Theory and practice in "relativity"
c.h.thompson
To: <q...@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <lmo...@socrates.if.usp.br>
Subject: Re: [qm2] Recent published paper in "Jornal da Universidad do Sao
Paulo" (Brazil)
Date: Sunday, May 05, 2002 8:53 AM
> "Overview of Recent Researches on the Meaning of
> Relativity"
>
> Leonardo Motta, lmo...@socrates.if.usp.br
> Rua Dr. Artur Neiva, 230. V Universitaria. Sao Paulo,
> SP. Brasil.
> 05359-200
>
> The theory of relativity its usually thought as 'untouchable'
> well-established fact by persons that are not acquainted
> with it wider than usual physics textbooks. This view is far
> away from truth.
Yes indeed, but despite the erudite references the fault does not lie in the
restriction to speed c, at least not if it is experimental evidence you are
going on!
> Wheeler who introduced superluminal (i.e., faster than light)
> virtual processes to interpret fundamental features of
Of course interactions at speeds greater than c cannot be ruled out on
scales smaller than we can directly investigate, but the experiments quoted
are far from convincing:
> In quantum optics it has been measured signals in the order
> of 10c in total reflection experiments [3], [4] and even 300c
> in atomic mediums
I know that refs [3] to [5] have been challenged. I have myself looked at
Wang's paper. The conclusion of evidence for FTL effects in this only holds
(possibly) if you ignore some wiggles in his graph.
> [5]! We know that many galaxies emit apparent
> superluminal particles jets
No! This is an illusion caused by the geometry and the way we analyse
things. See Falla, David D and M J Floyd, "Superluminal motion in
astronomy", submitted to European Journal of Physics. I don't know if this
is published yet.
> [6]. In some superstring models, solutions known as
> "tachyonics" emerge naturally [7].
Well yes, in such an abstract theory anything can happen! There is no
evidence yet that the theory applies to the real world.
> In opposition to what seems, all this results are perfectly
> compatibles with relativity. In fact, some of them emerge
> from the theory itself! Einstein and his colleague Natan
> Rosen, exploiting Schwarzschild black-hole
> model, found the first v > c solution on the domain of
> General Relativity.
Hmm ... but we have no proof that black holes exist ...
> The Einstein-Rosen bridges, as we call them, were largely
> studied by physicists like Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking
> and Roger Penrose, in such a manner that today we have
> many 'time travel machines'.
!!!!!!???
> Not less famous is the result of J. S. Bell that generalizes the
> Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, allowing time-travel
> in the domain of quantum mechanics [2], [8].
I trust you all know by now in this group that there is no valid
experimental evidence for "Bell correlations" exceeding any local realist
limit! (See http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/ )
> This last result lead the Romanian physicist
> and mathematician Florentin Smarandache to develop a
> theory that allows arbitrarily large velocities [9].
Theory! Theory! Theory! Where is the link with the real world?
> With so many experimental results and theoretical insights
> apparently against the idea that 'c' is a limit in Nature, it is
> famous the current academic discussion of the meaning
> of 'c'. Some allege relativity breaks in face of such results [10],
> but these are left in a delicate situation because the basic
> premise from where relativity is developed, that the
> "rest" and uniform rectilinear motion are indistinguishable,
> is not a principle that one arrives from hard and long thought,
No indeed. It is not a reasonable assumption as an absolute rule, only as
an approximation.
> rather is an experimental fact (being the Michelson-Morley
> experiment the most famous, but not the only one!).
But how about Dayton Miller's conflicting results, so unjustifiably
consigned to the rubbish bin, erased from the scientific record? See
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm .
> Nowadays, the discussion of relativity is taken over
> all journals of The world and envelopes many physicists over
> Princeton, Cambridge, Latin America, East European,
> India, Berkeley, China, Japan; at last, the whole globe.
> There is still much to learn from it, and maybe this
> understanding will come from our future deeper view on
> the world machinery, the fundamental forces, beyond the
> physics solid established today.
It is the idea that anything of modern physics is "solid established" that
is in dispute!
Caroline
c.h.th...@pgen.net
http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
> References:
> [1]: Feynman, R. P. "QED: The Strange Theory of Light
> and Matter", Princeton Univ. Press (1998).
> [2]: Herbert, N. "Faster than Light", New Am. Trade (1995).
> [3]: Nimtz, G. Ann. Phys., 7 (1998), no. 8, p. 618.
> [4]: Chiao, R. Phys. Lett., A246: 19-25 (1998).
> [5]: Wang, J. L. et al. Nature 406, 277-279 (20/06/2000).
> [6]: e.g. NASA's site:
> http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast11jun97_1.htm
> [7]: 'Tachyon' comes from the greek, 'tachys', meaning
> swift. Some models are cut so they do not have 'tachyonic modes'
> that could explain, for instance, dark matter.
> [8]: Thorne, K. "Black Holes and time warps": W. W.
> Norton & Comp. (1996)
> [9]: Smarandache, F. "There is no speed barrier in the
> Universe". Bull. of Pure & App. Sci., Delhi, India,
> Vol. 17D, N.1, p.61 (1998); also at:
> http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/NoSpLim.htm
> [10]: See for instance Rodrigues, Jr. W. A., Maiorino,
> J. E., Random Oper. & Stoch. Equ., vol. 4, 355-400 (1996),
> physics/9710030; Recami, E. physics/0109062
Dirk Van de moortel
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message news:3cd52...@news2.vip.uk.com...
[snip]
>
> But how about Dayton Miller's conflicting results, so unjustifiably
> consigned to the rubbish bin, erased from the scientific record? See
> http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm .
Views entirely based on reading shit written by someone who
makes a living on Wilhelm Reich's leftovers:
See http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
See http://www.orgonelab.org
See http://www.orgonelab.org/events.htm
See http://www.orgonelab.org/seminar1.htm
See http://www.orgonelab.org/seminar2.htm
See http://www.orgonelab.org/seminar10.htm
See http://www.orgonelab.org/seminar7.htm
Orgone = Wilhelm Reich = Convicted Criminal = Thriving on the gullible.
Demeo = http://www.holis.de/aut/!demeo.htm
Hilarious interview on http://www.holis.de/mag/int/i_deme.htm
on hilarious website http://www.holis.de/index.htm
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>I trust you all know by now in this group that there is no valid
>experimental evidence for "Bell correlations" exceeding any local realist
>limit! (See http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/ )
I trust anyone reading this newsgroup would know that I've shown
that the phenomena you are using as objections to quantum mechanics,
require quantum mechanics themselves.
[...]
>Theory! Theory! Theory! Where is the link with the real world?
The match to experiments.
[...]
>
>But how about Dayton Miller's conflicting results, so unjustifiably
>consigned to the rubbish bin, erased from the scientific record? See
>http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm .
Consigned to the rubbish bin. As your url indicates.
[...]
>It is the idea that anything of modern physics is "solid established" that
>is in dispute!
Nothing that you dispute corresponds to a dispute which exists
in modern physics. What you dispute is as well established as "well
established" gets.
timyea2002
> I trust you all know by now in this group that there is no valid
> experimental evidence for "Bell correlations" exceeding any local
> realist limit!
That's not a very honest appraisal, in my opinion. Needless to say,
there are "loopholes" with regard to EVERY experimental result of
every kind, not just experiments related to quantum correlations. It
is NEVER possible to completely eliminate all conceivable "loopholes"
from ANY experiment. We can always "save the appearances" by a
suitable set of auxiliary beliefs. That's one reason all knowledge is
provisional. Every observation is based on a sub-structure of
inter-connected premises and interpretations. These inter-connections
impose certain constraints on whether one set of ideas is compatible
with another, and the body of science consists of the largest set of
mutually compatible ideas
we can construct at any given time. The evidence for non-classical
correlations in quantum phenomena is actually quite a bit stronger
than the evidence for many other things that (I suspect) you readily
accept as "experimentally confirmed". The difference is that you
DON'T WANT the violations of Bell's inequality to be true, so you hold
those experiments to the highest standards of skepticism. That's
fine, and there is certainly room for personal preference in our
decisions about what to believe, and it's certainly good to refine
experimental tests and keep looking for conflicts with our beliefs...
BUT you should realize
that NO knowledge can withstand the highest standard of skepticism.
Absolute skepticism trumps all knowledge, so when you say that the
tests of Bell's inequality do not stand up to absolute skepticism, you
are saying something quite trivial. The same statement applies to
every other test of every other thing.
The premises underlying tests of Bell's inequalities are not
particularly outlandish or far-fetched. To the contrary, it is the
counter-premises
underlying the various "loopholes" that have become increasingly
far-fetched. This doesn't mean that we should ignore those
possibilities, but it does mean that your claim about "no valid
experimental evidence" is misguided and erroneous. Before anyone can
assess the validity of experimental evidence, they need to have a
sound understanding of what constitutes experimental evidence
throughout science, i.e., they need a mature understanding of the
basics of epistemology.
You would be less frustrated if you would simply accept that, among
people who have no vested interest or personal preference for Bell's
inequalities to be satisfied, the experimental evidence is quite
strong that they are violated. Everyone who knows anything about Bell
tests knows full well the "loopholes", but they also have the
perspective of knowing the loopholes in every other aspect of
knowledge, so they can form a mature judgement about the liklihood of
those results being valid, while still recognizing that all knowledge
is provisional. They also have a fuller understanding of the
interconnections between the results of Bell tests and the results of
other observations. Ultimately it is only by assessing an
experimental result in this much broader context that we can form a
meaningful judgement as to its value.
> But how about Dayton Miller's conflicting results, so unjustifiably
> consigned to the rubbish bin, erased from the scientific record?
The most important part of scientific results is repeatability. No
amount of post facto analysis of one particular historical experiment
can substitute for repeatable experimental results. The null result
of Michelson experiments is VERY well established, and has been
repeated by many different people in many different situations.
Again, you have to place each experimental result within the overall
context. If one person reports that there were TWO moons out last
night, but no one else reports this, and in fact several others report
that they looked last night and saw only one moon, as usual, what do
we conclude? Suppose the person reporting two moons is of the highest
integrity, and has very good eyesight. Within the context of all our
other knowledge, we still conclude that this person's report is
somehow in error. It may be an interesting exercise to try to figure
out WHY he was in error, but frankly this exercise has little to do
with how many moons are orbiting the earth. Likewise we can speculate
on why Miller reported what he did, but if you want to know whether
Michelson tests really do or do not give null results, the best
approach is not to dig through Miller's old lab notes, it's to go DO
the test. When we do this, we confirm the null result. Only those
with a vested interest in a non-null result will cling to one-off
reports that conflict with all our other knowledge.
c.h.thompson
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:lBbB8.59614$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > unjustifiably consigned to the rubbish bin, erased from
> > the scientific record? See
> > http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm .
>
> Views entirely
(by no means true! Most of my views on the aether were reached, as I've
told you before, prior to reading DeMeo's paper and have been re-inforced by
reading Miller's own words.)
> based on reading shit written by someone who
> makes a living on Wilhelm Reich's leftovers:
> See http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
Your opinion is totally irrelvant to the matter of aether drift and
relativity. It is also, as we have discussed before, based on slanderous
and inaccurate information. James DeMeo has responded and explained the
true situation re Reich (who was no criminal but simply a man who believed
he had made a discovery or two that were of benefit to our health as well as
advancing our understanding of the world) in a paper that I have posted on
my site:
http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/People/DeMeo_Reich.htm
What's your problem? Why do you keep repeating this stuff about Reich when
it is Miller we are discussing? Have you read Miller's important 1933 paper
yet? (Miller, Dayton C, "The Ether-Drift Experiments and the Determination
of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 203-242
(1933)). I doubt it. You seem to have no interest in physics, only
personal vendettas.
Caroline
--
c.h.th...@pgen.net
http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
Martin Hogbin
>
>
> Your opinion is totally irrelvant to the matter of aether drift and
> relativity.
<Snip>
> You seem to have no interest in physics, only
> personal vendettas.
Do you have some problems or criticism of relativity? If so,
can you please tell me what they are.
Do you propose or support an alternative theory?
Martin Hogbin
Dirk Van de moortel
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message news:3cd64...@news1.vip.uk.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:lBbB8.59614$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message
> news:3cd52...@news2.vip.uk.com...
> > > But how about Dayton Miller's conflicting results, so
> > > unjustifiably consigned to the rubbish bin, erased from
> > > the scientific record? See
> > > http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm .
> >
> > Views entirely
>
> (by no means true! Most of my views on the aether were reached, as I've
> told you before, prior to reading DeMeo's paper and have been re-inforced by
> reading Miller's own words.)
Prior to studying physics.
>
> > based on reading shit written by someone who
> > makes a living on Wilhelm Reich's leftovers:
> > See http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
>
> Your opinion is totally irrelvant to the matter of aether drift and
> relativity.
> It is also, as we have discussed before, based on slanderous
> and inaccurate information. James DeMeo has responded and explained the
> true situation re Reich (who was no criminal but simply a man who believed
> he had made a discovery or two that were of benefit to our health as well as
> advancing our understanding of the world) in a paper that I have posted on
> my site:
> http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/People/DeMeo_Reich.htm
Reich was warned to stop selling his junk to the gullible.
He refused and was rightfully thrown in jail. That is how
the weak are defended.
DeMeo is more careful and probably will not be thrown
in jail.
> What's your problem? Why do you keep repeating this
> stuff about Reich when it is Miller we are discussing?
Miller was debunked. By Shankland and by countless experiments.
There is nothing to discuss. His paper is history.
It is defended by a Reich follower with an economic interest
in the ether. Not a physicist. Worthless.
It was defended by some obscure French Theosophy crackpot.
Worthless.
It is defended by you, an obvious DeMeo fan. Not a physicist. Worthless.
It is defended by the Theosophical Movement. Worthless.
More?
> Have you read Miller's important 1933 paper
> yet? (Miller, Dayton C, "The Ether-Drift Experiments and the Determination
> of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 203-242
> (1933)). I doubt it.
You don't have to doubt.
Of course I haven't read it.
I have read Shankland's article.
One look at the table on
http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/experiments.html
should be enough.
And I do not intend paying 7$ to DeMeo for a 41 xeroxed pages copy
http://www.orgonelab.org/xphysics.htm
to find out what I already know.
I haven't read Aristotle's work either. I read about it.
Historically interesting and amusing at most.
> You seem to have no interest in physics, only
> personal vendettas.
That depends on the glasses you are wearing.
I am interested in physics and the reasons why some feel
compelled to reject it.
Dirk Vdm
Bruce Pew
[snip meaningless mumbo jumbo]
"You seem to have no interest in physics, only
personal vendettas."
Caroline
This is patently absurd. Anybody reading this newsgroup (at least those
that have some distance between their ears) know that Dirk is interested
in physics and is exceedingly patient with clueless nitwits such as
yourself.
Bruce
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
c.h.thompson
Martin Hogbin <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:ab5k88$gj3$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
[to c.h.thompson]
> Do you have some problems or criticism of relativity? If so,
> can you please tell me what they are.
Yes, it has been known from the start that Einstein's assumption of constant
velocity of light was not a reasonable UNLESS the velocity was defined
relative to an aether. [Even then, it is a very strange assumption: see for
example Louis Essen's attitude towards it as expressed at
http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html . ] He wrote his
theory on the basis of the thinking of the time, which in turn was based on
some experiments by Michelson and Morley that were reported as showing that
there was no sign of the existence of an aether. In reality, though, what
they showed was that it was not reasonable to assume a FIXED aether.
Some physicists, including Morley himself (or was it Michelson?), were
interested in following up some hints that there WAS some small effect.
Dayton Miller took over the experiments. Over the course of 20 or more
years, he progressively refined the apparatus and investigated various
possible explanations of the "anomalies". By 1926 he had some pretty
definite conclusions, and he presented them at the 1927 meeting of the APS,
at which Michelson, Lorentz and a few other notables but not Einstein were
present.
Einstein is on record as saying:
1925 in the "Science" review: "... if Dr Miller's observations were
confirmed, the Theory of Relativity would be at fault. Experience is the
ultimate judge."
Miller's positive results somehow got swept under the carpet.
For the rest of the story see
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm
> Do you propose or support an alternative theory?
Once you recognise that there has to be an aether -- a medium in which light
and electromagnetism propagate -- you find that there is little point in all
the "relativity" transformations, since we don't know how the aether moves.
Instead of playing around with formulae we need to look harder at the facts.
I don't have a full alternative theory. Nobody can, as the information
simply is not available.
Patrick Reany
"c.h.thompson" wrote:
> Martin Hogbin <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:ab5k88$gj3$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> [to c.h.thompson]
> > Do you have some problems or criticism of relativity? If so,
> > can you please tell me what they are.
>
> Yes, it has been known from the start that Einstein's assumption of constant
> velocity of light was not a reasonable UNLESS the velocity was defined
> relative to an aether.
That's the most UNREASONABLE definition of all!
Because the speed of light has to be measured and
that measurement will be with respect to the equipment
making the measurement. The Light Principle can
be right or it can be wrong, but it is certainly reasonable
to leave the unknowable ether out of it!
> [Even then, it is a very strange assumption:
It is unintuitive, but otherwise not strange.
But even many aspects of Newtonian physics
are unintuitive.
> [snip]
>
> > Do you propose or support an alternative theory?
>
> Once you recognise that there has to be an aether -- a medium in which light
> and electromagnetism propagate -- you find that there is little point in all
> the "relativity" transformations,
Well then either your nomenclature or your concepts
are nonstandard, because light is not a thing that
requires a medium to propagate through. Light
is a state of the ether, as would be all other
electromagnetic effects. On the other hand,
light has a particle aspect as well, and nobody
says that particles require a medium of transfer.
> since we don't know how the aether moves.
> Instead of playing around with formulae we need to look harder at the facts.
Feel free to do so. You will be one of a large group
who have done so over the years, to little avail.
>
> I don't have a full alternative theory. Nobody can, as the information
> simply is not available.
>
> Caroline
You just prefer what Einstein called "constructive"
theories to "principle" theories.
Patrick
Martin Hogbin
>
>
> Yes, it has been known from the start that Einstein's assumption of
constant
> velocity of light was not a reasonable UNLESS the velocity was defined
> relative to an aether.
It was not an assumption it was a postulate.
[Even then, it is a very strange assumption: see for
> example Louis Essen's attitude towards it as expressed at
> http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html . ] He wrote his
> theory on the basis of the thinking of the time, which in turn was based
on
> some experiments by Michelson and Morley that were reported as showing
that
> there was no sign of the existence of an aether. In reality, though, what
> they showed was that it was not reasonable to assume a FIXED aether.
>
Yes, any other kind of aether had already been discounted.
> Some physicists, including Morley himself (or was it Michelson?), were
> interested in following up some hints that there WAS some small effect.
> Dayton Miller took over the experiments. Over the course of 20 or more
> years, he progressively refined the apparatus and investigated various
> possible explanations of the "anomalies". By 1926 he had some pretty
> definite conclusions, and he presented them at the 1927 meeting of the
APS,
> at which Michelson, Lorentz and a few other notables but not Einstein were
> present.
>
> Einstein is on record as saying:
> 1925 in the "Science" review: "... if Dr Miller's observations were
> confirmed, the Theory of Relativity would be at fault. Experience is the
> ultimate judge."
Miller's positive results have not been confirmed.
>
> Miller's positive results somehow got swept under the carpet.
>
As you admit, the experiment has been repeated more accurately
and the null result confirmed. The idea that the aether is swept
along with solid bodies is a non starter. If that were the case we
would see a whole range of astronomical aberrations as the aether
was pulled around by bodies far more massive than laboratory
walls.
> For the rest of the story see
> http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm
>
I have looked at this site. It seems to be nothing more than an
attack on modern (and some older) physics based on nothing
more than a few short quotes, taken out of historical context,
from an assortment of well known physicists.
> > Do you propose or support an alternative theory?
>
> Once you recognise that there has to be an aether -- a medium in which
light
> and electromagnetism propagate -- you find that there is little point in
all
> the "relativity" transformations, since we don't know how the aether
moves.
