inaccuracy of the original measurements
> in one of the papers in "300 years of Gravitation" by Hawking and Israel
> (eds), 1987. This isn't any kind of suppressed fact.
>
> --
> Lamont Granquist (lam...@u.washington.edu)
Gee Lamont - what is your point here? One line in a 7 year old book
constitutes popularizing an otherwise omitted bit of information? And
this of course undermines experimental data that seems absent current
literature on the subject?
David M. Cook
Lamont's point is that the inaccuracy of the original measurements was
and is well known. Who said anything about popularizing?
Dave Cook
Lamont Granquist
>Gee Lamont - what is your point here? One line in a 7 year old book
>constitutes popularizing an otherwise omitted bit of information?
No, it doesn't mean it was "popularized", but it was noted in a review
article on the current state of affairs WRT the validity of GR. I
stated that it was not suppressed.
>And
>this of course undermines experimental data that seems absent current
>literature on the subject?
I'm having trouble parsing you. I don't think the invalidity of the first
tests of GR are very interesting, and roughly the same experiment has been
done better and the results have been in line with the predictions of GR.
The validity of those first measurements don't matter at all in terms of
verifying GR. The only interest would be more sociological.
David M. Cook
<ds...@orion.alaska.edu> wrote:
>In article <3dtvgr$n...@linux5.ph.utexas.edu>, dc...@linux5.ph.utexas.edu
>>
>> Lamont's point is that the inaccuracy of the original measurements was
>> and is well known. Who said anything about popularizing?
>> Dave Cook
>Then I assume you and Lamont concede Wallace's point that the inaccuracy of
>the original measurements makes them useless as any evidence of validity,
The original measurements were not useless. They weren't accurate enough,
but they weren't useless.
>and
>that no one regards them of any use, or cites them as evidence. Is this
>what you and Lamont are getting at? And if everybody knows this - why does
>the theory remain?
This measurement (of light bending at the limb of the sun) has been done
many times with much better precision and the results are consistent with
GR. But that information is inconsistent with Wallace's ill-informed
critique.
By the way, all this info is in a popular book by Clifford Will, _Was
Einstein Right?_. The original sources are also available to anyone
actually interested.
Dave Cook
ds...@orion.alaska.edu
> and is well known. Who said anything about popularizing?
>
> Dave Cook
Then I assume you and Lamont concede Wallace's point that the inaccuracy of
the original measurements makes them useless as any evidence of validity, and
Patrick De Visschere
(Bryan Wallace) wrote:
> This post is in reply to the Patrick De Visschere p...@elis.rug.ac.be 20 Dec
> 1994 01:53:51 post in the Thread (The farce of physics) in sci.physics
[omitted]
> I made both a c and c+v analysis of eight of the published 1961
> observations. Equation (1) was used to calculate the distance from
> the radar station to the surface of Venus for the c theory.
>
> DE = tc/2 - tv/2 (1)
>
> Here t is the radar beam's transit time; v = dc/2f the relative
> radial velocity, positive during approach and negative during
> recession; d is the Doppler shift; f is the frequency; DE = tc/2
> during the instant of reflection which is t/2 in the c theory but
> not in the c+v theory.
> Equation (2) gives the distance for the c+v theory and is based
> on the fact that c + (c+2v) = 2(c+v). The second term of both
> equations (1) and (2) corrects the distance to the time the beam
> returned to the transmitter. If it is made positive it will
> correct the distance to the time the beam left the transmitter.
>
> DG = t(c+v)/2 - tv/2 = tc/2 (2)
>
[much omitted]
> ... On page 106 I explain that T. D. Moyer of JPL had published a
> paper that used c+v calculations for the transit time of light in space.[36]
> The key sentence is on page 46 of his paper where he states: The "time tag"
> associated with each range observable is the known reception time t3(TAI).
Would you explain why this is a key sentence.
> The one way light distance from a satellite to an observer would be DG =
> t(c+v) - tv = tc at the reception time for the c+v theory. The left hand side
> of his (A5) equation is t3(ET) - t2(ET) and is the transit time t from the
> satellite to the observer. The principle first term on the right-hand side of
> the equation is r23/c and is called the Newtonian light time, with r23 being
> equivalent to DG or the distance from the satellite to the observer in the c+v
> theory. So t3(ET) - t2(ET) = r23/c is equivalent to t = DG/c which translates
> to DG = tc for the distance from the spacecraft to the receiver at the time
> the signal is received in the Galilean/Newtonian/corpuscular/c+v theory.