How do you justify the statement 'there has to be an aether'?. As I said
earlier, a non-fixed aether has been ruled out.
> Instead of playing around with formulae we need to look harder at the
facts.
Nobody is 'playing around with formulae'. The facts support relativity.
Do you claim that the experimental evidence to date does not agree with
relativity?
> I don't have a full alternative theory.
You do not have any alternative theory as far as I can see.
> Nobody can, as the information
> simply is not available.
Do you have any explanation for the fact that you alone seem able to find
these flaws in physics whilst the many thousands of physicists worldwide
do not.
Martin Hogbin
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Martin Hogbin <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:ab5k88$gj3$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> [to c.h.thompson]
> > Do you have some problems or criticism of relativity? If so,
> > can you please tell me what they are.
>
> Yes, it has been known from the start that Einstein's assumption of constant
> velocity of light was not a reasonable UNLESS the velocity was defined
> relative to an aether.
That's pure bullshit! Lorentz ether theory is one example
of that way of explaining experiments. SR is another way
that doesn't involve a preferred frame.
You're confusing the two.
John Anderson
Bilge
Re: Theory and practice in "relativity" to usenet:
>
>Martin Hogbin <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
>news:ab5k88$gj3$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>[to c.h.thompson]
>> Do you have some problems or criticism of relativity? If so,
>> can you please tell me what they are.
>
>Yes, it has been known from the start that Einstein's assumption of
>constant velocity of light was not a reasonable UNLESS the velocity
>was defined relative to an aether.
You mean some might have considered that possibility until failing
to find said ether, whereupon the the roles reversed.
[...]
>
>Miller's positive results somehow got swept under the carpet.
I'd say that was a minor mistake. Sweeping it under the rug only
relocates it. It should have been simply tossed out altogether.
>For the rest of the story see
>http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm
A stirring tale of unrequieted crankdom and scatalogical crackpottery.
>> Do you propose or support an alternative theory?
>
>Once you recognise that there has to be an aether -- a medium in which light
>and electromagnetism propagate -- you find that there is little point in all
>the "relativity" transformations, since we don't know how the aether moves.
In other words, you don't even have something that works as well
as what was abandoned a century ago as a dead end.
>Instead of playing around with formulae we need to look harder at the
>facts.
Of course. As everyone knows, concise formulae are are terribly
ambiguous because the symbols can migrate across the '=' sign, while
facts obtained via a ouija board and madame cleo's 1-900 number are
irrefutable. And the fact that you can call again if you don't like
the facts you get the first time, is a real plus.
>I don't have a full alternative theory. Nobody can, as the information
>simply is not available.
Well, gee. Special relativity and quantum mechanics just had to
make do with the facts that are available to usher in modern
technology. Yes, formulae grinding is a tough job, but someone has
to do something besides wish for a really kewl thingy that shows
how physicists made life unnecessarily straightforward.
c.h.thompson
Shankland was an assistant of Miller's who happened to see that his future
lay with Einstein. His "debunking" was not done until after Miller's death.
Read both Miller's 1933 report and Shankland's 1955 one and you will see for
yourself that Shankland and Einstein were clutching at straws.
> and by countless experiments.
Not true, since later experiments did not keep to Miller's specification.
Dayton Miller found that the aether drift was quite easily blocked by solid
walls etc.. Very little if any aether flow is to be expected within a
vacuum chamber or similar. His main experiments were done in hut with
partly canvas walls.
> There is nothing to discuss. His paper is history.
And has been wrongly erased from the record. How many references have you
ever seen to it, other than through Shankland?
> It is defended by a Reich follower with an economic interest
> in the ether.
Ignoring the unnecessary slander, I beg to inform you there are very good
physical reasons for believing an aether is present.
> > Have you read Miller's important 1933 paper
> > yet? (Miller, Dayton C, "The Ether-Drift Experiments and the
Determination
> > of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics 5,
203-242
> > (1933)). I doubt it.
>
> You don't have to doubt.
> Of course I haven't read it.
> I have read Shankland's article.
> One look at the table on
> http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/experiments.html
> should be enough.
I've just looked at the table. What it shows is that the fringe shift is
not compatible with the fixed aether that the original experimenters were
looking for. Miller revised the hypothesis in the light of the data -- the
correct procedure according to scientific method! There was an effect, but
not big enough. He did not find the final reason why it was so small, but
he did find something that correlated in very interesting ways with the
motion of the earth.
> And I do not intend paying 7$ to DeMeo for a 41 xeroxed pages copy
> http://www.orgonelab.org/xphysics.htm
7$ sounds a very reasonable price for access to something that could change
our whole world view!
c.h.thompson
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:3CD707CD...@asu.edu...
>
>
> "c.h.thompson" wrote:
> > Yes, it has been known from the start that Einstein's assumption of
constant
> > velocity of light was not a reasonable UNLESS the velocity was defined
> > relative to an aether.
>
> That's the most UNREASONABLE definition of all!
Read what people said about it at the time. Take Heisenberg, for instance,
who used the "non-physical" nature of Einstein's assumption to justify his
own Uncertainty Principle. [Hendry, John, "The Creation of Quantum Mechanics
and the Bohr-Pauli Dialogue", D Reidel Publishing Company 1984]
> > Once you recognise that there has to be an aether -- a
> > medium in which light and electromagnetism propagate --
> > you find that there is little point in all the "relativity"
> > transformations,
>
> Well then either your nomenclature or your concepts
> are nonstandard, because light is not a thing that
> requires a medium to propagate through. Light
> is a state of the ether, as would be all other
> electromagnetic effects. On the other hand,
> light has a particle aspect as well, and nobody
> says that particles require a medium of transfer.
Ah, but the actual evidence for this particle aspect is far from convincing.
Try reading what contemporaries thought of THAT idea at the time! See
Millikan's opinion re Einstein's interpretation of the photoelectric effect,
for example (in http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm ) The fact
that you can do many calculations as if light came in particles does not
prove much at all, and there is one set of experiments -- the Bell tests --
in which the particle idea leads you totally astray. (See my web site.)
> > since we don't know how the aether moves.
> > Instead of playing around with formulae we need
> > to look harder at the facts.
>
> Feel free to do so. You will be one of a large group
> who have done so over the years, to little avail.
Hmm ... A training in "relativity" is hardly the best one for a study of
what really happens! Once you've absorbed something illogical it's very
hard to get back to thinking straight.
> You just prefer what Einstein called "constructive"
> theories to "principle" theories.
Most certainly I do, and so did all other scientists before the massive
compromises were made in accepting relativity theory and quantum theory.
See Hendry's book, full of quotes from Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, Born et al..
Bilge
Re: Theory and practice in "relativity" to usenet:
>
>news:3CD707CD...@asu.edu...
>>
>>
>> "c.h.thompson" wrote:
>
>> > Yes, it has been known from the start that Einstein's assumption of
>constant
>> > velocity of light was not a reasonable UNLESS the velocity was defined
>> > relative to an aether.
>>
>> That's the most UNREASONABLE definition of all!
>
>Read what people said about it at the time. Take Heisenberg, for instance,
"physical" at the time, was closer to reality, why did it fail so
miserably, considering that those theories had the advantage? The
dead horse is not any closer to getting better.
[...]
>
>Ah, but the actual evidence for this particle aspect is far from
>convincing.
Ah. But aside from the fact that one can describe all known
electromagnetic phenomena with unprecidented precision using such
a dubious picture, it seems to be beat the alternatives which so far,
manage to evade being proven manifestly false only by failing to
actually predict anything at all let alone agree with data from any
real experiment. Yes, the alternatives are a real blow to quantum
mechanics.
>that you can do many calculations as if light came in particles does not
>prove much at all, and there is one set of experiments -- the Bell tests
>-- in which the particle idea leads you totally astray. (See my web site.)
I'm still waiting for you to explain why quantum mechanics (1) has
nothing to do with lasers, despite the fact that charles townes stated
explicitly that he used quantum mechanics in developing them, (2) how
you differentiate between a pair of correlated photons (e.g., two that
are down converted and hence orginate from the same quantum state), vs.
two uncorrelated photons that are the result uncorrelated excitations.
[...]
>
>Hmm ... A training in "relativity" is hardly the best one for a study of
>what really happens! Once you've absorbed something illogical it's very
>hard to get back to thinking straight.
Since your idea of "what really happens" is contained in descriptions
of the phenomena which don't actually work, nor predict anything, while
you consider relativity, which, so far seems to be in excellent agreement
with reality (i.e., real measurements), it's really amazing you managed
to say something sensible about this perspective in the second sentence.
>compromises were made in accepting relativity theory and quantum theory.
>See Hendry's book, full of quotes from Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, Born et al..
Uh, what comprimises? Quantum mechanics consists of substituting
p -> -i\hbar d/dx and E -> i\hbar d/dt. Replacing p and E in special
relativity gives you relativistic quantum mechanics and the schroedinger
equation comes out as a low velocity limit. Exactly where do you see
any room to comprimise here?
Exactly how can you find fault with something for which you have
absolutely no understanding? I mean, it's not simply a matter of you
being unable to work simple, introductory quantum mechanics problems.
It's a matter of you being unable to determine exactly what quantum
mechanics would say about any phenomenon whatsoever. If you were told
quantum mechanics predicted some effect, the first thing you would do
is say that the effect is obviouslu impossible and unphysical. Then,
once such an effect was demonstrated beyond your ability to deny its
existence, you would claim that some other explanation had to be
correct, even though you hadn't the slightest idea what it might be.
And, throughout the entire head-in-the-sandscapade, you would have
no idea what quantum mechanics actually said or why quantum mechanics
had predicted it. All you need to do in order to make the caricature
complete, is hold your breath until you tun blue in everyone doesn't
let you win.
Patrick Reany
"c.h.thompson" wrote:
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CD707CD...@asu.edu...
> >
> >
> > "c.h.thompson" wrote:
>
> > > Yes, it has been known from the start that Einstein's assumption of
> constant
> > > velocity of light was not a reasonable UNLESS the velocity was defined
> > > relative to an aether.
> >
> > That's the most UNREASONABLE definition of all!
>
> Read what people said about it at the time. Take Heisenberg, for instance,
> who used the "non-physical" nature of Einstein's assumption to justify his
> own Uncertainty Principle. [Hendry, John, "The Creation of Quantum Mechanics
> and the Bohr-Pauli Dialogue", D Reidel Publishing Company 1984]
You didn't deal with my claim. I can't go off reading
your reference. Sorry. I wish I had the time.
> > > Once you recognise that there has to be an aether -- a
> > > medium in which light and electromagnetism propagate --
> > > you find that there is little point in all the "relativity"
> > > transformations,
> >
> > Well then either your nomenclature or your concepts
> > are nonstandard, because light is not a thing that
> > requires a medium to propagate through. Light
> > is a state of the ether, as would be all other
> > electromagnetic effects. On the other hand,
> > light has a particle aspect as well, and nobody
> > says that particles require a medium of transfer.
>
> Ah, but the actual evidence for this particle aspect is far from convincing.
> Try reading what contemporaries thought of THAT idea at the time! See
> Millikan's opinion re Einstein's interpretation of the photoelectric effect,
> for example (in http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm ) The fact
> that you can do many calculations as if light came in particles does not
> prove much at all, and there is one set of experiments -- the Bell tests --
> in which the particle idea leads you totally astray. (See my web site.)
Well you're talking to the wrong person because
I could care less what light really IS; I only care
about how light behaves using our anthropomorphic
variables.
> > > since we don't know how the aether moves.
> > > Instead of playing around with formulae we need
> > > to look harder at the facts.
> >
> > Feel free to do so. You will be one of a large group
> > who have done so over the years, to little avail.
>
> Hmm ... A training in "relativity" is hardly the best one for a study of
> what really happens!
As opposed to a training in what? Crystal balls?
> Once you've absorbed something illogical it's very
> hard to get back to thinking straight.
It's ILLOGICAL to try to describe the behavior
of light and mater in a single framework? It's
ILLOGICAL to remove the ghosts of the human
imagination? The absolute frame that is supposed
to exist to give accelerations meaning must have the
ability to not react to accelerations while the matter
being accelerated is affected by the presence of this
space. That's not logical either. There's no
reciprocity in this model.
> > You just prefer what Einstein called "constructive"
> > theories to "principle" theories.
>
> Most certainly I do, and so did all other scientists before the massive
> compromises
Compromises to what?
> were made in accepting relativity theory and quantum theory.
> See Hendry's book, full of quotes from Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, Born et al..
>
> Caroline
>
> -
If I had the time I would. Sorry. Make your
points on this NG, please.
Patrick
Vern
> The idea that the aether is swept
> along with solid bodies is a non starter. If that were the case we
> would see a whole range of astronomical aberrations as the aether
> was pulled around by bodies far more massive than laboratory
> walls.
> As I said
> earlier, a non-fixed aether has been ruled out.
Are you aware of Rado's Aether model (Aethro-kinematics)? That model
has Aether spiral vortices at each planet and the Sun causing gravity
and the orbits of the planets and moons. Could you be a little clear
as to why this arrangement could be ruled out by aberration (I assume
you are referring to stellar aberration)? There were a lot of posts
about this about a year or so back between Luc Bourhis, Bilge and
others and Dennis McCarthy. Aside from all the other reasons argued
against Rado's model, I'm not sure stellar aberration is enough to
rule it out.
Vern
Ilja Schmelzer
>> [MMX] In reality, though, what they showed was that it was not
>> reasonable to assume a FIXED aether.
> Yes, any other kind of aether had already been discounted.
ROTFL. The Lorentz ether is a fixed ether and not discounted by MMX.
> Nobody is 'playing around with formulae'. The facts support relativity.
The facts do not distinguish between SR and Lorentz ether.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> , http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Dirk Van de moortel
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message news:3cd79...@news1.vip.uk.com...
> > Miller was debunked. By Shankland
>
> Shankland was an assistant of Miller's who happened to see that his future
> lay with Einstein.
Hand waving.
> His "debunking" was not done until after Miller's death.
> Read both Miller's 1933 report and Shankland's 1955 one and you will see for
> yourself that Shankland and Einstein were clutching at straws.
More hand waving.
>
> > and by countless experiments.
>
> Not true,
True, whether you like it or not.
>, since later experiments did not keep to Miller's specification.
> Dayton Miller found that the aether drift was quite easily blocked by solid
> walls etc.. Very little if any aether flow is to be expected within a
> vacuum chamber or similar. His main experiments were done in hut with
> partly canvas walls.
There is a whole universe without canvas walls and without
ether flow out there.
>
> > There is nothing to discuss. His paper is history.
>
> And has been wrongly erased from the record. How many references have you
> ever seen to it, other than through Shankland?
Lots of references. Mostly through crackpots and wonder doctors.
And you.
>
> > It is defended by a Reich follower with an economic interest
> > in the ether.
>
> Ignoring the unnecessary slander,
Not slander. Well-advertised facts.
Just *look* at his website. The evidence bites.
> I beg to inform you there are very good
> physical reasons for believing an aether is present.
Yes, "earth-physical" reasons for orgone magicians.
> > > Have you read Miller's important 1933 paper
> > > yet? (Miller, Dayton C, "The Ether-Drift Experiments and the
> Determination
> > > of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics 5,
> 203-242
> > > (1933)). I doubt it.
> >
> > You don't have to doubt.
> > Of course I haven't read it.
> > I have read Shankland's article.
> > One look at the table on
> > http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/experiments.html
> > should be enough.
>
> I've just looked at the table. What it shows is
something that a non-physicist like you can't possibly understand.
> that the fringe shift is
> not compatible with the fixed aether that the original experimenters were
> looking for. Miller revised the hypothesis in the light of the data -- the
> correct procedure according to scientific method! There was an effect, but
> not big enough. He did not find the final reason why it was so small, but
> he did find something that correlated in very interesting ways with the
> motion of the earth.
>
> > And I do not intend paying 7$ to DeMeo for a 41 xeroxed pages copy
> > http://www.orgonelab.org/xphysics.htm
>
> 7$ sounds a very reasonable price for access to something that could change
> our whole world view!
Change our whole world view? Forget it.
The world and our view have already changed.
New Age won't change the world again: it is flatly contradicted
by just about everything.
If/when our world view will change again, you will not understand
why and, you will be quoting forgotten articles from the sixties.
Ah, go visit some crop circles.
Dirk Vdm
Martin Hogbin
"Ilja Schmelzer" <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message
news:i3g6620...@ilja-schmelzer.net...
> "Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> writes:
> >> [MMX] In reality, though, what they showed was that it was not
> >> reasonable to assume a FIXED aether.
>
> > Yes, any other kind of aether had already been discounted.
>
> ROTFL. The Lorentz ether is a fixed ether and not discounted by MMX.
>
I think you have misread something here. I have said that a non-fixed
aether had already been ruled out.
The MMX ruled out a fixed aether except for the case where motion
through the aether somehow affects clocks and rulers, in other
words Lorentz' aether.
As far as I can understand Caroline is talking about an aether which
simply acts as the transport medium for EM waves and through which
EM waves travel with fixed velocity. She has not mentioned the
effect of motion through the aether on clocks and rulers.
If you are going to propose an aether theory you need to say, in detail,
what the aether does. You have done this but Caroline has not.
> > Nobody is 'playing around with formulae'. The facts support relativity.
>
> The facts do not distinguish between SR and Lorentz ether.
>
Caroline cannot be referring to the Lorentz aether since she is claiming
a non-null result for MMX type experiments.
If Caroline is supporting either LET or your GET she could simply say
so. Instead she makes vague remarks about the aether and errors in
experiments. You do your own cause no good by associating yourself
with this attitude.
Martin Hogbin
Martin Hogbin
"Vern" <ve...@bealenet.com> wrote in message
news:1521a84e.02050...@posting.google.com...
> "Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:<ab71p1$j58$1...@paris.btinternet.com>...
> > The idea that the aether is swept
> > along with solid bodies is a non starter. If that were the case we
> > would see a whole range of astronomical aberrations as the aether
> > was pulled around by bodies far more massive than laboratory
> > walls.
>
> > As I said
> > earlier, a non-fixed aether has been ruled out.
>
> Are you aware of Rado's Aether model (Aethro-kinematics)?
Regrettably so.
> That model
> has Aether spiral vortices at each planet and the Sun causing gravity
> and the orbits of the planets and moons. Could you be a little clear
> as to why this arrangement could be ruled out by aberration (I assume
> you are referring to stellar aberration)? There were a lot of posts
> about this about a year or so back between Luc Bourhis, Bilge and
> others and Dennis McCarthy.
Are you suggesting that Caroline is supporting this 'model'?
>Aside from all the other reasons argued
> against Rado's model, I'm not sure stellar aberration is enough to
> rule it out.
Maybe, but the fact he does not have a model is.
Martin Hogbin
c.h.thompson
> > Read what people said about it at the time. Take Heisenberg,
> > for instance, who used the "non-physical" nature of Einstein's
> > assumption to justify his own Uncertainty Principle. [John
> > Hendry, "The Creation of Quantum Mechanics and the
> > Bohr-Pauli Dialogue", D Reidel Publishing Company 1984]
>
> You didn't deal with my claim. I can't go off reading
> your reference. Sorry. I wish I had the time.
I'll write again when I've finished typing up my notes - which will be a
long time at this rate!
What WAS your claim? That it was my reference to an aether that was
unreasonable? Time will tell. Personally, I know of no experimental
evidence that conflicts with the idea that it exists. In my own theory of
the universe, aether is the ONLY thing that exists, though it is far from
being anything simple such as a "perfect" fluid or gas, since it seems that
it has to be able to change state.
> > [CHT] Hmm ... A training in "relativity" is hardly the best
> > one for a study of what really happens!
>
> As opposed to a training in what? Crystal balls?
It might be easier for a child than for someone who has learnt to reconcile
the irreconcilable! OK so the rules of SR are not QUITE impossible, but
that's only if you start playing around with both space AND time. The
theory gives rise to paradoxes. This set alarm bells ringing for Einstein's
contemporaries. They were quieted not by any logical scientific progress
but by the New York Times, which set Einstein on a pedestal after the 1919
proclaimed successful confirmation of GR.