In your analysis (the higher equations (1) and (2)) the distances DE and
DG are distances between the radar station and the reflector (a satellite
or venus) at a specific time, namely at the moment of reception (in Moyer
notation this is at t3). In contrast the distance r23 for example used by
Moyer is the distance between the position of the reflector at the time of
reflection (t2) and the position of the receiver at the time of reception
(t3). This is something different than the distance used by you. r23 is
(by definition) nothing else than the distance travelled by the returning
light and since Moyer accepts a velocity of light equal to c the time
taken is t3-t2=distance/velocity=r23/c.
Because Moyer formula looks the same as your equation (2) doesn't mean
that he uses a c+v theory. r23 is not equivalent with DG. Whereas
r23=|r3(t3)-r2(t2)|, DG=|r3(t3)-r2(t3)|. I hope you note the difference.
I can only guess that you interpret the key sentence, mentionned higher,
as meaning that r23 is the distance at t3. I thing this is wrong. The
paper clearly states (see equation A4) what the meaning is of r23 (and
r12).
[rest omitted]
____________________________________________________________________
Patrick De Visschere tel: +32 (0)9 264 3376
University Gent - ELIS fax: +32 (0)9 264 3594
St. Pietersnieuwstraat 41
B-9000 Gent, Belgium p...@elis.rug.ac.be
____________________________________________________________________
Bryan Wallace
This post is in reply to the Patrick De Visschere p...@elis.rug.ac.be 03 Jan
1995 23:56:13 post in the Thread "The Farce of Physics" in the newsgroup
"sci.physics".
Patrick writes:
> ... On page 106 I explain that T. D. Moyer of JPL had published a
>paper that used c+v calculations for the transit time of light in space.[36]
>The key sentence is on page 46 of his paper where he states: The "time tag"
>associated with each range observable is the known reception time t3(TAI).
Would you explain why this is a key sentence.
My answer to Patrick is as follows:
:As I've shown in the post that you have cited, the +v and -v relative
:velocity terms cancel for the distance to the planet in the Newtonian c+v
:particle theory of light in space when the radar or radio signal are received
:by the observing station. This allows the radio astronomers to use the
:Newtonian model to calculate the distance at the known reception time, and
:yet present the illusion that they are using the Einstein relativity theory c
:constant speed of light model. As I explained in my post, Theodore D. Moyer
:of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory states in the referenced paper "The first
:term on the right-hand side is the Newtonian light time." In my current
:edition of the 1993-1994 DIRECTORY OF PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY STAFF that I
:receive free every two years as a member of The American Physical Society,
:Moyer is no longer listed as a member of JPL. I wonder if his no longer
:being at JPL had anything to do with his use of the term "Newtonian light
:time." E. M. Standish Jr., who I also mentioned in my post, is still listed
:as a member of JPL. I sent him a copy of my book by email in 1993, and he
:has yet to comment on it! Irwin I. Shapiro was also sent a copy of the book
:and has had no comment on it to date!
Patrick also writes:
> ... In contrast the distance r23 for example used by
>Moyer is the distance between the position of the reflector at the time of
>reflection (t2) and the position of the receiver at the time of reception
>(t3). ...
Patrick has misunderstood Moyer's paper, because Moyer was not talking about
reflected signals. On page 34 of his paper Moyer wrote:
The following describes briefly the range and Doppler observables of the
Deep Space Network (DSN) of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. An electromagnetic signal is transmitted at a tracking
station on Earth, received at the spacecraft and retransmitted, and
received at the same or different tracking station on Earth.
In the case of a radar reflection from a planet we have a two-way range
observable experiment. In Moyer's case, we have the transmission of a radio
signal to a spacecraft and then its retransmission by the craft, for two one-
way range observable experiments. The spacecraft can even transmit back at
two or more frequencies, allowing evaluation of the extinction of the primary
radiation and its replacement by secondary radiation scattered in the forward
direction by the electrons of the medium. The one-way transmissions from the
craft can even be directed by the on-board clock and computer for even more
elaborate experiments. The original Venus radar data was supposed to be
accurate to within 1.5 km and the current radio to spacecraft data is reported
to be accurate to within 1.5 m, an increase in accuracy by a factor of 1000
times. The Earth's rotation would cause a maximum difference in calculated
distance between the two theories of 260 km for the radar observations when
Venus is at its closest point, while a spacecraft orbiting Venus in a low
circular orbit as indicated by its radar altimeter would have a maximum
difference in calculated distance of about 4680 km. This would provide a
dramatic demonstration of whether the c constant velocity or the c+v variable
velocity of light model, or a variation of either model, is the correct
theory. The wrong theory would show the craft was in a highly elliptical
orbit, while the correct theory would show it to be in its proper circular
orbit. The data already exists, our Magellan spacecraft has orbited Venus in
a low nearly circular orbit and the data is being used for measurement of a
high-resolution global gravity field of the planet. The major reason for
writing my book "The Farce of Physics" and distributing it free on the
Internet, was to try and force an investigation of the speed of light in space
coverup. I have been contacted by a federal official on a number of occasions
regarding the instigation of such an investigation. This same official has
also made an official request for the Magellan data, so elements of it may
soon be available for anyone who wants to make an independent evaluation of
the relative velocity of light in space. I will post further details to this
Thread as they become available.