> The absolute frame that is supposed
> to exist to give accelerations meaning must have the
> ability to not react to accelerations while the matter
> being accelerated is affected by the presence of this
> space.
You can define a mathematical "local absolute frame" for use in any given
context. This frame does not have to be one and the same thing as the
aether. If you think about the motion of a boat on a river, it is
sufficient to take note of the rate of flow of the river. If you want to
know the motion of leaf floating on the surface, you might have to take
account of waves and eddies. The frame you work in will depend on what you
are trying to do.
I don't see the need for an absolute frame as more than an abstract model.
Cheers
c.h.thompson
Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> said some stuff about
> I'm still waiting for you to explain why quantum mechanics
> (1) has nothing to do with lasers, despite the fact that charles
> townes stated explicitly that he used quantum mechanics in
> developing them,
Really? Allow me to quote an extract from an article about Carver Mead in
the Spectator http://www.gilder.com/americanspectatorarticles/carver.htm ):
-------
Central to Mead's rescue project are a series of discoveries
inconsistent with the prevailing conceptions of quantum mechanics.
One was the laser. As late as 1956, Bohr and Von Neumann,
the paragons of quantum theory, arrived at the Columbia
laboratories of Charles Townes, who was in the process of
describing his invention. With the transistor, the laser is one
of the most important inventions of the twentieth century.
Designed into every CD player and long distance telephone
connection, lasers today are manufactured by the billions. At
the heart of laser action is perfect alignment of the crests and
troughs of myriad waves of light. Their location and momentum
must be theoretically knowable. But this violates the holiest
canon of Copenhagen theory: Heisenberg Uncertainty. Bohr
and Von Neumann proved to be true believers in
Heisenberg's rule. Both denied that the laser was possible.
When Townes showed them one in operation, they retreated
artfully.
-------
Just what part of quantum theory did Townes (presumably later?) claim to
have used?
> (2) how
> you differentiate between a pair of correlated photons
> (e.g., two that are down converted and hence orginate
> from the same quantum state), vs. two uncorrelated
> photons that are the result uncorrelated excitations.
I don't know. Do tell us! Why should we need to know?
Cheers
Bilge
Re: Theory and practice in "relativity" to usenet:
>
>
>> I'm still waiting for you to explain why quantum mechanics
>> (1) has nothing to do with lasers, despite the fact that charles
>> townes stated explicitly that he used quantum mechanics in
>> developing them,
>
>Really?
Perhaps you should see if you're lack of memory is an early warning
sign of bovine songiform encephalopathy.
>Allow me to quote an extract from an article about Carver Mead in
>the Spectator http://www.gilder.com/americanspectatorarticles/carver.htm ):
>
>-------
>Central to Mead's rescue project are a series of discoveries
>inconsistent with the prevailing conceptions of quantum mechanics.
>One was the laser.
Carver mead is wrong. Apparently his grasp of quantum mechanics needs
improvement. What he is arguing is _exactly_ backwards. Without the
uncertainty principle, coherence would be impossible. Since lasers were
designed upon quanum principles, and lasers work and no one has a non-
quantum explanation, it would appear the odds are in my favor. If you
don't like that, get him to make the argument. You aren't capable of
grasping either side of it and all you do is evade anything you can't
answer anyway, which means any point you are asked to support and
you have no model of anything.
Also I also included this same quote, in the same post, also
which you selectively ignored. And I quote townes himself:
"Yes. That's right. I knew it. The one thing which I had to check
was the coherence. I felt sure that it had to be coherent, but in
order to check it very thoroughly I went back to the notes from
my quantum mechanical course at Caltech, sort of Xerox/mimeograph
notes by Houston. I worked through the mathematics there that he
had, very carefully, and found yes, it had to be coherent. So that
was, I would say, the question."
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:2020/dynaweb/teiproj/oh/science/townes
/@Generic__BookTextView/9521
>> (2) how
>> you differentiate between a pair of correlated photons
>> (e.g., two that are down converted and hence orginate
>> from the same quantum state), vs. two uncorrelated
>> photons that are the result uncorrelated excitations.
>
>I don't know.
I am quite aware you don't. Just like every other topic you post
about.
> Do tell us!
I already did. At least twice. Apparently you have a very short
attention span and are unable to actually rebut anything beyond
whatever you and crank militia practice in mock debates against
each other's incompetence of the subject. I can only give you the
opportunity to not remain ignorant.
>Why should we need to know?
Thank you for agreeing that you have no earthly idea what is
going on.
Patrick Reany
"c.h.thompson" wrote:
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CD7BEFC...@asu.edu...
>
> > > Read what people said about it at the time. Take Heisenberg,
> > > for instance, who used the "non-physical" nature of Einstein's
> > > assumption to justify his own Uncertainty Principle. [John
> > > Hendry, "The Creation of Quantum Mechanics and the
> > > Bohr-Pauli Dialogue", D Reidel Publishing Company 1984]
> >
> > You didn't deal with my claim. I can't go off reading
> > your reference. Sorry. I wish I had the time.
>
> I'll write again when I've finished typing up my notes - which will be a
> long time at this rate!
>
> What WAS your claim? That it was my reference to an aether that was
> unreasonable? Time will tell.
You're not getting my point. It is, relatively speaking,
unreason to prefer a theory that talks of measurements
that cannot be made -- i.e., "measurements" of velocities
with respect to an unobservable ether -- as opposed
to preferring a theory that has measurements with respect
to something you can achieve -- i.e., measurements
with respect to any inertial reference frame, at least
to an approximation. Beside, there is yet one big issue
to deal with: How do you KNOW that this a priori
ether of yours is actually a "reference" frame? I mean,
how do you know that it is "counting off" notches in
space according to some unknowable a priori unit of
distance, as things "go by"?
> Personally, I know of no experimental
> evidence that conflicts with the idea that it exists.
Nor do I, but that is NOT the point. The point is
to eliminate ghost unless they're really needed, and
the luminiferous ether and the ghost of absolute
acceleration space are NOT really needed any
more.
> In my own theory of
> the universe, aether is the ONLY thing that exists, though it is far from
> being anything simple such as a "perfect" fluid or gas, since it seems that
> it has to be able to change state.
But so far you have only a semantic "theory."
In MY own theory of the universe, chocolate
is the ONLY thing that exists, though it seems
that some things in nature taste more like chocolate
than other things! ;-)
> > > [CHT] Hmm ... A training in "relativity" is hardly the best
> > > one for a study of what really happens!
Physics isn't about what "really" happens, except
at the level of measurement!
> > As opposed to a training in what? Crystal balls?
>
> It might be easier for a child than for someone who has learnt to reconcile
> the irreconcilable! OK so the rules of SR are not QUITE impossible, but
> that's only if you start playing around with both space AND time.
My ways are not your ways, saith the Lord. Why
should God choose to found the world by
concepts that humans are most comfortable with?
This is still the anthropomorphic-centered view
of the universe, which goes like this However the
universe "really" is, it is such that humans can
understand it using variables most familiar and
conformable to humans. We humans just so
special in the grand theme of things, aren't we!
The universe doesn't give a damn about our
variables; and the only concept of a reference
frame that we can actually prove exists at all,
exists ONLY in the minds of humans.
> The
> theory gives rise to paradoxes.
Here we go again! If anything does, it is the
ether theories!
> This set alarm bells ringing for Einstein's
> contemporaries. They were quieted not by any logical scientific progress
> but by the New York Times, which set Einstein on a pedestal after the 1919
> proclaimed successful confirmation of GR.
No.
> > The absolute frame that is supposed
> > to exist to give accelerations meaning must have the
> > ability to not react to accelerations while the matter
> > being accelerated is affected by the presence of this
> > space.
>
> You can define a mathematical "local absolute frame" for use in any given
> context.
If you believe that, then you haven't the slightest
idea of what the historical meaning of "absolute"
frame means. You really should read Einstein's essays
more and his book The Evolution of Physics to get
a better perspective of the historical and philosophical
situation that he and his contemporaries were trying
to deal with.
> This frame does not have to be one and the same thing as the
> aether. If you think about the motion of a boat on a river, it is
> sufficient to take note of the rate of flow of the river. If you want to
> know the motion of leaf floating on the surface, you might have to take
> account of waves and eddies. The frame you work in will depend on what you
> are trying to do.
>
> I don't see the need for an absolute frame as more than an abstract model.
Of course it's just an abstract model. But it's not needed
in SR or GR, using the historical meanings of the term.
Patrick
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>"c.h.thompson" wrote:
>
>> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:3CD7BEFC...@asu.edu...
>>
>>>> Read what people said about it at the time. Take Heisenberg,
>>>> for instance, who used the "non-physical" nature of Einstein's
>>>> assumption to justify his own Uncertainty Principle. [John
>>>> Hendry, "The Creation of Quantum Mechanics and the
>>>> Bohr-Pauli Dialogue", D Reidel Publishing Company 1984]
>>>
>>> You didn't deal with my claim. I can't go off reading
>>> your reference. Sorry. I wish I had the time.
>>
>> I'll write again when I've finished typing up my notes - which will be a
>> long time at this rate!
>>
>> What WAS your claim? That it was my reference to an aether that was
>> unreasonable? Time will tell.
>
> You're not getting my point. It is, relatively speaking, unreason to
> prefer a theory that talks of measurements that cannot be made --
> i.e., "measurements" of velocities with respect to an unobservable ether
Out in our 'real universe' one CAN measure their speed wrt the local
aether very easily. It's called the CMBR Doppler... Now one can try
to irrationally (unreason...) claim that they can block the radiation
thus it somehow don't count but that is just playing Ostrich...
> -- as opposed to preferring a theory that has measurements with respect
> to something you can achieve -- i.e., measurements with respect to any
> inertial reference frame, at least to an approximation. Beside, there
> is yet one big issue to deal with: How do you KNOW that this a priori
> ether of yours is actually a "reference" frame? I mean, how do you know
> that it is "counting off" notches in space according to some unknowable
> a priori unit of distance, as things "go by"?
Yeah, that's something like what the Clergy said to Galileo, we don't
need no stinking radial new system, the Earth centered system is just fine.
Substitute Observer for Earth, and you have the very same logic... As
for the ERF (Ether Reference Frame) = CMBR Doppler = zero...
>> Personally, I know of no experimental evidence that conflicts with the
>> idea that it exists.
>
> Nor do I, but that is NOT the point. The point is to eliminate ghost
> unless they're really needed, and the luminiferous ether and the ghost
> of absolute acceleration space are NOT really needed any more.
It's certainly not a ghost....
>> In my own theory of the universe, aether is the ONLY thing that exists,
>> though it is far from being anything simple such as a "perfect" fluid
>> or gas, since it seems that it has to be able to change state.
>
> But so far you have only a semantic "theory."
>
> In MY own theory of the universe, chocolate is the ONLY thing that exists,
> though it seems that some things in nature taste more like chocolate
> than other things! ;-)
>
>>>> [CHT] Hmm ... A training in "relativity" is hardly the best
>>>> one for a study of what really happens!
>
> Physics isn't about what "really" happens, except at the level of
> measurement!
Only for the more dense amoungst us... That 'philosophy' is shit
and those that expound it should get out of the business of science...
>>> As opposed to a training in what? Crystal balls?
>>
>> It might be easier for a child than for someone who has learnt to reconcile
>> the irreconcilable! OK so the rules of SR are not QUITE impossible, but
>> that's only if you start playing around with both space AND time.
>
> My ways are not your ways, saith the Lord. Why should God choose to found
> the world by concepts that humans are most comfortable with?
>
>This is still the anthropomorphic-centered view of the universe, which goes
> like this However the universe "really" is, it is such that humans can
>understand it using variables most familiar and conformable to humans. We
> humans just so special in the grand theme of things, aren't we!
>
> The universe doesn't give a damn about our variables; and the only concept
> of a reference frame that we can actually prove exists at all, exists ONLY
> in the minds of humans.
>
>> The theory gives rise to paradoxes.
>
> Here we go again! If anything does, it is the ether theories!
Explain, in detail please...
>> This set alarm bells ringing for Einstein's
>> contemporaries. They were quieted not by any logical scientific progress
>> but by the New York Times, which set Einstein on a pedestal after the 1919
>> proclaimed successful confirmation of GR.
>
> No.
>
>> > The absolute frame that is supposed
>> > to exist to give accelerations meaning must have the
>> > ability to not react to accelerations while the matter
>> > being accelerated is affected by the presence of this
>> > space.
>>
>> You can define a mathematical "local absolute frame" for use in any given
>> context.
>
> If you believe that, then you haven't the slightest
> idea of what the historical meaning of "absolute"
> frame means. You really should read Einstein's essays
> more and his book The Evolution of Physics to get
> a better perspective of the historical and philosophical
> situation that he and his contemporaries were trying
> to deal with.
Been there, done that, and don't buy your 'interpetation' for an instant...
>> This frame does not have to be one and the same thing as the
>> aether. If you think about the motion of a boat on a river, it is
>> sufficient to take note of the rate of flow of the river. If you want to
>> know the motion of leaf floating on the surface, you might have to take
>> account of waves and eddies. The frame you work in will depend on what you
>> are trying to do.
>>
>> I don't see the need for an absolute frame as more than an abstract model.
>
> Of course it's just an abstract model. But it's not needed in SR or GR, using
> the historical meanings of the term.
Funny, Einstein realized GR needed an aether...
Paul Stowe
Robert J. Kolker
Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>
> Funny, Einstein realized GR needed an aether...
His "aether" was space-time itself. Not that gooey magic elastic fluid
that the 19-th century physicists though carried light waves.
In fact for aether to carry light waves in an elastic fashion it would
have to be solid and stiff and at the same time be so rare as to be
undetectable. Who can believe that?
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany
Paul Stowe wrote:
> In article <3CD859B7...@asu.edu>,
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"c.h.thompson" wrote:
> >
> >> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:3CD7BEFC...@asu.edu...
> >>
> >>>> Read what people said about it at the time. Take Heisenberg,
> >>>> for instance, who used the "non-physical" nature of Einstein's
> >>>> assumption to justify his own Uncertainty Principle. [John
> >>>> Hendry, "The Creation of Quantum Mechanics and the
> >>>> Bohr-Pauli Dialogue", D Reidel Publishing Company 1984]
> >>>
> >>> You didn't deal with my claim. I can't go off reading
> >>> your reference. Sorry. I wish I had the time.
> >>
> >> I'll write again when I've finished typing up my notes - which will be a
> >> long time at this rate!
> >>
> >> What WAS your claim? That it was my reference to an aether that was
> >> unreasonable? Time will tell.
> >
> > You're not getting my point. It is, relatively speaking, unreason to
> > prefer a theory that talks of measurements that cannot be made --
> > i.e., "measurements" of velocities with respect to an unobservable ether
>
> Out in our 'real universe' one CAN measure their speed wrt the local
> aether very easily. It's called the CMBR Doppler... Now one can try
> to irrationally (unreason...) claim that they can block the radiation
> thus it somehow don't count but that is just playing Ostrich...
Why would the CMBR frame be an "ether" frame?
What is "ether-like" about it? I claim that my apartment
constitutes the TRUE "rest" frame of the universe, and
all motion must be motion with respect to it! It
is the preferred, absolute frame for doing physics.
> > -- as opposed to preferring a theory that has measurements with respect
> > to something you can achieve -- i.e., measurements with respect to any
> > inertial reference frame, at least to an approximation. Beside, there
> > is yet one big issue to deal with: How do you KNOW that this a priori
> > ether of yours is actually a "reference" frame? I mean, how do you know
> > that it is "counting off" notches in space according to some unknowable
> > a priori unit of distance, as things "go by"?
>
> Yeah, that's something like what the Clergy said to Galileo,
Demagogue. Your analogy is worse than irrelevant.
> we don't
> need no stinking radial new system, the Earth centered system is just fine.
> Substitute Observer for Earth, and you have the very same logic... As
> for the ERF (Ether Reference Frame) = CMBR Doppler = zero...
Prove it!
> >> Personally, I know of no experimental evidence that conflicts with the
> >> idea that it exists.
> >
> > Nor do I, but that is NOT the point. The point is to eliminate ghost
> > unless they're really needed, and the luminiferous ether and the ghost
> > of absolute acceleration space are NOT really needed any more.
>
> It's certainly not a ghost....
It is certainly NOT an ether. Besides, any frame
defined by matter is NOT the luminiferous ether
of Maxwell. Any frame defined by matter is NOT
the "absolute" reference frame for any purpose. It's
just one of an infinite number of possible frames
one can define using properties of visible matter.
Big deal!
> >> In my own theory of the universe, aether is the ONLY thing that exists,
> >> though it is far from being anything simple such as a "perfect" fluid
> >> or gas, since it seems that it has to be able to change state.
> >
> > But so far you have only a semantic "theory."
> >
> > In MY own theory of the universe, chocolate is the ONLY thing that exists,
> > though it seems that some things in nature taste more like chocolate
> > than other things! ;-)
> >
> >>>> [CHT] Hmm ... A training in "relativity" is hardly the best
> >>>> one for a study of what really happens!
> >
> > Physics isn't about what "really" happens, except at the level of
> > measurement!
>
> Only for the more dense amoungst us... That 'philosophy' is shit
why?
> and those that expound it should get out of the business of science...
Such as Einstein? More dogmatism from the Land
of Platitudes. When did you earn your Noble Prize
in physics?
> >>> As opposed to a training in what? Crystal balls?
> >>
> >> It might be easier for a child than for someone who has learnt to reconcile
> >> the irreconcilable! OK so the rules of SR are not QUITE impossible, but
> >> that's only if you start playing around with both space AND time.
> >
> > My ways are not your ways, saith the Lord. Why should God choose to found
> > the world by concepts that humans are most comfortable with?
> >
> >This is still the anthropomorphic-centered view of the universe, which goes
> > like this However the universe "really" is, it is such that humans can
> >understand it using variables most familiar and conformable to humans. We
> > humans just so special in the grand theme of things, aren't we!
> >
> > The universe doesn't give a damn about our variables; and the only concept
> > of a reference frame that we can actually prove exists at all, exists ONLY
> > in the minds of humans.
> >
> >> The theory gives rise to paradoxes.
> >
> > Here we go again! If anything does, it is the ether theories!
>
> Explain, in detail please...
Read Evolution of Physics for a change. Get
a damn education for a change, you people!
Must I tell you antirelativists every single puny
damn thing about relativity. Do your own
homework!
> >> This set alarm bells ringing for Einstein's
> >> contemporaries. They were quieted not by any logical scientific progress
> >> but by the New York Times, which set Einstein on a pedestal after the 1919
> >> proclaimed successful confirmation of GR.
> >
> > No.
> >
> >> > The absolute frame that is supposed
> >> > to exist to give accelerations meaning must have the
> >> > ability to not react to accelerations while the matter
> >> > being accelerated is affected by the presence of this
> >> > space.
> >>
> >> You can define a mathematical "local absolute frame" for use in any given
> >> context.
> >
> > If you believe that, then you haven't the slightest
> > idea of what the historical meaning of "absolute"
> > frame means. You really should read Einstein's essays
> > more and his book The Evolution of Physics to get
> > a better perspective of the historical and philosophical
> > situation that he and his contemporaries were trying
> > to deal with.
>
> Been there, done that, and don't buy your 'interpetation' for an instant...
No kidding? I'll just have to find a way to live
with this revelation.
> >> This frame does not have to be one and the same thing as the
> >> aether. If you think about the motion of a boat on a river, it is
> >> sufficient to take note of the rate of flow of the river. If you want to
> >> know the motion of leaf floating on the surface, you might have to take
> >> account of waves and eddies. The frame you work in will depend on what you
> >> are trying to do.
> >>
> >> I don't see the need for an absolute frame as more than an abstract model.
> >
> > Of course it's just an abstract model. But it's not needed in SR or GR, using
> > the historical meanings of the term.
>
> Funny, Einstein realized GR needed an aether...
>
> Paul Stowe
Not Maxwell's mechanical ether!!!!
Patrick
Patrick Reany
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Those dorks from the Land of Platitudes will
swallow it up every time.
Patrick
Paul Stowe
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Funny, Einstein realized GR needed an aether...
>
>
> His "aether" was space-time itself. Not that gooey magic elastic fluid
> that the 19-th century physicists though carried light waves.
........
> In fact for aether to carry light waves in an elastic fashion it would
> have to be solid and stiff and at the same time be so rare as to be
> undetectable. Who can believe that?
Wrong on all counts, as usual... It's funny, Maxwell didn't think so...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
What, ya' have no ability to reason, eh Patrick...
> What is "ether-like" about it?
What, ya' have no ability to reason, eh Patrick...
> I claim that my apartment constitutes the TRUE "rest" frame of the universe,
> and all motion must be motion with respect to it! It is the preferred,
> absolute frame for doing physics.
Claim anything you want Patrick, it's all a figment of your imagination...
>>> -- as opposed to preferring a theory that has measurements with respect
>>> to something you can achieve -- i.e., measurements with respect to any
>>> inertial reference frame, at least to an approximation. Beside, there
>>> is yet one big issue to deal with: How do you KNOW that this a priori
>>> ether of yours is actually a "reference" frame? I mean, how do you know
>>> that it is "counting off" notches in space according to some unknowable
>>> a priori unit of distance, as things "go by"?
>>
>> Yeah, that's something like what the Clergy said to Galileo,
>
> Demagogue. Your analogy is worse than irrelevant.
Funny, it actual was right on point...
>> we don't need no stinking radial new system, the Earth centered system
>> is just fine. Substitute Observer for Earth, and you have the very same
>> logic... As for the ERF (Ether Reference Frame) = CMBR Doppler = zero...
>
> Prove it!
What, ya' have no ability to reason, eh Patrick...
>>>> Personally, I know of no experimental evidence that conflicts with the
>>>> idea that it exists.
>>>
>>> Nor do I, but that is NOT the point. The point is to eliminate ghost
>>> unless they're really needed, and the luminiferous ether and the ghost
>>> of absolute acceleration space are NOT really needed any more.
>>
>> It's certainly not a ghost....
>
> It is certainly NOT an ether. Besides, any frame defined by matter is
> NOT the luminiferous ether of Maxwell.
Matter doesn't define a frame...
> Any frame defined by matter is NOT the "absolute" reference frame for any
> purpose. It's just one of an infinite number of possible frames one can
> define using properties of visible matter. Big deal!
You're right, so what. Frames ain't what ether is about... That what
Lorentz was also saying...
>>>> In my own theory of the universe, aether is the ONLY thing that exists,
>>>> though it is far from being anything simple such as a "perfect" fluid
>>>> or gas, since it seems that it has to be able to change state.
>>>
>>> But so far you have only a semantic "theory."
>>>
>>> In MY own theory of the universe, chocolate is the ONLY thing that exists,
>>> though it seems that some things in nature taste more like chocolate
>>> than other things! ;-)
>>>
>>>>>> [CHT] Hmm ... A training in "relativity" is hardly the best
>>>>>> one for a study of what really happens!
>>>
>>> Physics isn't about what "really" happens, except at the level of
>>> measurement!
>>
>> Only for the more dense amoungst us... That 'philosophy' is shit
>
> why?
What, ya' have no ability to reason, eh Patrick...
>> and those that expound it should get out of the business of science...
>
> Such as Einstein? More dogmatism from the Land of Platitudes. When did you
> earn your Noble Prize in physics?
Same place you did...
>>>>> As opposed to a training in what? Crystal balls?
>>>>
>>>> It might be easier for a child than for someone who has learnt to reconcile
>>>> the irreconcilable! OK so the rules of SR are not QUITE impossible, but
>>>> that's only if you start playing around with both space AND time.
>>>
>>> My ways are not your ways, saith the Lord. Why should God choose to found
>>> the world by concepts that humans are most comfortable with?
>>>
>>> This is still the anthropomorphic-centered view of the universe, which goes
>>> like this However the universe "really" is, it is such that humans can
>>> understand it using variables most familiar and conformable to humans. We
>>> humans just so special in the grand theme of things, aren't we!
>>>
>>> The universe doesn't give a damn about our variables; and the only concept
>>> of a reference frame that we can actually prove exists at all, exists ONLY
>>> in the minds of humans.
>>>
>>>> The theory gives rise to paradoxes.
>>>
>>> Here we go again! If anything does, it is the ether theories!
>>
>> Explain, in detail please...
>
> Read Evolution of Physics for a change. Get a damn education for a change,
> you people! Must I tell you antirelativists every single puny damn thing
> about relativity. Do your own homework!
Hey, you made the claim, back it up!
>>>> This set alarm bells ringing for Einstein's
>>>> contemporaries. They were quieted not by any logical scientific progress
>>>> but by the New York Times, which set Einstein on a pedestal after the 1919
>>>> proclaimed successful confirmation of GR.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>>> The absolute frame that is supposed
>>>>> to exist to give accelerations meaning must have the
>>>>> ability to not react to accelerations while the matter
>>>>> being accelerated is affected by the presence of this
>>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> You can define a mathematical "local absolute frame" for use in any given
>>>> context.
>>>
>>> If you believe that, then you haven't the slightest
>>> idea of what the historical meaning of "absolute"
>>> frame means. You really should read Einstein's essays
>>> more and his book The Evolution of Physics to get
>>> a better perspective of the historical and philosophical
>>> situation that he and his contemporaries were trying
>>> to deal with.
>>
>> Been there, done that, and don't buy your 'interpetation' for an instant...
>
> No kidding? I'll just have to find a way to live with this revelation.
Somehow I think you'll never manage...
>>>> This frame does not have to be one and the same thing as the
>>>> aether. If you think about the motion of a boat on a river, it is
>>>> sufficient to take note of the rate of flow of the river. If you want to
>>>> know the motion of leaf floating on the surface, you might have to take
>>>> account of waves and eddies. The frame you work in will depend on what you
>>>> are trying to do.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see the need for an absolute frame as more than an abstract model.
>>>
>>> Of course it's just an abstract model. But it's not needed in SR or GR, using
>>> the historical meanings of the term.
>>
>> Funny, Einstein realized GR needed an aether...
>>
>> Paul Stowe
>
> Not Maxwell's mechanical ether!!!!
Really? Explain (again, your claim...)
Paul Stowe
c.h.thompson
> Paul Stowe wrote:
> > Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
> > >"c.h.thompson" wrote:
> > >> What WAS your claim? That it was my reference to an
> > >> aether that was unreasonable? Time will tell.
> > >
> > > You're not getting my point. It is, relatively speaking,
> > > unreason to prefer a theory that talks of measurements
> > > that cannot be made -- i.e., "measurements" of velocities
> > > with respect to an unobservable ether
No, this is just modern prejudice, started largely in order to defend
quantum theory, in which it was known to be impossible to define any
underlying "hidden variables". They preferred to declare that the whole
idea of trying to talk about any more detailed structure was unscientific
since it could not be measured rather than admit that their theory was not
perfect.
Additionally, of course, this gets back to my assertion that there are two
distinct aims in physics -- the practical one in which formulae are needed
to give predictions and the other one, of deep understanding. The aether
belongs largely in the second category, though Dayton Miller's experiments
do begin to put it on the level of the measurable.
> > Out in our 'real universe' one CAN measure their speed wrt the local
> > aether very easily. It's called the CMBR Doppler... Now one can try
> > to irrationally (unreason...) claim that they can block the radiation
> > thus it somehow don't count but that is just playing Ostrich...
>
> Why would the CMBR frame be an "ether" frame?
I think it probably IS an aether frame, but it is far from being the only
one relevant to experiments here on earth. We do a great number of
experiments in which it is the laboratory frame that is appropriate. Could
the reasons be (a) that the motion of the local aether relative to the earth
is small and (b) that from the point of view of the action of "forces" such
as magnetism the actual speed of propagation of the force is so great that
it can be treated as infinite?
c.h.thompson
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CD8707C...@attbi.com...
> Paul Stowe wrote:
Try reading some of my other messages, e.g. yesterday's response to Ilja
Schmeltzer:
It only has to be solid and stiff " ... if you accept various assumptions,
notably that light travels as a transverse wave of the same nature as
transverse seismic waves. It seems to me that the "known" facts re the
producion of light (those accepted in the
late 19th century) ought more logically to have led to the idea that light
was merely a modulation of underlying longitudinal waves. The transverse
component comes from the fact that there will be phase differences caused by
the motion of the source ..."
The reason it appears to be rare may be because all "solids" are made of it,
so that it can simply pass right through them. This was what Lorentz
assumed re his fixed aether. [See his "Theory of Electrons", Teubner 1916]
c.h.thompson
> >
> >> I'm still waiting for you to explain why quantum mechanics
> >> (1) has nothing to do with lasers, despite the fact that charles
> >> townes stated explicitly that he used quantum mechanics in
> >> developing them,
> >[CHT] Allow me to quote an extract from an article about
> >Carver Mead in the Spectator
> > http://www.gilder.com/americanspectatorarticles/carver.htm ):
> >
> >-------
> >Central to Mead's rescue project are a series of discoveries
> >inconsistent with the prevailing conceptions of quantum mechanics.
> >One was the laser.
>
> Carver mead is wrong. Apparently his grasp of quantum mechanics
> needs improvement.
He nevertheless managed to make a substantial contribution to the
development of modern computers.
Besides, from what you quote re Townes, it looks as if he searched for the
QM justification for coherence AFTER his discovery -- yet another case of
postdiction.
Patrick Reany
"c.h.thompson" wrote:
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CD87B35...@asu.edu...
> > Paul Stowe wrote:
> > > Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
> > > >"c.h.thompson" wrote:
>
> > > >> What WAS your claim? That it was my reference to an
> > > >> aether that was unreasonable? Time will tell.
> > > >
> > > > You're not getting my point. It is, relatively speaking,
> > > > unreason to prefer a theory that talks of measurements
> > > > that cannot be made -- i.e., "measurements" of velocities
> > > > with respect to an unobservable ether
>
> No, this is just modern prejudice, started largely in order to defend
> quantum theory,
This is wrong. Einstein was not interested in
defending QM. He was interested in removing
adscititious elements from physics that seem to
just weigh it down, that seem to be mere
artifacts of the human mind, rather than "true"
of nature. He didn't like "ghosts." You should
read Einstein's many essays, because you
don't know what you're talking about.
Einstein himself believed in forming "principle"
theories as opposed to forming "constructive"
theories, and for good reason. Principle theories
have the security of the principles (usually
about directly measurable things) and then
use these principles as constraints on the
models that can be invented. But in constructive
theories, the attempt is made to start with
some model and then use it to construct
a theory that "explains." It is immediately
obvious that if one starts with a constructive
theory, one is stuck with its foundation.
It can be an onerous albatross. Einstein
did what he did, not to defend QM, but
to follow a philosophy of science that
he worked out and believed in. It is a
philosophy that is much more fundamental
than choices of specific models or theories to
have allegiances to. How do I know this? I read
his book Ideas and Opinions, in which he
explained all this!
As for myself, I don't defend QM as the
truth. I usually make my points using
examples from physics other than from
QM, not because I have a problem with it,
but because so many people are so prejudiced
against it. QED is the most accurately verified
theory to date in physics, and it is a QM/SR
theory. Deal with it.
> in which it was known to be impossible to define any
> underlying "hidden variables". They preferred to declare that the whole
> idea of trying to talk about any more detailed structure was unscientific
> since it could not be measured rather than admit that their theory was not
> perfect.
>
> Additionally, of course, this gets back to my assertion that there are two
> distinct aims in physics -- the practical one in which formulae are needed
> to give predictions and the other one, of deep understanding.
Yes, There are laws and there are theories as
"explanations" of laws. What's so new about that?
It just proves that the educational system doesn't
teach the truth about science and when people
figure it out for themselves, it looks strange, new,
and naughty.
> The aether
> belongs largely in the second category, though Dayton Miller's experiments
> do begin to put it on the level of the measurable.
>
> > > Out in our 'real universe' one CAN measure their speed wrt the local
> > > aether very easily. It's called the CMBR Doppler... Now one can try
> > > to irrationally (unreason...) claim that they can block the radiation
> > > thus it somehow don't count but that is just playing Ostrich...
> >
> > Why would the CMBR frame be an "ether" frame?
>
> I think it probably IS an aether frame,
That's a really weak answer for three reasons.
First, ether people aren't supposed to deal in
guesses or wishful thinking. Second, you gave
no reason why THAT frame should have
anything do to with light propagation. And three,
regarding what you say below, the ether frame
for light propagation is supposed to be unique.
> but it is far from being the only
> one relevant to experiments here on earth. We do a great number of
> experiments in which it is the laboratory frame that is appropriate. Could
> the reasons be (a) that the motion of the local aether relative to the earth
> is small and (b) that from the point of view of the action of "forces" such
> as magnetism the actual speed of propagation of the force is so great that
> it can be treated as infinite?
>
> Caroline
>
>
If you believe in a non-rigid ether then it most
certainly is unsuitable for acting as an "absolute"
space.
But you seem to overlook the obvious: It is
impossible to "explain" everything. So you start
with some ether. Where did it come from?
What is it made out of? And on and on.
Patrick
jmfb...@aol.com
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote:
>
>Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> said some stuff about
>> c.h.thompson said some stuff about
>> >Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> said some stuff about
>> >
>> >> I'm still waiting for you to explain why quantum mechanics
>> >> (1) has nothing to do with lasers, despite the fact that charles
>> >> townes stated explicitly that he used quantum mechanics in
>> >> developing them,
>
>> >[CHT] Allow me to quote an extract from an article about
>> >Carver Mead in the Spectator
>> > http://www.gilder.com/americanspectatorarticles/carver.htm ):
>> >
>> >-------
>> >Central to Mead's rescue project are a series of discoveries
>> >inconsistent with the prevailing conceptions of quantum mechanics.
>> >One was the laser.
>>
>> Carver mead is wrong. Apparently his grasp of quantum mechanics
>> needs improvement.
>
>He nevertheless managed to make a substantial contribution to the
>development of modern computers.
So what? I know thousands of people who made substantial contributions
to the development of modern computers. We _made_ them. QM was
never discussed in our functional, design, and product planning
meetings.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Vern
> > Are you aware of Rado's Aether model (Aethro-kinematics)?
>
> Regrettably so.
What you do or do not regret is not relevant. A simple yes or no
would have been sufficient.
[Martin]
> Are you suggesting that Caroline is supporting this 'model'?
No, and I don't know why you would ask that question given my post.
You appeared to be saying that a non-fixed aether has been ruled out
by aberration. I questioned whether that is true and made reference
to a model which has a non-fixed aether (what you meant by non-fixed
aether probably needs to be clarified).
[Vern]
> >Aside from all the other reasons argued
> > against Rado's model, I'm not sure stellar aberration is enough to
> > rule it out.
[Martin]
> Maybe, but the fact he does not have a model is.
Again, the issue here is your statement about aberration, not your
snide comments about Rado.
Grow up.
Vern
Ilja Schmelzer
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> writes:
>> "Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> writes:
>>> "c.h.thompson"<c.h.th...@pgen.net> writes:
>>>> [MMX] In reality, though, what they showed was that it was not
>>>> reasonable to assume a FIXED aether.
>>
>>> Yes, any other kind of aether had already been discounted.
>>
>> ROTFL. The Lorentz ether is a fixed ether and not discounted by MMX.
>>
>
> I think you have misread something here. I have said that a non-fixed
> aether had already been ruled out.
Ok, the ROTFL is not about you but about "c.h.thompson"
<c.h.th...@pgen.net> . I have misinterpreted your "yes"
as agreement.
> The MMX ruled out a fixed aether except for the case where motion
> through the aether somehow affects clocks and rulers, in other
> words Lorentz' aether.
Fine.
>>> Nobody is 'playing around with formulae'. The facts support relativity.
>>
>> The facts do not distinguish between SR and Lorentz ether.
>
> Caroline cannot be referring to the Lorentz aether since she is claiming
> a non-null result for MMX type experiments.
>
> If Caroline is supporting either LET or your GET she could simply say
> so. Instead she makes vague remarks about the aether and errors in
> experiments. You do your own cause no good by associating yourself
> with this attitude.
If I correct some of your statements in your discussion with Caroline
this does not mean that I associate myself with Caroline. You may
argue that in this case my correction was nitpicking, but that's
another question.
Robert J. Kolker
c.h.thompson wrote:
> the motion of the source ..."
>
> The reason it appears to be rare may be because all "solids" are made of it,
You have not got one experimental fact that can support that nonsense.
You have made an assertion ex anus. No proceed to defend it with
*facts*, not suppositions. Where is the experimental evidence that
supports your asertion in such a way, that no other hypothesis can
account for solids?
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message news:3cd8f...@news1.vip.uk.com...
>
> Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> said some stuff about
> > c.h.thompson said some stuff about
> > >Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> said some stuff about
> > >
> > >> I'm still waiting for you to explain why quantum mechanics
> > >> (1) has nothing to do with lasers, despite the fact that charles
> > >> townes stated explicitly that he used quantum mechanics in
> > >> developing them,
>
> > >[CHT] Allow me to quote an extract from an article about
> > >Carver Mead in the Spectator
> > > http://www.gilder.com/americanspectatorarticles/carver.htm ):
> > >
> > >-------
> > >Central to Mead's rescue project are a series of discoveries
> > >inconsistent with the prevailing conceptions of quantum mechanics.
> > >One was the laser.
> >
> > Carver mead is wrong. Apparently his grasp of quantum mechanics
> > needs improvement.
>
> He nevertheless managed to make a substantial contribution to the
> development of modern computers.
Just like Tom Potter made a substantial contribution to the
business of selling scientific instruments.
You just deserved an entry on
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Welcome.
Dirk Vdm
Martin Hogbin
> Schmeltzer:
If you are supporting Ilja Schmelzer's GET then why do you not say so,
but you should be aware that GET makes exactly the same experimental
predictions as relativity.
If you have an aether theory of your own please tell us what it is.
Martin Hogbin
c.h.thompson
> "Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> writes:
> > Caroline cannot be referring to the Lorentz aether since she is
> > claiming a non-null result for MMX type experiments.
It is not just me that makes this claim. See
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm .
> > If Caroline is supporting either LET or your GET she could
> > simply say so.
I should have thought it was clear that I was not supporting LET. I'm
afraid I've forgotten what GET stands for.
c.h.thompson
> Einstein himself believed in forming "principle"
> theories as opposed to forming "constructive"
> theories, and for good reason.
So you say, but look at what all the "real" physicists have always done in
practice. They have produced their "principles", but at the same time they
have talked and corresponded ad nauseam with everyone they could think of in
an effort to arrive at an understanding of why those principles work!
Newton, for example, produced his theory of gravity and declared that he
made no hyptheses as to how it worked, but look elsewhere in his writings
(in his Opticks) and you will find that he did.
> Principle theories
> have the security of the principles (usually
> about directly measurable things) and then
> use these principles as constraints on the
> models that can be invented. But in constructive
> theories, the attempt is made to start with
> some model and then use it to construct
> a theory that "explains."
It does not work like this! It is a to and fro process. The "known"
principles guide the construction of the theory.
> It is immediately
> obvious that if one starts with a constructive
> theory, one is stuck with its foundation.
Hmm ... but it can be even more disastrous to be stuck with a mathematical
framework that is anything less than perfect!
> It can be an onerous albatross. Einstein
> did what he did, not to defend QM, but
> to follow a philosophy of science that
> he worked out and believed in.
I'm afraid I do not share your adulation of Einstein. I know a couple of
places where he went wrong.
c.h.thompson
> c.h.thompson wrote:
re the aether:
> > The reason it appears to be rare may be because all
> > "solids" are made of it,
>
> You have not got one experimental fact that can support
> that nonsense.
I said "may be", Bob.
Robert J. Kolker
c.h.thompson wrote:
>
> I said "may be", Bob.
If my Grandmother had balls, she might have been my Grandfather. So much
for may be or might be.
Write us when it is definite, and do not burden us with your
unsubstantiated speculations. If you do not have an experiment done or
designed to do, you are not doing science. You are doing muddleheaded
metaphysics which is the swamp gas of the human intellect.