On page 168(double-spaced manuscript) of my book, I give the following
details of my talk before the March 1989 conference "The Problem of Space and
Time in Natural Science" held at Pulkovo Observatory near Leningrad in the
USSR:
The following day was Wednesday, and my talk was the last one of the
morning session and Svetlana served as the translator. I used overhead
projector slides for illustration and to help prompt me, since I did not
have a prepared text, and the title of the talk was "The Problem of Space
and Time in Modern Physics." Robert's log with his notes on the lecture
allowed me to create a written version which was to be published in the
conference proceedings. The talk was based on the arguments and
information in my paper[71] "THE GREAT SPEED OF LIGHT IN SPACE COVERUP" and
the followup paper[32] "SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM" which was in part a reply to
I.Shapiro's reply[72] to the first paper. One of the many interesting
comments and questions that followed the talk, was where a participant
asked me to summarize my opinions with regard to relativity theory. I
stated that the special relativity first postulate with regard to detection
of translatory motion, was obviously false, and referenced Einstein's
former research associate's argument in this regard.[73] I went on to
state that any reasonably objective physicist should realize that the
ultimate test of the second postulate that the speed of light in space is
constant, is to analyze the modern data on the transit times of light
signals in the solar system, and this evidence shows beyond a shadow of a
reasonable doubt that the postulate is also obviously false, and I cited my
above arguments in this regard. I also mentioned that the prominent
British astronomer Dr. G. C. McVittie in both publication and
correspondence has indicated that he has had the same sort of problem in
trying to obtain meaningful information from Shapiro, and in a 1970 letter
writes that the secrecy with which Shapiro surrounds his methods and his
observational results makes him wonder whether there is something to be
concealed. In McVittie's paper, he points out the fact that:
in the Einsteinian theory of gravitation, an exact solution for the
gravitational field of a set of discrete bodies is possible only when one
of the bodies is of finite mass whereas the rest are of infinitesimally
small mass. This is in contrast to the Newtonian theory of gravitation
in which an exact solution for the field of two massive bodies is
possible, complications arising only when three or more bodies are in
question...[81]
The fact that Moyer's equation (3) is the "Newtonian" approximation to the
n-body metric, should be considered as evidence against Einstein's general
relativity equivalence principle.[36] On the other hand, Dr. J. C. Hafele
and Dr. R. E. Keating have used commercial jet flights and atomic clocks to
present convincing empirical evidence that tends to resolve the
relativistic clock "paradox", and they found that the relativistic dilation
of time was a function of the clock's speed relative to an absolute
coordinate system at rest relative to the distant galaxies.[74] I
certainly have no problem with E=mc^2 since the atomic bomb is ample
evidence that it is true. So in general, much of relativity theory is
true, but many of the original arguments are not. The real problem with
modern science is the lack of scientific objectivity and integrity on the
part of many prominent scientists, they are little more than politicians,
and are far more concerned with the advancement of their careers and
status, then the advancement of science. What is needed are true
scientific journals that publish all arguments and evidence in a reasonable
period of time and at a modest cost. The peer review should take place
after publication, and should involve all scientists, and not just a
privileged few. The key to the more rapid advancement of scientific
knowledge, is a more efficient and democratic forum for communication.
My book "The Farce of Physics" is now archived in many Internet libraries
and can be found by using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from
Project Gutenberg archives and on their CDROM's. Also a free Hypertext
version for Windows 3.1 will soon be available from OmniMedia via anonymous
ftp: ftp.netcom.com and the free standard 311KB ASCII version can be obtained
by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory /pub/books/wallace
by using "get farce.txt". The file in the directory is in a compressed form
and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the system will send you
the uncompressed text. Also in the directory you will find a file called
farce-of-physics.gz which contains the complete discussion Thread "The Farce
of Physics" in the newsgroup "sci.physics" for those without news-feed. The