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany
"c.h.thompson" wrote:
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CD90ED3...@asu.edu...
>
> > Einstein himself believed in forming "principle"
> > theories as opposed to forming "constructive"
> > theories, and for good reason.
>
> So you say, but look at what all the "real" physicists have always done in
> practice. They have produced their "principles", but at the same time they
> have talked and corresponded ad nauseam with everyone they could think of in
> an effort to arrive at an understanding of why those principles work!
Could you explain this in more detail 'cause I
ain't followin ya.
> Newton, for example, produced his theory of gravity and declared that he
> made no hyptheses as to how it worked, but look elsewhere in his writings
> (in his Opticks) and you will find that he did.
What are you getting at?
> > Principle theories
> > have the security of the principles (usually
> > about directly measurable things) and then
> > use these principles as constraints on the
> > models that can be invented. But in constructive
> > theories, the attempt is made to start with
> > some model and then use it to construct
> > a theory that "explains."
>
> It does not work like this! It is a to and fro process. The "known"
> principles guide the construction of the theory.
You just don't understand what the hell
a formal physical theory is, do ya?
> > It is immediately
> > obvious that if one starts with a constructive
> > theory, one is stuck with its foundation.
>
> Hmm ... but it can be even more disastrous to be stuck with a mathematical
> framework that is anything less than perfect!
Which mathematical system are you referring to?
I can think of two possible interpretations of
what you might mean:
1) The Lorentz transformations are crap,
meaning that they just don't work (I don't
know any physicist that agrees with that),
2) mathematical systems are "principles" in
themselves. This is just a simple but
predictable misconception. For example,
SR is not committed to any particular
mathematical system, indeed, over the
years many have been applied to it.
> > It can be an onerous albatross. Einstein
> > did what he did, not to defend QM, but
> > to follow a philosophy of science that
> > he worked out and believed in.
>
> I'm afraid I do not share your adulation of Einstein.
Irrelevant, as my "adulation" has nothing to do
with a rational discussion of rational things.
Mark that up as a red herring for ya.
> I know a couple of
> places where he went wrong.
Where's your Nobel Prize in physics?
> It is a
> > philosophy that is much more fundamental
> > than choices of specific models or theories to
> > have allegiances to. How do I know this? I read
> > his book Ideas and Opinions, in which he
> > explained all this!
> >
> >
> > As for myself, I don't defend QM as the
> > truth. I usually make my points using
> > examples from physics other than from
> > QM, not because I have a problem with it,
> > but because so many people are so prejudiced
> > against it. QED is the most accurately verified
> > theory to date in physics, and it is a QM/SR
> > theory. Deal with it.
No reply here? Hummmmmmmmm.
> [snip]
> >
> > > The aether
> > > belongs largely in the second category, though Dayton Miller's
> experiments
> > > do begin to put it on the level of the measurable.
> > >
> > > > > Out in our 'real universe' one CAN measure their speed wrt the local
> > > > > aether very easily. It's called the CMBR Doppler... Now one can
> try
> > > > > to irrationally (unreason...) claim that they can block the
> radiation
> > > > > thus it somehow don't count but that is just playing Ostrich...
> > > >
> > > > Why would the CMBR frame be an "ether" frame?
> > >
> > > I think it probably IS an aether frame,
> >
> > That's a really weak answer for three reasons.
> > First, ether people aren't supposed to deal in
> > guesses or wishful thinking. Second, you gave
> > no reason why THAT frame should have
> > anything do to with light propagation. And three,
> > regarding what you say below, the ether frame
> > for light propagation is supposed to be unique.
No reply here either? Double hummmmmmmmm.
At this rate, I don't think you're ever going to get
that Nobel Prize.
> [snip]
>
Patrick
Martin Hogbin
>
> Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message
> news:i3gu1pi...@ilja-schmelzer.net...
> > "Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> writes:
>
> > > Caroline cannot be referring to the Lorentz aether since she is
> > > claiming a non-null result for MMX type experiments.
>
> It is not just me that makes this claim. See
> http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm .
On this web site you have collected comments from nearly 100 years
of physics in order to come up with an argument against relativity,
yet all you have come up with are a few snippets from ancient
papers and even these do not come out wholly against relativity.
Your quote, from Miller concludes:
"In order to account for the results here presented, it seems
necessary to accept the Lorentz-Fitzgerald theory of the
contraction of matter moving through the ether, or to postulate
a viscous or dragged ether as proposed by Stokes."
> I should have thought it was clear that I was not
> supporting LET.
Well Miller is.
Although I would not want to support his 'ideas' in any way
even Rado, whose web site you promote states:
Since there is no relative motion between the Earth
and Aether, the Michelson-Morley experiments cannot
show anything but 'Null-results'.
So what is your theory. Or is it just ' there is something wrong
with relativity and it needs some kind of aether to fix it'?
Martin Hogbin
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
And are quite religous about it too...
> As for myself, I don't defend QM as the truth. I usually make my points
> using examples from physics other than from QM, not because I have a
> problem with it, but because so many people are so prejudiced against
> it. QED is the most accurately verified theory to date in physics, and
> it is a QM/SR theory. Deal with it.
>
>> in which it was known to be impossible to define any underlying "hidden
>> variables". They preferred to declare that the whole idea of trying to
>> talk about any more detailed structure was unscientific since it could
>> not be measured rather than admit that their theory was not perfect.
>>
>> Additionally, of course, this gets back to my assertion that there are two
>> distinct aims in physics -- the practical one in which formulae are needed
>> to give predictions and the other one, of deep understanding.
>
> Yes, There are laws and there are theories as "explanations" of laws. What's
> so new about that? It just proves that the educational system doesn't teach
> the truth about science and when people figure it out for themselves, it
> looks strange, new, and naughty.
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. The scientific method is quite
defined and it ain't solely about measurements...
>> The aether belongs largely in the second category, though Dayton Miller's
>> experiments do begin to put it on the level of the measurable.
>>
>>>> Out in our 'real universe' one CAN measure their speed wrt the local
>>>> aether very easily. It's called the CMBR Doppler... Now one can try
>>>> to irrationally (unreason...) claim that they can block the radiation
>>>> thus it somehow don't count but that is just playing Ostrich...
>>>
>>> Why would the CMBR frame be an "ether" frame?
>>
>> I think it probably IS an aether frame,
>
> That's a really weak answer for three reasons.
>
> First, ether people aren't supposed to deal in guesses or wishful thinking.
Really?
> Second, you gave no reason why THAT frame should have anything do to with
> light propagation.
So? You still haven't thought this through, eh Patrick??? Not Menza material
I see... Hints, keywords, isotropic, luminiferous medium...
> And three, regarding what you say below, the ether frame for light propagation
> is supposed to be unique.
Why???
>> but it is far from being the only one relevant to experiments here on earth.
>> We do a great number of experiments in which it is the laboratory frame that
>> is appropriate. Could the reasons be (a) that the motion of the local aether
>> relative to the earth is small and (b) that from the point of view of the
>> action of "forces" such as magnetism the actual speed of propagation of the
>> force is so great that it can be treated as infinite?
>>
>> Caroline
>>
>>
>
> If you believe in a non-rigid ether then it most certainly is unsuitable for
> acting as an "absolute" space.
So what?
> But you seem to overlook the obvious: It is impossible to "explain" everything.
> So you start with some ether. Where did it come from? What is it made out of?
> And on and on.
So what?
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany
pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Are you religious about your ether beliefs?
Or should I say your anti-Einstein, anti-relativity
beliefs. You know, I'm here on a relativity NG,
NOT an ether NG. Seems like you're the
religious interloper here to me.
> [snip]
> > Yes, There are laws and there are theories as "explanations" of laws. What's
> > so new about that? It just proves that the educational system doesn't teach
> > the truth about science and when people figure it out for themselves, it
> > looks strange, new, and naughty.
>
> Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. The scientific method is quite
> defined and it ain't solely about measurements...
Tell us what it is all about then. I'm sure
we'd all like to hear your slant on it.
> [snip]
>
> > Second, you gave no reason why THAT frame should have anything do to with
> > light propagation.
>
> So? You still haven't thought this through, eh Patrick??? Not Menza material
> I see... Hints, keywords, isotropic, luminiferous medium...
You have interjected yourself into a discussion
I was having with Caroline. However, if you want
to make this all manifest to us all, please feel free
to do so now.
Patrick
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
Of course, that is the essence of beliefs...
> Or should I say your anti-Einstein, anti-relativity beliefs.
I'm neither 'anti' Einstein or relativity. Go find where I've every
claimed the Lorentz's transforms aren't valid... or have claimed that
Einstein was wrong, stunk, had bad breath, or in any other manner,
denigrated him personally... I don't rank him in the top ten of all
time however, he was neither stupid or a bad or obnoxious person.
I am however certain that the 'philosophy' of modern SR/GR (namely
the geometric interpetation) is simple wrong and inherrently unscientific.
That's quite different than saying that physical processes do not behave
in the manner defined by Maxwell and Lorentz, and not Einstein BTW...
In fact, as history shows, Einstein published NOTHING NEW in 1905.
He just set up a methodology to use the equations in a manner now called
'conventional'. The method, not the physics or equations was what
was different.
> You know, I'm here on a relativity NG, NOT an ether NG. Seems like you're
> the religious interloper here to me.
Chuckle, (actual it's LOL). As you have been told on numerous occasions go
look at the charter...
>> [snip]
>>> Yes, There are laws and there are theories as "explanations" of laws. What's
>>> so new about that? It just proves that the educational system doesn't teach
>>> the truth about science and when people figure it out for themselves, it
>>> looks strange, new, and naughty.
>>
>> Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. The scientific method is
>> quite defined and it ain't solely about measurements...
>
> Tell us what it is all about then. I'm sure we'd all like to hear your slant
> on it.
Now why should "I" have to define that which was defined lonnnnnnnng before I
was born. If ya don't know, try reading...
http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/sciencemethod.html
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Second, you gave no reason why THAT frame should have anything do to with
>>> light propagation.
>>
>> So? You still haven't thought this through, eh Patrick??? Not Menza material
>> I see... Hints, keywords, isotropic, luminiferous medium...
>
> You have interjected yourself into a discussion I was having with Caroline.
Now that's funny. If you want to converse with Caroline use E-Mail. This
is a 'public forum' and in a thread you started (I might add) as a result of
my chiding you on your rather pathetic and petty comments...
> However, if you want to make this all manifest to us all, please feel free
> to do so now.
Oh, I assure you, I can. But, I'd like to see you use some linear logical
reasoning. However, if you really 'give up' and publicly claim you can't
'figure it out', then OK, we'll spoon feed you the answer.
Paul Stowe
Tom Potter
It is interesting to see that this poster has delusions
that he can "immortalize" statements made by folks,
by posting excerpts of their posts, on a web page,
the primary intent of which is to try to
make the poster feel superior to others.
I suggest that the poster "make a contribution"
to raising civilized, well-adjusted children,
by becoming civilized and civil,
and setting an example for them.
Tom Potter
Bilge
>>
>> Carver mead is wrong. Apparently his grasp of quantum mechanics
>> needs improvement.
>
>He nevertheless managed to make a substantial contribution to the
>development of modern computers.
contributing to this development? I suspect the answer is 'yes',
so I'd have to say his disbelief is not something he'd risk his
success to support.
>
>Besides, from what you quote re Townes, it looks as if he searched for the
>QM justification for coherence AFTER his discovery -- yet another case of
>postdiction.
It looks to me like he calculated what he said he calculated using what
he said he used. Now, who in their right mind is going to believe an
argument against quantum mechanics and how lasers work based on what
you've provided:
(1) your quote from someone that uses quantum mechanics to get the
answers that work, but doesn't believe it and for which I also
claim his reasoning regarding it being contrary to the uncertainty
principle is exactly backwards, and
(2) your supposition, obtained by "reading between the line" of a direct
quote of townes, the person that invented the laser, that he decided
to perform his calculations only _after_ he developed the laser. I
suppose you think he did this just to help propagandize a theory he'd
never made use of in the development prior to suceeding because it was
totally incorrect? I mean, that sounds so ridiculously absurd that
even p.t. barnum couldn't sell it to a complete idiot.
Bilge
>
>It is interesting to see that this poster has delusions
>that he can "immortalize" statements made by folks,
>by posting excerpts of their posts, on a web page,
>the primary intent of which is to try to
>make the poster feel superior to others.
to overcome all of the common sense offered to dissuade them from
pursuing the award. Given the qualifications and hard work performed,
grasping at straws, and even thin air as objections to reality, I
would think the recipients would bask in its limelight of such an
award. I don't think anyone wins with their first post.
Bilge
>
>Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
>news:3CD90ED3...@asu.edu...
>
>> Einstein himself believed in forming "principle"
>> theories as opposed to forming "constructive"
>> theories, and for good reason.
>
>So you say, but look at what all the "real" physicists have always done in
>practice. They have produced their "principles", but at the same time they
>have talked and corresponded ad nauseam with everyone they could think of in
>an effort to arrive at an understanding of why those principles work!
of something for which there is no one to ask. But, wait. Just how is this
worse than doing the same thing, except for the ideas that the "real"
physicists, as you put it, discarded as dead ends after examining it
to a degree you might reach if you work tirelessly and live another century?
>Newton, for example, produced his theory of gravity and declared that he
>made no hyptheses as to how it worked, but look elsewhere in his writings
>(in his Opticks) and you will find that he did.
That's why they call it phenomenology. I'm sure you would retch at
the phenomenolgy used to limp along in nuclear physics where a solution
to much of anything but the deuteron, triton and infinite nuclear matter
are completely intractable. Being clever allows one to extract minute
details from such phenomenology and as classical mechanics goes, newton
was very clever.
>It does not work like this! It is a to and fro process. The "known"
>principles guide the construction of the theory.
The "to-and-fro" process is supposed to be a damped oscillation, not one
driven at resonance to try and over come the damping to some final state.
Any moron can choose to disbelieve everything and start over. What takes
intelligence is recognizing what works and understanding why it works, so
as not to waste the time re-inventing the wheel, only to do it worse. I
assure you, that others have made more errors trying to do what doesn't
work than anyone has time to repeat in their own lifetime. For the most
part, you "ideas" haven't reached past "obviously wrong" even as far as
classical physics goes, much less achieved the level of what might be
considered "subtle errors" 150 years ago. Why
You might not be aware if the fact that the generic "core" courses in a
graduate physics program consist of classical mechanics, classical
electrodynamics, thermodynamics/statistical mechanics and quantum
mechanics rather than relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics
and relativistic quantum mechanics. In other words, for most of 3
semesters, quite a lot of attention is devoted to classical mechanics
well beyond the classical arguments you think are novel, so it's not
like the errors in those arguments aren't transparent to any graduate
student (or even undergraduate).
[...]
>Hmm ... but it can be even more disastrous to be stuck with a mathematical
>framework that is anything less than perfect!
Funny thing about that. No one I know or have ever talked to believes
we are stuck with anything or would be unwilling to toss it aside in
an instant for something better. You keep forgetting the part about
a theory needing some sort of substance beyond the metaphysical satisfaction
of some people who tend toward dubious metaphysics. I for one, find
even your metaphysical wish list of how you want the universe to behave,
to represent a universe which is phyically pathological and self-contra-
dictory.
[...]
>I'm afraid I do not share your adulation of Einstein. I know a couple of
>places where he went wrong.
The most obvious being quantum mechanics. So what. Adulation has nothing
to do with using physics with which he is associated. You keep confusing
the message with the messanger.
Robert J. Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> That's quite different than saying that physical processes do not behave
> in the manner defined by Maxwell and Lorentz, and not Einstein BTW...
> In fact, as history shows, Einstein published NOTHING NEW in 1905.
Published a paper on the Brownian Motion which led to a more accurate
estimation of Avagadro's number and Boltzmann's constant. and published
a Paper on the Photoelectric effect for which he won the Nobel in 1922.
His paper on the Photoelectric Effect introduced the concept of the
photon (quantum of electromagnetic energy) and put quantum theory on the
map. He also came up with a better derivation of Plancks formula for
blackbody radiation. His paper on the Photoelectric effect reinvigorated
Newton's corpuscular theory of light (electromagnetic radiation). The
photon concept was the touchpoint for Bohr's investigation of atoms.
Not a bad year for a patent clerk who came up with nothing new in 1905.
Bob Kolker
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Yup, you're right. I was speaking to the topic of 'relativity'.
Paul Stowe
Bilge
[...]
>I am however certain that the 'philosophy' of modern SR/GR (namely
>the geometric interpetation) is simple wrong and inherrently unscientific.
>That's quite different than saying that physical processes do not behave
>in the manner defined by Maxwell and Lorentz, and not Einstein BTW...
>In fact, as history shows, Einstein published NOTHING NEW in 1905.
>He just set up a methodology to use the equations in a manner now called
>'conventional'. The method, not the physics or equations was what
>was different.
NO. What differed was the physics. The lorentz transform is irrelavent
to the physics. It's an equation. Equations may either be obtained as a
consequence of some physical principle or obtained "because they work".
Special relativity is a set of physical principles. Stating it involves
no assumption regarding what form _any_ equations will take on. Once
formalized as mathematical statements (i.e., c=constant) there exists
_NO_ options regarding the equations. The lorentz transform is present
because it happens to be what you get when you consider infinitessimal
displacements and insist that the interval remain unchanged. Since
this derivation is the same one that leads to invariance under rotations,
it's rather hard to argue that the lorentz transforms were the goal
rather than a consequence. It's sufficient to let x-> x' = x + a and
insist x'^2 - x^2 = 0, to obtain the result. The invariance is physical
principle. The consequence is an equation. If you wish to believe the
equation is the physical principle, that's fine. Just don't insist
that physicists (or at least myself) consider that the way to do
do physics, or that the lorentz transforms are the justification for
special relativity. I would expect that most physicists consider
special relativity the justification for the lorentz transform,
because the transforms are derived explicitly from the principles
of special relativity.
On the other hand, you still have to figure out how to get rid
of the tag-along phenomena from the analogies you want to use to
fit the equations that seem to be missing as real phenomena. Like
a missing longitudinal polarization, which, if I recall, you said
would correspond to an elastic mode at 1.6 c. Could you explain
exactly what physics this corresponds to? What maxwell's equations
say, will be okey-dokey, but take all the rope you need.
c.h.thompson
Martin Hogbin <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:abc5k7$9sd$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote
> >
> > > > Caroline cannot be referring to the Lorentz aether since she is
> > > > claiming a non-null result for MMX type experiments.
> >
> > It is not just me that makes this claim. See
> > http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm .
>
> On this web site you have collected comments from nearly
> 100 years of physics in order to come up with an argument
> against relativity, yet all you have come up with are a few
> snippets from ancient papers and even these do not come
> out wholly against relativity.
Why so few? Because all alternatives to Einstein's theories have been
treated with scorn ever since the great publicity bestowed on him by the New
York Times after the 1919 eclipse!
> Your quote, from Miller concludes:
>
> "In order to account for the results here presented, it seems
> necessary to accept the Lorentz-Fitzgerald theory of the
> contraction of matter moving through the ether, or to postulate
> a viscous or dragged ether as proposed by Stokes."
>
> > I should have thought it was clear that I was not
> > supporting LET.
>
> Well Miller is.
Not so. If you read a few more of his papers you will find that he prefers
something more like Stokes' alternative, and in any case his results would
(as Lorentz himself recognised at the 1927 APS meeting) not be compatible
with LET without some modification.
> Although I would not want to support his 'ideas' in any way
> even Rado, whose web site you promote states:
>
> Since there is no relative motion between the Earth
> and Aether, the Michelson-Morley experiments cannot
> show anything but 'Null-results'.
Rado's book was written before he knew about Miller's work, which, as you
realise, is NOT well known.
> So what is your theory. Or is it just ' there is something wrong
> with relativity and it needs some kind of aether to fix it'?
I am simply saying that the idea of an aether was dismissed on false
evidence. See my web site for more. In order to accept the idea of a fluid
aether you need to ignore not only Einstein's relativity theory but also his
idea of the photon.
See http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Essays/aether.htm (written before I had
encountered Miller's work), http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Essays/light.htm and
various other entries.
c.h.thompson
> >Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> said
> >> Carver mead is wrong. Apparently his grasp of quantum mechanics
> >> needs improvement.
> >
> >He nevertheless managed to make a substantial contribution to the
> >development of modern computers.
>
> Did he use any of the quantum mechanics he doesn't believe in
> contributing to this development? I suspect the answer is 'yes',
I am currently reading his book. I rather suspect the answer is 'no', but
will let you know in due course.
> >Besides, from what you quote re Townes, it looks as if he searched
> >for the QM justification for coherence AFTER his discovery -- yet
> >another case of postdiction.
>
> It looks to me like he calculated what he said he calculated using what
> he said he used.
The calculation is one thing, the discovery quite another.
>Now, who in their right mind is going to believe an
> argument against quantum mechanics and how lasers
> work based on what you've provided:
>
> (1) your quote from someone that uses quantum mechanics to get the
> answers that work, but doesn't believe it and for which I also
> claim his reasoning regarding it being contrary to the uncertainty
> principle is exactly backwards, and
>
> (2) your supposition, obtained by "reading between the line" of a direct
> quote of townes, the person that invented the laser, that he decided
> to perform his calculations only _after_ he developed the laser. I
> suppose you think he did this just to help propagandize a theory he'd
> never made use of in the development prior to suceeding because it was
> totally incorrect?
Have you never heard of peer pressure?
c.h.thompson
Tom Potter <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f76e0bb3.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote
> > > > >[CHT] Allow me to quote an extract from an article about
> > > > >Carver Mead in the Spectator
> > > > > http://www.gilder.com/americanspectatorarticles/carver.htm ):
> > > > >
> > > > >-------
> > > > >Central to Mead's rescue project are a series of discoveries
> > > > >inconsistent with the prevailing conceptions of quantum
> > > > >--------
> > > >
> > > > [Bilge] Carver Mead is wrong. Apparently his grasp of quantum
> > > > mechanics needs improvement.
> > >
> > > [CHT] He nevertheless managed to make a substantial contribution to
the
> > > development of modern computers.
> >
> > business of selling scientific instruments.
Mead's contribution was at a rather more profound level than this. Likewise
Ivor Catt, who realised that there was no part of currently-accepted theory
that covered the real behaviour of the transmission lines that have been in
use now for many years. The high speed of our modern computers owes nothing
to quantum theory!
c.h.thompson
> >
> >> Einstein himself believed in forming "principle"
> >> theories as opposed to forming "constructive"
> >> theories, and for good reason.
> >
> >So you say, but look at what all the "real" physicists have always
> >done in practice. They have produced their "principles", but at
> >the same time they have talked and corresponded ad nauseam
> >with everyone they could think of in an effort to arrive at an
> >understanding of why those principles work!
>
> Wow! What an incredibly offensive way to increase one's understanding
> of something for which there is no one to ask.
Please explain. What have I said that is "incredibly offensive"?
> But, wait. Just how is this
> worse than doing the same thing, except for the ideas that the "real"
> physicists, as you put it, discarded as dead ends after examining it
> to a degree you might reach if you work tirelessly and live another
> century?
Might I recommend that you read a book newly published by Matt Edwards --
"Pushing Gravity", Matthew Edwards (ed.), Apeiron 2002? However hard people
try and discover the truth, it can be masked from them by prejudice, false
information etc.. Good ideas from the past have often been discarded
prematurely. Edwards' book is about Le Sage aether theories, and I would be
the first to agree that there are grave problems with them. Nevertheless
Newton himself took a keen interest in some early versions by Fatio. My own
ideas are more closely related to Le Sage's than to Einstein's. Einstein's
were influenced by false information re the Michelson Morley experiments.
> >Hmm ... but it can be even more disastrous to be stuck with a
> >mathematical framework that is anything less than perfect!
>
> Funny thing about that. No one I know or have ever talked to
> believes we are stuck with anything or would be unwilling to
> toss it aside in an instant for something better.
The problem with the current paradigm is that the only kind of alternative
that is considered is a mathematical one. It seems highly probable to me
that no one mathematical model can cover the whole universe! Since this aim
is futile, perhaps teachers should concentrate on those that are. This
should include teaching a wider range of experimental facts and cutting out
actual falsehoods.
Have you looked at the March issue of the American Journal of Physics? Look
at those articles that cover things such as the Bell tests and the behaviour
of "photons" at beamsplitters. The experiments that students are being
encouraged to do are only those guaranteed to appear to support quantum
theory. I have written to some of the authors concerned suggesting that
students could be asked to do more than this: to try and see if by adjusting
parameters, using a different make of detector for example, they might be
able to show that the agreement with the photon model was an illusion.
See one of my letters at http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Letters/AJP.htm . The
response (from Charles Holbrow) included: " ... entanglement and other
aspects of superposition, which are fundamental to the quantum view of the
world, have been repeatedly tested and made manifest in laboratory
experiments over the past seventy years. That's a long time for a theory to
hold up."
This is of course what we have all been told, but my point is that we have
not been told enough about the actual conditions and assumptions involved in
the experiments. The full problem of the Bell test loopholes has been kept
so quiet that not even all the experts in the field are fully aware of it!
> ... I for one, find
> even your metaphysical wish list of how you want the universe
> to behave, to represent a universe which is phyically pathological
> and self-contradictory.
Please let me know what is self-contradictory about my ideas.
> >I'm afraid I do not share your adulation of Einstein. I know a couple of
> >places where he went wrong.
>
> The most obvious being quantum mechanics. So what. Adulation has
> nothing to do with using physics with which he is associated. You keep
> confusing the message with the messanger.
Not so. I believe what I was referring to was (a) his relativity theories
(constructed as a result of the opinion round about 1900 that there was no
evidence for any change of light speed with aether speed) and (b) his
invention of the photon.
Incidentally, it was not you but Patrick that I was accusing of adulation.
It was his use of phrases such as "Einstein himself", as if the great man
could do no wrong.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrnadjra...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Certainly not.
Mere lucky bursts of brilliancy do not qualify.
It requires hard work and perseverance.
In short, it takes a great and stubborn mind.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message news:3cda3f73$1...@news2.vip.uk.com...
>
> Tom Potter <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:f76e0bb3.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > > "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote
> > > > > >[CHT] Allow me to quote an extract from an article about
> > > > > >Carver Mead in the Spectator
> > > > > > http://www.gilder.com/americanspectatorarticles/carver.htm ):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-------
> > > > > >Central to Mead's rescue project are a series of discoveries
> > > > > >inconsistent with the prevailing conceptions of quantum
> > > > > >mechanics. One was the laser ...
> > > > > >--------
> > > > >
> > > > > [Bilge] Carver Mead is wrong. Apparently his grasp of quantum
> > > > > mechanics needs improvement.
> > > >
> > > > [CHT] He nevertheless managed to make a substantial contribution to
> the
> > > > development of modern computers.
> > >
> > > [Potter?] Just like Tom Potter made a substantial contribution to the
> > > business of selling scientific instruments.
>
> Mead's contribution was at a rather more profound level than this. Likewise
> Ivor Catt,
Ivor - The Single Velocity Universe - Catt?
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/xh9theor.htm
Interesting guy.
> who realised that there was no part of currently-accepted theory
> that covered the real behaviour of the transmission lines that have been in
> use now for many years. The high speed of our modern computers owes nothing
> to quantum theory!
Now try www.google.com with keywords:
transistor OR transistors OR semiconductors OR semiconductor quantum
and count.
Read'em and weep.
Pick one and follow the links:
http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/qmsemi.html
Then do another google with keywords
bardeen transistor quantum
Then formulate your New Age Semiconductor Theory,
aka the Potter-Thompson Semiconductor Theory.
Get a good start with:
http://groups.google.com/groups&q=author%3Atom+author%3Apotter+transistor+quantum&btnG=Google+Search
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>Mead's contribution was at a rather more profound level than this.
So much so that you didn't include the vast support it offered
for your thesis that real physics doesn't require quantum mechanics.
Instead you provide us with the following...
>Likewise Ivor Catt, who realised that there was no part of currently-
>accepted theory that covered the real behaviour of the transmission
>lines that have been in use now for many years.
from someone who is wrong about an entirely different subject. I'm
sorry, but there has to be some limitation to referencing irrelevant
material and expecting to explain why it's wrong and figure out why
doing so is relevant. Just because you both are wrong, doesn't imply
any connection that might end up endangering the credibility of any
working scientific model.
>The high speed of our modern computers owes nothing to quantum theory!
Now that you've devastated my arguments with some nothing about a
profound contribution you didn't specify and ground in the point with
a crushihg reference to an irrelevant tangent involving someone confused
about classical E&M, you probably think there's a white flag due any
second. Well, all I can say is that it'll take more than an onslaught of
ill-conceived legerdemain to have much of an impact.
jmfb...@aol.com
Look, idiot. There is a huge difference between CPU design
and communications design. I can guarantee you that
the speed of electricity in CPU design cases was too fast and
that the speed of electricity in comm design was too slow.
Now how do you think the architects figured out how to
deal with that. In some cases, there were software delays,
redundancies. In other cases, there was extra wiring.
I wish you would go learn about how people do their work before
you make blantant claims based on your hypothesis and NO facts.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Tom Potter
people who stroke their egos
by demeaning other folks,
have psychological problems.
And "as far as I can tell, "
this poster seems to fit that category.
"I would think" that intelligent, rational, mature,
well-adjusted people, would interact with others,
in a civilized way,
and demonstrate their intelligence and knowledge,
rather than acting like lower class rabble.
Tom Potter
Dirk Van de moortel
It is interesting to see that this poster gave up six days ago:
| I give up!
|
| It is a waste of time to try to communicate
| with immature, uncivilized, trailer-park trash,
| who didn't have the benefit of a nurturing, family environment.
I told him he would be back.
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>> in message news:<slrnadjra...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>> Tom Potter said some stuff about
>> >
>> >It is interesting to see that this poster has delusions
>> >that he can "immortalize" statements made by folks,
>> >by posting excerpts of their posts, on a web page,
>> >the primary intent of which is to try to
>> >make the poster feel superior to others.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the award recipients have worked very hard
>> to overcome all of the common sense offered to dissuade them from
>> pursuing the award. Given the qualifications and hard work performed,
>> grasping at straws, and even thin air as objections to reality, I
>> would think the recipients would bask in its limelight of such an
>> award. I don't think anyone wins with their first post.
>
>"As far as I can tell," people who stroke their egos by demeaning
>other folks, have psychological problems.
Then you should have done some research prior to commenting and first
figured out what you can tell about people who repeatedly post nonsense or
never research the validity of their comments beyond the slant they wish
to call an objective assessment. I have a finite amount of patience where
someone makes a conscious effort to be stupid and expects me to consider
an argument like "nuh-uh" on par with a real response. The only difference
between expecting me to act like an idiot and waste time writing something
that won't be read and stating it outright, is that stating it outright
doesn't involve being dishonest, too.
>And "as far as I can tell, " this poster seems to fit that category.
So, call the hospital and complain. Last time someone complained a
nurse told me I was naughty and spanked me.
>"I would think" that intelligent, rational, mature, well-adjusted people,
>would interact with others, in a civilized way, and demonstrate their
>intelligence and knowledge, rather than acting like lower class rabble.
Your point? If you want a civilized discussion, don't troll for
responses you have no intention of reading or addressing. If you want an
intelligent interaction, interact intelligently. If you expect a response
to contain some knowledge, create a response in which it's apparent that
you recognize the difference between knowledge and bullshit and don't
expect someone to live up to some expectation of stupidity and accept the
latter for the former, just to see if you can get away with it. If you
expect a response from lower class rabble, don't complain if you get one
from someone that didn't jump through the hoop you thought they'd be too
stupid to avoid.
Martin Hogbin
>
> Martin Hogbin <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:abc5k7$9sd$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> >
> > 100 years of physics in order to come up with an argument
> > against relativity, yet all you have come up with are a few
> > snippets from ancient papers and even these do not come
> > out wholly against relativity.
>
> Why so few? Because all alternatives to Einstein's theories have been
> treated with scorn ever since the great publicity bestowed on him by the
New
> York Times after the 1919 eclipse!
>
To consider publicity by the New York Times as the main reason for
the acceptance of Einstein's relativity is absurd.
You have completely overlooked the vast number of experiments
that have confirmed relativity in the last century. Most of these were
not designed as tests of the theory they merely made use of it.
Just like scientists and engineers make use of Newtonian physics
everyday. If anyone found a reproducible discrepancy in
either theory (within its range of applicability) it would be
headline news.
-----------------
> > Well Miller is [supporting LET].
>
> Not so. If you read a few more of his papers you will find that he
prefers
> something more like Stokes' alternative, and in any case his results would
> (as Lorentz himself recognised at the 1927 APS meeting) not be compatible
> with LET without some modification.
So there are two possibilities. Either Miller was correct in measuring a
small
aether drift and every experiment since, some using much better apparatus
was wrong, or there is an error in Miller's results. I know which my
money is on.
------------------
> Rado's book was written before he knew about Miller's work, which, as you
> realise, is NOT well known.
So Miller now proves Rado wrong ;-)
-------------------
>
> I am simply saying that the idea of an aether was dismissed on false
> evidence.
The necessity for an aether was dismissed on the best evidence
available. The evidence since has confirmed that this action was
correct.
> See my web site for more.
When I quote from your web site you refer to other material.
Surely you could collect all the anti-relativity 'evidence'
together in one place.
---------------------
> In order to accept the idea of a fluid
> aether you need to ignore not only Einstein's relativity theory but also
his
> idea of the photon.
>
In order for a fixed aether to work it needs to mysteriously cause
bodies to contract and clocks to slow (as in LET).
For a fluid aether to work, a much more complicated series of effects
would be necessary.
A fluid aether which did not somehow conceal its presence
would be easily detected by astronomers.
Martin Hogbin
c.h.thompson
> > Mead's contribution was at a rather more profound level than this.
> > Likewise Ivor Catt,
>
> Ivor - The Single Velocity Universe - Catt?
> http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/xh9theor.htm
> Interesting guy.
>
> > who realised that there was no part of currently-accepted theory
> > that covered the real behaviour of the transmission lines that have
> > been in use now for many years. The high speed of our modern
> > computers owes nothing to quantum theory!
> Now try www.google.com with keywords:
> transistor OR transistors OR semiconductors OR semiconductor quantum
> and count.
Sorry but Catt's theory of transmission lines and capacitors has nothing to
do with semiconductors, as far as I know. It attempts to explain how it
comes about that signals are transmitted so fast. I'm sorry I cannot tell
you more. As you say, he's an interesting person! His books, though, are
written in a jargon that is not accessible to me. I've an idea that his
theory gives a few useful clues but is not itself correct. In one thing,
however, I'm sure he's right: existing theory was not up to the task.
> Then do another google with keywords
> bardeen transistor quantum
Hmm ... Incidentally, in the course of the last round of discussions on
transistors I looked up a paper or two of Bardeen's ... I rather doubt if
any information I can glean from the internet will tell me the whole story.
c.h.thompson
Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> made his usual critical remarks
...
> c.h.thompson said very little, but at least said concisely:
>
> >Mead's contribution was at a rather more profound level than this.
>
> So much so that you didn't include the vast support it offered
> for your thesis that real physics doesn't require quantum mechanics.
I thought I told you why I did not say more. It's because I haven't yet
read his book. All I can go on for the present is that article in the
Spectator ( http://www.gilder.com/americanspectatorarticles/carver.htm ) and
it is just conceivable that it is biased. It was primarily an advertisement
for the book.
> Instead you provide us with the following...
> >Likewise Ivor Catt, who realised that there was no part of
> >currently- accepted theory that covered the real behaviour
> >of the transmission lines that have been in use now for many years.
>
> from someone who is wrong about an entirely different subject. I'm
> sorry, but there has to be some limitation to referencing irrelevant
> material
The relevance is that Catt too rejects quantum theory, and yet has made
important contributions to the mechanics of high-speed computers. Again,
the reason I say no more on this is that I am currently trying to find out
more myself!
> >The high speed of our modern computers owes nothing to quantum theory!
>
> Now that you've devastated my arguments with some nothing about a
> profound contribution you didn't specify ...
OK. Put this down as an expression of belief. It all goes back to
discussions we had some time ago re the invention of the transistor. The
debate did not reach a definite conclusion, but it certainly did not give
wholehearted support to quantum mechanical claims of indispensability! QM
has its part to play, but mainly as language for communication. It is a
language into which any discovery has to be translated to stand a chance of
publication in Physical Review Letters, but it is clear that some of the
people at the cutting edge consider there is room for improvement.
Improvement will not be made by pretending that there is no problem.
Dennis McCarthy
> pst...@ix.netcom.com said some stuff about
>
> [...]
>
> >I am however certain that the 'philosophy' of modern SR/GR (namely
> >the geometric interpetation) is simple wrong and inherrently unscientific.
> >That's quite different than saying that physical processes do not behave
> >in the manner defined by Maxwell and Lorentz, and not Einstein BTW...
> >In fact, as history shows, Einstein published NOTHING NEW in 1905.
> >He just set up a methodology to use the equations in a manner now called
> >'conventional'. The method, not the physics or equations was what
> >was different.
>
> NO. What differed was the physics. The lorentz transform is irrelavent
> to the physics. It's an equation. Equations may either be obtained as a
> consequence of some physical principle or obtained "because they work".
> Special relativity is a set of physical principles. Stating it involves
> no assumption regarding what form _any_ equations will take on. Once
> formalized as mathematical statements (i.e., c=constant) there exists
> _NO_ options regarding the equations. The lorentz transform is present
> because it happens to be what you get when you consider infinitessimal
> displacements and insist that the interval remain unchanged. Since
> this derivation is the same one that leads to invariance under rotations,
> it's rather hard to argue that the lorentz transforms were the goal
> rather than a consequence. It's sufficient to let x-> x' = x + a and
> insist x'^2 - x^2 = 0, to obtain the result. The invariance is physical
> principle. The consequence is an equation.
"For certain of the physical magnitudes which enter in the formulas I
have not indicated the transformation which suits best. This has been
done by Poincare, and later by Einstein and Minkowski...I have not
established the principle of relativity as rigorously and universally
true. Poincare on the contrary, has obtained a perfect invariance of
the electromagnetic equations, and he has formulated the "postulate of
relativity," terms which he was the first to employ..... Let me add
that in thus correcting the imperfections of my work, he has never
reproached me with them."
• --Hendrick Lorentz, Deuz memoirs de Henre Poincare, Acte Mathematica
38: 293, 1914.
Dirk Van de moortel
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message news:3cdad...@news1.vip.uk.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> > "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote
>
> > > Mead's contribution was at a rather more profound level than this.
> > > Likewise Ivor Catt,
> >
> > Ivor - The Single Velocity Universe - Catt?
> > http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/xh9theor.htm
> > Interesting guy.
> >
> > > who realised that there was no part of currently-accepted theory
> > > that covered the real behaviour of the transmission lines that have
> > > been in use now for many years. The high speed of our modern
> > > computers owes nothing to quantum theory!
>
> > Now try www.google.com with keywords:
> > transistor OR transistors OR semiconductors OR semiconductor quantum
> > and count.
>
> Sorry but Catt's theory of transmission lines and capacitors has nothing to
> do with semiconductors, as far as I know.
Sorry but Catt's theory of transmission lines and capacitors has
nothing to do with the high speed of our modern computers.
Semiconductors and quantum theory have everything to do
with it.
> It attempts to explain how it
> comes about that signals are transmitted so fast. I'm sorry I cannot tell
> you more. As you say, he's an interesting person!
Only because he has some nice cats hanging around on his
website. I love cats.
> His books, though, are
> written in a jargon that is not accessible to me. I've an idea that his
> theory gives a few useful clues but is not itself correct. In one thing,
> however, I'm sure he's right: existing theory was not up to the task.
So the earth stopped turning and quantum theory was finally
thrown away and replaced by something far more intuitive
and warm?
> > Then do another google with keywords
> > bardeen transistor quantum
>
> Hmm ... Incidentally, in the course of the last round of discussions on
> transistors I looked up a paper or two of Bardeen's ... I rather doubt if
> any information I can glean from the internet will tell me the whole story.
The whole story is effectively hidden in forgotten history.
A massive conspiracy against the truth.
You should know that.
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
> > "Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> writes:
> > >> [MMX] In reality, though, what they showed was that it was not
> > >> reasonable to assume a FIXED aether.
> >
> > > Yes, any other kind of aether had already been discounted.
> >
> > ROTFL. The Lorentz ether is a fixed ether and not discounted by MMX.
> >
>
> I think you have misread something here. I have said that a non-fixed
> aether had already been ruled out.
>
> The MMX ruled out a fixed aether except for the case where motion
> through the aether somehow affects clocks and rulers, in other
> words Lorentz' aether.
The MMX did not rule out a fixed aether. The MMX apparatus was moving in
the vertical direction and thus the light path length from both arms
remained the same for all horizontal orientations of the arms and thus the
null results.
Ken Seto
Bilge
[*snip*]
Go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.
Paul Stowe
ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>pst...@ix.netcom.com said some stuff about
>
>[...]
>
>> I am however certain that the 'philosophy' of modern SR/GR (namely
>> the geometric interpetation) is simple wrong and inherrently unscientific.
>> That's quite different than saying that physical processes do not behave
>> in the manner defined by Maxwell and Lorentz, and not Einstein BTW...
>> In fact, as history shows, Einstein published NOTHING NEW in 1905.
>> He just set up a methodology to use the equations in a manner now called
>> 'conventional'. The method, not the physics or equations was what
>> was different.
>
> NO. What differed was the physics. The lorentz transform is irrelavent
> to the physics. It's an equation.
Really? Are you saying mathematical formulations are irrelevant to the
physics? Equations are irrelevant?
> Equations may either be obtained as a consequence of some physical
> principle or obtained "because they work". Special relativity is a set
> of physical principles.
What 'physical' principles? Light speed is not constant, or invariant,
and different observers can measure it differently, ask Sagnac...
> Stating it involves no assumption regarding what form _any_ equations
> will take on. Once formalized as mathematical statements (i.e., c =
> constant) there exists _NO_ options regarding the equations.
Ah, but c != constant, or most of GR wouldn't be needed... It only
approximates a constant value over some 'local region'.
> The lorentz transform is present because it happens to be what you get
> when you consider infinitessimal displacements and insist that the
> interval remain unchanged. Since this derivation is the same one that
> leads to invariance under rotations, it's rather hard to argue that the
> lorentz transforms were the goal rather than a consequence.
Form follows function, and this form is a result of the natural interactions
of elements the propagate their perturbations at a finite velocity. That's
what Maxwell was also saying...
> It's sufficient to let x-> x' = x + a and insist x'^2 - x^2 = 0, to
> obtain the result. The invariance is physical principle.
Let's quote you from above,
"The lorentz transform is irrelavent to the physics.
It's an equation."
You can't be Schizophrenic, but I'll agree that since nature has an
independent existence, how one chooses a coordinate system cannot
change that nature or behavior.
> The consequence is an equation. If you wish to believe the equation
> is the physical principle, that's fine. Just don't insist that physicists
> (or at least myself) consider that the way to do do physics, or that the
> lorentz transforms are the justification for special relativity.
Let's be clear, the LTs are not a result of any philosophical expression.
they are a result of the functional processes of our universe. Therefore,
there exists several 'interpetations' for there validity LET and SR are
just two of these. I think LET interpetation is 'closer' to the correct
underlying processes and therein lies the disagreement...
> I would expect that most physicists consider special relativity the
> justification for the lorentz transform, because the transforms are derived
> explicitly from the principles of special relativity.
>
> On the other hand, you still have to figure out how to get rid of the
> tag-along phenomena from the analogies you want to use to fit the equations
> that seem to be missing as real phenomena. Like a missing longitudinal
> polarization, which, if I recall, you said would correspond to an elastic
> mode at 1.6 c.
Sqrt(3)c, that's 1.732c. Further, I claim that, unlike the current
interpetation, this does in fact exist, only its dissipates quick quickly,
thus can be manifested over only a very short range. Anyone who knows me
also know I been claiming this since the late 1980s. Imagine my elation when
I discovered that a component of light was measured traveling at measured
velocity of, surprise, surprise, 1.7c in a published article in Scientific
American in 1993...
> Could you explain exactly what physics this corresponds to? What maxwell's
> equations say, will be okey-dokey, but take all the rope you need.
Maxwell was working on transverse wave phenomena, p wave was not considered.
In fact, in an 'ideal' vortex sponge p waves won't exist. But, in an 'ideal'
vortex sponge gravity probably would not exist either. It is this slight
departure (~1 part in 10^20) from the ideal or perfect that gives rise to both
gravity and a slight manifestation of the p wave (Sqrt(3)c) phenomena as well
as the current dark energy observations.
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
> c.h.thompson said some stuff about
> Re: Theory and practice in "relativity" to usenet:
> >
> >Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> said some stuff about
> [...]
> >>
> >> Carver mead is wrong. Apparently his grasp of quantum mechanics
> >> needs improvement.
> >
> >He nevertheless managed to make a substantial contribution to the
> >development of modern computers.
>
> Did he use any of the quantum mechanics he doesn't believe in
> contributing to this development?
> I suspect the answer is 'yes',
'yes,' indeed. c.h.thompson is as out-to-lunch as ever. Carver
Mead has been here at Caltech for some 40 years, and he remained
quite active as a Professor of Engineering and Applied Science
until less than two years ago. Mead was/is a marvelous inventor,
a first rate innovator in his field. Mead created a lab, the
Physics of Computation group, which built silicon models for
visual and auditory systems. Now that Mead is no longer active,
the group has dispersed to institutions throughout the world, but
they have left a heritage to the field.
If thompson had read Mead's book, or otherwise actually became
aware of the details of his work, she might have realized that
Mead argues against various interpretations of quantum mechanics,
and replaces them with his own ideas, views somewhat similar in
form to John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation. However, of
necessity, in recognition of the facts of reality, Mead embraces
the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics and makes
extensive use of it in a great deal of his work.
> I mean, that sounds so ridiculously absurd that
> even p.t. barnum couldn't sell it to a complete idiot.
>
Thompson has managed to do it on her own.
--
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
A sign in Munich: "Heisenberg might have slept here."
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
~
David Evens
wrote:
Do you want to imagine that the Earth is expanding or contracting?
c.h.thompson
kenseto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3cdb0eab$0$3328$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> The MMX did not rule out a fixed aether. The MMX apparatus was
> moving in the vertical direction and thus the light path length from both
arms
> remained the same for all horizontal orientations of the arms and thus the
> null results.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean? The apparatus moved only in the
horizontal plane. I imagine you mean that it was also moving vertically if
you refer to the fixed stars?
However, the results were not nearly as "null" as is commonly believed. See
Dayton Miller's work, extending M&M's and checking for seasonal effects
etc.. ( http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm )
If you allow for Miller's results, it is very doubtful if any of the simple
models so far proposed are correct. There may be an element of Lorentz
contraction, but it is not as great he expected. There seems to be an
aether wind, though again, not as great as expected. This, however, could
be explained if various regions of the solar system act as wind breaks --
the heliopause and the earth's magnetosphere are what I have in mind.
Alternatively, if it turns out that it is gigantic aether winds that are
driving the solar system relative to the galaxy, the observed effect could
be because we are lagging behind a little!
How about leaving the question open until somebody has repeated Miller's
work in conditions in which it has a chance of success, i.e. with the
apparatus effectively in the open? A systematic series of experiments
would be needed at a selection of locations.
We could also hope to learn more from GPS and space probe data, if only we
could be sure that it had not been adjusted so that the effect we are
looking for had not been "corrected" away by people who believe that have to
apply the rules of Einstein's relativity!
c.h.thompson
> "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote
>
> To consider publicity by the New York Times as the main reason for
> the acceptance of Einstein's relativity is absurd.
I know this is a losing wicket, yet I'm not the only person to have come up
with this hypothesis! I've now read quite a number of papers written by
important experimenters and theorists before and after this publicity. It
took a few years but gradually physicists became more and more willing to
accept physically absurd theories. Admittedly there were other things going
on at the time -- the philosophers were having mad ideas too ...
> You have completely overlooked the vast number of experiments
> that have confirmed relativity in the last century. Most of these were
> not designed as tests of the theory they merely made use of it.
> Just like scientists and engineers make use of Newtonian physics
> everyday. If anyone found a reproducible discrepancy in
> either theory (within its range of applicability) it would be
> headline news.
I have not done a comprehensive study of the subject, but Dayton Miller's
results are one example that springs to mind. Another is the Sagnac effect,
but followers of Einstein have managed to persuade themselves that this is
all in agreement with SR! As far as I can tell Einstein himself did not
think so. As with Miller's later results (1925 or so), he kept remarkably
quiet about Sagnac's of 1913-14. The Sagnac effect is (if I've understood
correctly) the effect that enables optical gyroscopes to work.
> So there are two possibilities. Either Miller was correct in measuring a
> small aether drift and every experiment since, some using much better
> apparatus was wrong, or there is an error in Miller's results. I know
> which my money is on.
Modern apparatus is better in some ways, but if it is enclosed, for example
in a vacuum chamber, it cuts out the very effect you're looking for.
> > Rado's book was written before he knew about Miller's work,
> > which, as you realise, is NOT well known.
>
> So Miller now proves Rado wrong ;-)
Yes, but he is quite happy about it! His model is not cut and dried.
> > In order to accept the idea of a fluid
> > aether you need to ignore not only Einstein's relativity theory
> > but also his idea of the photon.
> >
>
> In order for a fixed aether to work it needs to mysteriously cause
> bodies to contract and clocks to slow (as in LET).
>
> For a fluid aether to work, a much more complicated series of effects
> would be necessary.
>
> A fluid aether which did not somehow conceal its presence
> would be easily detected by astronomers.
I don't think this is necessarily so. If there is a smooth rotation effect
in the solar system, say, it will cause a tiny distortion of our picture of
the heavens, but since it is the same every time*, how will we ever know?
The only reason our motion around the Sun has a measurable effect on the
apparent positions of stars is that the effect is not constant. Sometimes
we are moving towards and sometimes away from any particular one. It is
only the DIFFERENCE in aberration that we can measure.
Caroline
* I'm thinking about this. Perhaps it's not the same, but the main
difference will be between positions in day and night and for some obscure
reason we do most astronomical work at night! However, it could confuse
those famous eclipse results ...
--
c.h.th...@pgen.net
http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
kenseto
>
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <schm...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote in message
> news:i3g6620...@ilja-schmelzer.net...
> > "Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> writes:
> > >> [MMX] In reality, though, what they showed was that it was not
> > >> reasonable to assume a FIXED aether.
> >
> > > Yes, any other kind of aether had already been discounted.
> >
> > ROTFL. The Lorentz ether is a fixed ether and not discounted by MMX.
> >
>
> I think you have misread something here. I have said that a non-fixed
> aether had already been ruled out.
>
> The MMX ruled out a fixed aether except for the case where motion
> through the aether somehow affects clocks and rulers, in other
> words Lorentz' aether.
The MMX did not rule out a fixed aether. The MMX apparatus was moving in
the vertical direction and thus the light path length from both arms
remained the same for all horizontal orientations of the arms and thus the
null results.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message news:3cdb8...@news2.vip.uk.com...
>
> kenseto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3cdb0eab$0$3328$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> > The MMX did not rule out a fixed aether. The MMX apparatus was
> > moving in the vertical direction and thus the light path length from both
> arms
> > remained the same for all horizontal orientations of the arms and thus the
> > null results.
>
> Perhaps you could explain what you mean? The apparatus moved only in the
> horizontal plane. I imagine you mean that it was also moving vertically if
> you refer to the fixed stars?
This is what he means:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#MMXVertical
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>OK. Put this down as an expression of belief. It all goes back to
>discussions we had some time ago re the invention of the transistor. The
No quantum mechanics, no fermi surface. No fermi surface:
(1) No transitor
(2) No stable matter in the universe
Fermi and bose statistics only apply to quantum objects. The
indistinguishability of identical particles is THE distinction between a
quantum mechanical object and a classical object. It provides the
explanation for why classical statistical mechanics counted states
incorrectly, why the electrons in atoms form shells, why fermi surfaces
exist and it provides the explanation for interference.
Until quantum mechanics explained boltzmann counting, the only reason
anyone had for counting the states that were supposedly distinct and
eliminating N! of them, was because it worked. You also need a new
explanation for spin, since it isn't related to anything you can measure
spinning. I really don't think you realize the extent to which your tunnel
vision over some idiosyncracy about photons, will require you to
reformulate all of physics. Since quantum mechanics and and special
relativity work as claimed the odds are against you being right if for no
other reason, you haven't even an explanation for the single phenomena
upon which you are fixated. If you spent some time looking at more of
the pieces in the puzzle, quantum mechanics makes a lot more sense than
any classical theory.
Tom Potter
>Tom Potter said some stuff about
>Re: Theory and practice in "relativity" to usenet:
>>ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote
>>> in message news:<slrnadjra...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>>> Tom Potter said some stuff about
>>> >
>>> >It is interesting to see that this poster has delusions
>>> >that he can "immortalize" statements made by folks,
>>> >by posting excerpts of their posts, on a web page,
>>> >the primary intent of which is to try to
>>> >make the poster feel superior to others.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the award recipients have worked very hard
>>> to overcome all of the common sense offered to dissuade them from
>>> pursuing the award. Given the qualifications and hard work performed,
>>> grasping at straws, and even thin air as objections to reality, I
>>> would think the recipients would bask in its limelight of such an
>>> award. I don't think anyone wins with their first post.
>>
>>"As far as I can tell," people who stroke their egos by demeaning
>>other folks, have psychological problems.
> Then you should have done some research prior to commenting and first
>figured out what you can tell about people who repeatedly post nonsense or
>never research the validity of their comments beyond the slant they wish
to call an objective assessment.
Maybe your mother should have done more research about how much nigger
cum would fit in her asshole so it doesnt drip out all day like the
nigger cum slut she is
>I have a finite amount of patience where
>someone makes a conscious effort to be stupid and expects me to consider
>an argument like "nuh-uh" on par with a real response.
Whens the last time you got laid you jewboy pussy?
>The only difference
>between expecting me to act like an idiot and waste time writing something
>that won't be read and stating it outright, is that stating it outright
doesn't involve being dishonest, too.
Come here and lick my anus Mandingo like your whore mother did last night. How do you like them apples?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1c3e4c4bc83c6942...@remailer.segfault.net...
From the header of this juicy message:
| Path: afrodite.telenet-ops.be!ossa.telenet-ops.be!
| nmaster.kpnqwest.net!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!
| newsfeed.kpnqwest.at!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!
| mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news
| Sender: Anonymous Coredump <mixm...@remailer.segfault.net>
| Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
| It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
| Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
| remailer administrator at <joc...@segfault.net>.
| http://remailer.segfault.net/mixmaster/
| Subject: Re: Theory and practice in "relativity"
| From: Tom Potter <t...@earthlink.net>
Dirk Vdm
Martin Hogbin
>
> Martin Hogbin <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:abeh2n$qid$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> > "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote
> >
>
> > that have confirmed relativity in the last century. Most of these were
> > not designed as tests of the theory they merely made use of it.
> > Just like scientists and engineers make use of Newtonian physics
> > everyday. If anyone found a reproducible discrepancy in
> > either theory (within its range of applicability) it would be
> > headline news.
>
> I have not done a comprehensive study of the subject, but Dayton Miller's
> results are one example that springs to mind. Another is the Sagnac
effect,
> but followers of Einstein have managed to persuade themselves that this is
> all in agreement with SR!
The Sagnac effect is in accordance with relativity.
> As far as I can tell Einstein himself did not
> think so. As with Miller's later results (1925 or so), he kept remarkably
> quiet about Sagnac's of 1913-14. The Sagnac effect is (if I've understood
> correctly) the effect that enables optical gyroscopes to work.
You are still looking at results from the first half of the previous
century. What about more modern tests? There are whole books
written on the experimental basis for relativity. Look at the FAQ.
The Sagnac effect is fully explained by relativity and no doubt
experimenters
in optical devices of this nature use relativity in their calculations.
Any rotation of the aether could be measured with a Sagnac type
experiment.
> > So there are two possibilities. Either Miller was correct in measuring
a
> > small aether drift and every experiment since, some using much better
> > apparatus was wrong, or there is an error in Miller's results. I know
> > which my money is on.
>
> Modern apparatus is better in some ways, but if it is enclosed, for
example
> in a vacuum chamber, it cuts out the very effect you're looking for.
Are you claiming that there is no aether in a vacuum chamber or
that the aether cannot pass through the walls?
What about a glass bell jar. How does light go through the glass if
aether cannot pass through it?
> >
> > In order for a fixed aether to work it needs to mysteriously cause
> > bodies to contract and clocks to slow (as in LET).
> >
> > For a fluid aether to work, a much more complicated series of effects
> > would be necessary.
> >
> > A fluid aether which did not somehow conceal its presence
> > would be easily detected by astronomers.
>
> I don't think this is necessarily so. If there is a smooth rotation
effect
> in the solar system, say, it will cause a tiny distortion of our picture
of
> the heavens, but since it is the same every time*, how will we ever know?
Are you assuming that our solar system is the only system to affect
the aether? The effect of the aether being dragged along by massive
bodies would be seen when one body passes close to the line
of sight to another. No such effect is seen.
Any one theory must explain all the experimental results (which
relativity does) you seem to be using a different theory for each
result.
Martin Hogbin
Bilge
Re: More dogmatism from the Land of Platitudes to usenet:
>In article <slrnadk62...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>,
> ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>>
>> NO. What differed was the physics. The lorentz transform is irrelavent
>> to the physics. It's an equation.
>
>Really?
Yes.
>Are you saying mathematical formulations are irrelevant to the physics?
Yes.
>Equations are irrelevant?
No. Since you are attempting to confuse the meaning of what I wrote,
with misleading rhetorical questions, I'll let you figure out why you get
a Yes and a no for the #2 and #3. Otherwise, if you really are baffled by
my comment, you can rephrase the above without leading or rhetorical
questions.
>> Equations may either be obtained as a consequence of some physical
>> principle or obtained "because they work". Special relativity is a set
>> of physical principles.
>
>What 'physical' principles? Light speed is not constant, or invariant,
>and different observers can measure it differently, ask Sagnac...
I haven't seen any method mentioned by which one might measure the
velocities of light as being different. All I've seen are the inferences
made by people that think the physics changes if you rearrange the
mathematics while the sagnac says that the effect cannot be used to
distinguish between a classical and relativistic model without a
measurement sensitive to second order in \beta^2. If you think rearanging
mathematical expressions generates new physics, perhaps you can spare a
moment and explain how relativity is disadvantaged by agreeing with with
classical physics for small values of the velocity and that coupled with a
particular choice of arranging terms with a binomial expansion qualifies
as a physical measurement of a velocity. If you think that is how
experiments are done, it certainly explains a lot. But, suit yourself.
>> Stating it involves no assumption regarding what form _any_ equations
>> will take on. Once formalized as mathematical statements (i.e., c =
>> constant) there exists _NO_ options regarding the equations.
>
>Ah, but c != constant, or most of GR wouldn't be needed... It only
>approximates a constant value over some 'local region'.
Of course. But (1) you either misunderstand what "some 'local region'"
means or have deliberately tried to make it appear to be an arbitrary
parameter, designed to thwart innovation, and (2) we were discussing
special relativity, not general relativity.
If you design an experiment and specify the details required to
construct it and carry it out, I'm certain that you can get a specific,
quantifiable definition of how that applies to your experiment.
If that's not adequate, then no approximation to anything is adequate
for any experiment, since approximations tend be made the same way:
by finding a local extrememum about which the value may be taken to
apply in the immediate vicinity of the extremal point. Like a pendulum
for which sin(\theta) ~ \theta. So long as you don't get 'too far'
from \theta = 0, it's a good approximation. What 'too far' means
depends upon what you want the pendulum to do. Applying your argument
to the pendulum, means that no clock could ever be constructed
using one that would be sufficient for any experiment, since the
only 'local region' for which no error exists requires the pendulum
not to move. Most of us consider specifying the limits due to
the pendulum as a source of systematic error and limit any claims
by the experimental error.
And I've stated enough times that the existence of matter precludes
special relativity from being rigorously true, that you should know
better than to pretend your argument was somehow a conundrum. By the
same token, your argument invalidates maxwell's equations. You can't
have it both ways.
>> The lorentz transform is present because it happens to be what you get
>> when you consider infinitessimal displacements and insist that the
>> interval remain unchanged. Since this derivation is the same one that
>> leads to invariance under rotations, it's rather hard to argue that the
>> lorentz transforms were the goal rather than a consequence.
>
>Form follows function, and this form is a result of the natural interactions
>of elements the propagate their perturbations at a finite velocity. That's
>what Maxwell was also saying...
Actually what maxell said, was "Hmmm... These four equations all
appear to be related, but there seems to be an inconsistency I
can fix by adding a term to ampere's law. I wonder what it means..."
He seems to have spent a good deal of time wondering, but didn't
quite arrive at a definitive answer.
>> It's sufficient to let x-> x' = x + a and insist x'^2 - x^2 = 0, to
>> obtain the result. The invariance is physical principle.
>
>Let's quote you from above,
>
> "The lorentz transform is irrelavent to the physics.
> It's an equation."
>
>You can't be Schizophrenic, but I'll agree that since nature has an
I'm not. I'm taking physical principles and writing them in a
form which insures everyone knows what the words really mean and
which can be used to make unambiguous predictions. Would you
prefer I just leave the physics in the form of a sonet or haiku?
Most people would consider a language a means to express an
idea, rather than develop an idea by cutting and pasting the
elements of the language until some combination looked cool,
but suit yourself.
>independent existence, how one chooses a coordinate system cannot
>change that nature or behavior.
Exactly. That's why I wrote what I did "let x-> x' = x + a ...".
It's not my fault you didn't understand it. Where telepathy is
absent, a language is needed and those wishing to communicate,
need to speak it.
[...]
>Let's be clear, the LTs are not a result of any philosophical expression.
>they are a result of the functional processes of our universe.
I was being clear. You are the one who sees fit to misconstrue what
I said to have multiple meaning which are inconsistent. The best way
to "be clear" is not to re-interpret what I say for your own purposes.
>Therefore, there exists several 'interpetations' for there validity
>LET and SR are just two of these. I think LET interpetation is 'closer'
>to the correct underlying processes and therein lies the disagreement...
The dilemma is simple to resolve. Provide the properties of the ether
that eneable it to work. Fluids consist of particles. Particles have
properties and interact collectively such that at scales large compared to
the range of the particle interaction the fluid can be described by
phenomenological parameters. If you want to use a fluid, the fundamental
construct is not the collective behaviour of the particles in it.
You seem to think that physicists consider special and/or general
relativty to be the bottom line, rather than a consequence. Which makes me
ask, what do you think quantum gravity is about? On the otherhand, you
seem to really believe you can have a fluid consisting of particles that
have no properties of their own, don't have any interaction between them,
yet exhibit collective behaviour, so that your fluid is the fundamental
object, despite consisting of more fundamental ones. It's like saying the
molecular structure of water has nothing to do with its melting point.
[...]
>
>Sqrt(3)c, that's 1.732c. Further, I claim that, unlike the current
>interpetation, this does in fact exist, only its dissipates quick quickly,
>thus can be manifested over only a very short range.
Why and how? Where does the damped energy go? Given the number of
possible holes you can dig here, I'll wait to see which one you've chosen.
>Anyone who knows me
>also know I been claiming this since the late 1980s. Imagine my
>elation when I discovered that a component of light was measured
>traveling at measured velocity of, surprise, surprise, 1.7c in a
>published article in Scientific American in 1993...
I can't offer a comment without reading the article.
[...]
>Maxwell was working on transverse wave phenomena, p wave was not
>considered. In fact, in an 'ideal' vortex sponge p waves won't exist.
Since any of these "waves" are collective modes of what lies below,
this isn't very fundamental.
>But, in an 'ideal' vortex sponge gravity probably would not exist either.
>It is this slight departure (~1 part in 10^20) from the ideal or perfect
>that gives rise to both gravity and a slight manifestation of the p
>wave (Sqrt(3)c) phenomena as well as the current dark energy observations.
What "dark matter" are we referring to? I mean, neutrinos are often
lumped in with the generic term, "dark matter", but are perfectly ordinary
and the question is "how many" not "if". On the other hand, it's neither
clear that any exotic dark matter exists or is needed, given the
likelyhood that a lot of cosmology may still be waiting to be discovered
or the lack of any definitive model that can tell us that answer and why
some exotic dark matter is needed.
kenseto
> news:3cdb0eab$0$3328$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> > The MMX did not rule out a fixed aether. The MMX apparatus was
> > moving in the vertical direction and thus the light path length from
both
> arms
> > remained the same for all horizontal orientations of the arms and thus
the
> > null results.
>
> Perhaps you could explain what you mean? The apparatus moved >only in the
horizontal plane.
No. If that is the case then you would get a positive result for the MMX.
The only direction of absolute motion that will give null result is the
vertical direction.
>I imagine you mean that it was also moving vertically if
> you refer to the fixed stars?
If you can forget about any relative motion and imagine that you are in an
enclosed room but you know you are moving and yet your MMX apparatus is not
able to detect your motion horizontally then the only conclusion that you
can made is that the apparatus is not moving horizontally but rather it is
moving vertically.
The following Proposed Experiment is designed to detect the E-Matrix frame
(The Aether frame) if it exits:
Special Relativity Theory asserts that it is not feasible to detect the
E-Matrix frame using optic means. However, the following proposed experiment
would guarantee the detection of the E-Matrix frame if it exists:
1. Two sets of cesium clocks A1, A2 and B1, B2 are located at the A location
on a straight rail track.
2. A1 and B1 are not running. A2 and B2 are synchronized and running.
3. A1 and B1 are each equipped with laser light pulse detector. The diameter
of the detection surface area is 4 mm.
4. Slow transport clocks B1 and B2 to a new location 100 meters away. The
distance is predetermined using Einstein's procedure to measure distance.
5. At the A location there is a laser light source equipped with a shutter.
6. The laser beam is split into two continuous beams before passing through
the shutter. One of the beams goes to detector A and the other goes to
detector B. The leading edge of the laser beam through the shutter will act
to activate clocks A 1 and B1 and the lagging edge of the laser beam will
act to de-activate them
7. Each trial (experiment) is conducted by opening and closing of the
shutter for the following time intervals: 1 second, 2 seconds, 3 seconds, 4
seconds, 5 seconds, 6 seconds, 7 seconds, 8 seconds, 9 seconds and 10
seconds.
8. Laser beam A will activate and de-activate clock A1 for each trial and
the results are identified as Ta1, Ta2, Ta3, Ta4 Ta5, Ta6, Ta7, Ta8, Ta9 and
Ta10.
9. Laser beam B will activate and de-activate clock B1 for each trial and
the results are identified as Tb1, Tb2, Tb3, Tb4, Tb5, Tb6, Tb7, Tb8, Tb9
and Tb10.
10. Increase the detection surface area to 20 cm in diameter. Gradually
decrease the diameter at 0.001 cm interval. For each decrease in diameter do
the trial using the one-second-shutter opening and closing interval. Repeat
the trials until the activation time in clock B shows a difference than in
clock A for that specific trial. Measure the diameter for that trial and
identify it Db .
11. Slow transport clocks B1 and B2 back to the A location.
12. Repeat steps 1-11 with A and B oriented in a different horizontal
direction.
13. Repeat steps 1-12 in different locations.
14. Repeat steps 1-13 at different time of the year.
The SRT predictions for these experiments are as follows:
(a) Clocks A2 and B2 are still synchronized when they are reunited. This
means that the A and B locations are in the same frame of reference. Also
this means that any difference in activation time between clocks A1 and B1
is due to the absolute motion of clock B1.
(b) Ta1=Tb1=1 second; Ta2=Tb2=2 seconds; Ta3=Tb3=3 seconds; Ta4=Tb4=4
seconds; Ta5=Tb5=5 seconds; Ta6=Tb6=6 seconds; Ta7=Tb7=7 seconds; Ta8=Tb8=8
seconds; Ta9=Tb9=9 seconds and Ta10=Tb10=10 seconds.
(c) There is no difference in activation time between clocks A1 and B1 by
reducing the detection area on clock B1.
(d) Different orientation of the clocks will have no effect on the
activation time for both clocks A1 and B1.
(e) Different time of the year and different locations will have no effect
on the activation time for both clocks A1 and B1
The Model Mechanical (my theory) predictions for these experiments are as
follows:
a) Clocks A2 and B2 are still synchronized when they are reunited. This
means that the A and B locations are in the same frame of reference. Also
this means that any difference in activation time between clocks A1 and B1
is due to the absolute motion of clock B1.
b) Ta1=1second>Tb1; Ta2=2seconds>Tb2; Ta3=3seconds>Tb3; Ta4=4seconds>Tb4;
Ta5=5seconds>Tb5; Ta6=6seconds>Tb6; Ta7=7seconds>Tb7; Ta8=8seconds>Tb8;
Ta9=9seconds>Tb9 and Ta10=10seconds>Tb10.
c) The difference in activation time between clocks A1 and B1 is a constant
for each trial. Identify this value as
d) There is a difference in activation time when the diameter of the
detection surface is reduced to .
e) Different horizontal orientations of clocks A1 and B1 will yield the same
results as predicted above. This suggests that the direction of absolute
motion of clock B1 is not in the horizontal direction but rather it is in
the vertical direction. This interpretation agrees with such past
experiments as the Michelson-Morley experiment (the MMX) and the Compton
shift experiment. The results of these experiments were independent of the
horizontal orientations of the experimental apparatus. It is noteworthy to
point out that the MMX null result can be explained if the direction of
absolute motion of the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction.
f) Different time of the year and different locations will yield the same
results as predicted above. This suggests that the different observed
relative motions of the earth have no effect on its state of absolute
motion. In other word, the absolute motion of the earth maintained in the
vertical direction at different locations throughout the year.
The theory behind the Model Mechanical predictions is as follows:
1) The laser beams are moving horizontally in the E-Matrix while the
detectors are moving vertically relative to the laser beams.
2) Detector A is at the shutter's location and therefore it has no time to
move away and thus it detects the whole length of the beam that passed
through the shutter.
3) Detector B is 100 meters from the shutter opening. The transit time for
light to reach detector B is 100 m/c seconds. This means that detector B
will have this time to move away from the light beam in the vertical
direction. If the motion of detector B is at 300 km/sec. then B will have
moved 10 cm vertically by the time the leading edge of the laser beam
reaches the old location of the detector. This means that detector B will
miss the first portion of the beam B and thus the activation time for clock
B is less than the shutter opening time. This prediction is confirmed if the
difference in activation time between clocks A1 and B1 is a constant for
each trial.
4) Reducing the diameter of the detection surface area to Db will start to
show a different activation time between clocks A1 and B1. This means that
clock B1 will have moved a distance of Db cm during a time interval Tab
seconds. The absolute motion of clock B1 can be calculated from these
results as follows:
Vab= Db/200*Tab m/sec......(1)
Where Vab is the absolute motion of clock B1.
Ken Seto.
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3cdc19e0$0$3574$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Come on Caroline... hunt down and KILL!
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
Re: Theory and practice in "relativity" to usenet:
>> Then you should have done some research prior to commenting and first
>>figured out what you can tell about people who repeatedly post nonsense or
>>never research the validity of their comments beyond the slant they wish
>to call an objective assessment.
>
>Maybe your mother should have done more research about how much nigger
>cum would fit in her asshole so it doesnt drip out all day like the
>nigger cum slut she is
>
>>I have a finite amount of patience where
>>someone makes a conscious effort to be stupid and expects me to consider
>>an argument like "nuh-uh" on par with a real response.
>
>Whens the last time you got laid you jewboy pussy?
>
>>The only difference
>>between expecting me to act like an idiot and waste time writing something
>>that won't be read and stating it outright, is that stating it outright
>doesn't involve being dishonest, too.
>
>Come here and lick my anus Mandingo like your whore mother did last
>night. How do you like them apples?
Why, I'd have to say, thanks! It saves me from having to spend any
additional effort in supporting my response. Normally, most people aren't
so willing to just give up and admit I was right much less provide the
documentation along with declaring themselves a bigot, lest anyone remain
unconvinced about the rest. I'd have to say you've been a real sport for
jumping through the hoop. I guess Pavlov was a smart man. Bisquit?
c.h.thompson
Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnadntf...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> c.h.thompson said some stuff about
> >OK. Put this down as an expression of belief. It all goes back to
> >discussions we had some time ago re the invention of the transistor.
The
>
> No quantum mechanics, no fermi surface. No fermi surface:
>
> (1) No transitor
> (2) No stable matter in the universe
etc etc
Yes, it is clear where your beliefs lie. Time will tell which of us is more
nearly right.
I don't know what makes you say I have no explanations for anything! This
is certainly not a unanimous opinion. A great number of people think my
explanations of the Bell test results are pretty near the mark. I do not
yet have many supporters for my ideas on the nature of light, but perhaps
I'm before my time here. There is too much prejudice in favour of the
photon. Perhaps also people LIKE to feel that everything is
incomprehensible and, as one of my recent correspondents remarked, journals
would find it hard to fill their pages with common sense.
kenseto
> news:3cdb0eab$0$3328$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> > The MMX did not rule out a fixed aether. The MMX apparatus was
> > moving in the vertical direction and thus the light path length from
both
> arms
> > remained the same for all horizontal orientations of the arms and thus
the
> > null results.
>
> Perhaps you could explain what you mean? The apparatus moved >only in the
horizontal plane.
No. If that is the case then you would get a positive result for the MMX.
The only direction of absolute motion that will give null result is the
vertical direction.
>I imagine you mean that it was also moving vertically if
> you refer to the fixed stars?
If you can forget about any relative motion and imagine that you are in an
Tom Potter
>Tom Potter said some stuff about
>Re: Theory and practice in "relativity" to usenet:
>>ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote
>>> in message news:<slrnadjra...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>>> Tom Potter said some stuff about
>>> >
>>> >It is interesting to see that this poster has delusions
>>> >that he can "immortalize" statements made by folks,
>>> >by posting excerpts of their posts, on a web page,
>>> >the primary intent of which is to try to
>>> >make the poster feel superior to others.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the award recipients have worked very hard
>>> to overcome all of the common sense offered to dissuade them from
>>> pursuing the award. Given the qualifications and hard work performed,
>>> grasping at straws, and even thin air as objections to reality, I
>>> would think the recipients would bask in its limelight of such an
>>> award. I don't think anyone wins with their first post.
>>
>>"As far as I can tell," people who stroke their egos by demeaning
>>other folks, have psychological problems.
> Then you should have done some research prior to commenting and first
>figured out what you can tell about people who repeatedly post nonsense or
>never research the validity of their comments beyond the slant they wish
to call an objective assessment.
Maybe your mother should have done more research about how much nigger
cum would fit in her asshole so it doesnt drip out all day like the
nigger cum slut she is
>I have a finite amount of patience where
>someone makes a conscious effort to be stupid and expects me to consider
>an argument like "nuh-uh" on par with a real response.
Did the nigger cock slip out of your mouth long enough for you to say
that?
>The only difference
>between expecting me to act like an idiot and waste time writing something
>that won't be read and stating it outright, is that stating it outright
doesn't involve being dishonest, too.
Come here and lick my anus Mandingo like your whore mother did last night. How do you like them apples?
Bilge
>
>I don't know what makes you say I have no explanations for anything! This
For the simple reason that I've requested you to explain the way
you think things should work, and you don't have any explanations.
>is certainly not a unanimous opinion.
Well, gee. why is it that I never receive one of these convincing
explanations, or for that matter, any at all? I'm not telepathic, if
you've been trying to send one via psi-mail.
> A great number of people think my
>explanations of the Bell test results are pretty near the mark. I do not
>yet have many supporters for my ideas on the nature of light, but perhaps
How could you possibly have an explanation for bell's tests without
a model of light? So far your only explanation is that the experiments
are wrong.
>I'm before my time here. There is too much prejudice in favour of the
>photon.
Oh, jeeeeezzzz. I can just picture eric idle in the background
saying "help, I'm being repressed".
> Perhaps also people LIKE to feel that everything is incomprehensible
Well, you certainly do anyway. I haven't found any physicists that
like that idea, though.
>and, as one of my recent correspondents remarked, journals would find
>it hard to fill their pages with common sense.
It's not my problem if you consider the newsletter from the
npa a journal.
David Evens
wrote:
Are you pretending that the Earth is expanding or contracting, Ken?
Patrick Reany
"c.h.thompson" wrote:
> Martin Hogbin <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:abeh2n$qid$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> > "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote
> >
> > To consider publicity by the New York Times as the main reason for
> > the acceptance of Einstein's relativity is absurd.
>
> I know this is a losing wicket, yet I'm not the only person to have come up
> with this hypothesis! I've now read quite a number of papers written by
> important experimenters and theorists before and after this publicity. It
> took a few years but gradually physicists became more and more willing to
> accept physically absurd theories.
Would you define what you mean by "physically
absurd theories"?
> Admittedly there were other things going
> on at the time -- the philosophers were having mad ideas too ...
>
Which "mad" ideas were those?
Patrick
c.h.thompson
Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> said some stuff about
> For the simple reason that I've requested you to explain the way
> you think things should work,
Please specify. Which things? What have I not explained?
> Well, gee. why is it that I never receive one of these convincing
> explanations, or for that matter, any at all?
Because you are not sufficiently interested to look at my web site? But
hold on, Bilge! You have only to look at past contributions in the group.
If you don't find my explanations convincing that's no skin off my nose.
> > A great number of people think my
> >explanations of the Bell test results are pretty near the mark.
> I do not yet have many supporters for my ideas on the nature
> of light, but perhaps
>
> How could you possibly have an explanation for bell's tests
> without a model of light?
How about stopping to think for just one moment before coming out with yet
more nonsense? I did not say I had no model for light! I have a very good
one. See http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Essays/light.htm
> So far your only explanation is that the experiments
> are wrong.
Not so. Have a look at my papers on the subject. They explain how the
experiments actually work, in terms compatible with my model of light. You
don't need the full power of my model -- ordinary electomagnetic theory and
classical waves will do.
If you're asking me to explain why I think the QM formula for separated
"correlated particles" is wrong that's another matter. I can have a go but
really consider the exercise no more constructive than discussion of angels
on the heads of pins!
> > Perhaps also people LIKE to feel that everything is incomprehensible
>
> Well, you certainly do anyway. I haven't found any physicists that
> like that idea, though.
No? Well try the science journalists ...
Oriel36
> in the solar system, say, it will cause a tiny distortion of our picture of
> the heavens, but since it is the same every time*, how will we ever know?
> The only reason our motion around the Sun has a measurable effect on the
> apparent positions of stars is that the effect is not constant. Sometimes
> we are moving towards and sometimes away from any particular one. It is
> only the DIFFERENCE in aberration that we can measure.
>
> Caroline
Brilliant !.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:273f8e06.02051...@posting.google.com...
> "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message
> >
> > I don't think this is necessarily so. If there is a smooth rotation effect
> > in the solar system, say, it will cause a tiny distortion of our picture of
> > the heavens, but since it is the same every time*, how will we ever know?
> > The only reason our motion around the Sun has a measurable effect on the
> > apparent positions of stars is that the effect is not constant. Sometimes
> > we are moving towards and sometimes away from any particular one. It is
> > only the DIFFERENCE in aberration that we can measure.
> >
> > Caroline
>
> Brilliant !.
Brilliant???
According to you, there just *can't* be any aberration.
How can you be such a fool?
Dirk Vdm