Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
Pentcho Valev
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
fields" is absolutely necesary:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Traveler
There is a difference bwtween a stone and light particle, though. One
has mass, the other is pure kinetic energy. Apples and oranges, IMO.
Having said that, I disagree with the relativist's claim that the
speed of light relative to any observer is constant. This flies in the
face of elementary logic. There is a diffference between measured
speed and actual speed.
It is obvious to me why the relative speed of light in a vacuum is
*measured* to be constant by all observers. The reason is that
relative c is part and parcel of the working of the very instruments
that we use to measure it. This is analogous to use a ruler to measure
itself. Regardless of the actual length of the ruler, we always get
the same answer. So, whenever a brain-dead relativist insists that c
is constant for all observers, we must remind him/her that a
measurement is just as much the result of the phenomenon being
measured as it is that of the measuring instrument.
At any rate, I do believe that the *absolute* speed of light in a
vacuum is constant. In addition, I suspect that the physicist's
interpretation of red shift or blue shift is faulty. In my mind, it is
absolute proof that the relative speed of light is not constant, at
least for short distances. Red shifts (from distant stars) are likely
caused by phenomena having nothing to do with universal expansion.
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
Androcles
"Traveler" <noassk...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:951v94t89jrr9927v...@4ax.com...
Strange analogy, apples and oranges are both missiles in this context.
Consider this:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
Because the ball travels straight but is curved in the rotating frame,
so too would a photon. The result is the ring laser gyroscope.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG1.gif
Interference fringes occur only when the device is rotating.
|
| Having said that, I disagree with the relativist's claim that the
| speed of light relative to any observer is constant. This flies in the
| face of elementary logic. There is a diffference between measured
| speed and actual speed.
|
| It is obvious to me why the relative speed of light in a vacuum is
| *measured* to be constant by all observers. The reason is that
| relative c is part and parcel of the working of the very instruments
| that we use to measure it. This is analogous to use a ruler to measure
| itself. Regardless of the actual length of the ruler, we always get
| the same answer. So, whenever a brain-dead relativist insists that c
| is constant for all observers, we must remind him/her that a
| measurement is just as much the result of the phenomenon being
| measured as it is that of the measuring instrument.
Nobody, but nobody, has ever measured the speed of light
from a moving source with a distance/time method. One can
use the doppler method, however.
c = wavelength * frequency, but even then be cautious.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm
| At any rate, I do believe that the *absolute* speed of light in a
| vacuum is constant.
Why?
Oh wait, you said "believe". The Pope believes his god on a stick
was born of a virgin...
Oh well, not much hope for you as a scientist if you have
irrational faith.
Pentcho Valev
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:20:20 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
>
> <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
> >John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> >dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> >Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
> >be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
> >Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> >theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> >physics."
> >John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> >hm, ha ha ha."
>
> >Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
Banesh Hoffmann was an exremely clever relativist ane knew what he was
talking about. The only fact that matters in this case is that the
speed of light varies with the gravitational potential - a fact that
both relativists and anti-relativists accept. However few people are
able, without paying attention to existing camouflage and countless
red herrings, to place the fact in a suitable experimental context,
apply Einstein's equivalence principle and draw the implications.
Banesh Hoffmann was one of those people and what he says above is just
one of the implications.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Traveler
Cool, but I don't see how this proves that the speed of a light is
dependent on the speed of the light source. I'm willing to be
educated.
>| Having said that, I disagree with the relativist's claim that the
>| speed of light relative to any observer is constant. This flies in the
>| face of elementary logic. There is a diffference between measured
>| speed and actual speed.
>|
>| It is obvious to me why the relative speed of light in a vacuum is
>| *measured* to be constant by all observers. The reason is that
>| relative c is part and parcel of the working of the very instruments
>| that we use to measure it. This is analogous to use a ruler to measure
>| itself. Regardless of the actual length of the ruler, we always get
>| the same answer. So, whenever a brain-dead relativist insists that c
>| is constant for all observers, we must remind him/her that a
>| measurement is just as much the result of the phenomenon being
>| measured as it is that of the measuring instrument.
>
>Nobody, but nobody, has ever measured the speed of light
>from a moving source with a distance/time method. One can
>use the doppler method, however.
>c = wavelength * frequency, but even then be cautious.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm
Pretty cool graphics. I'm impressed. Still not convinced.
>| At any rate, I do believe that the *absolute* speed of light in a
>| vacuum is constant.
>
>Why?
I don't want to get into my theory of motion because it will open up a
whole discussion that I can't afford to get into right now. Suffice to
say that the idea that things can move in empty space, all by
themselves, as if by magic, is a fairy tale worse than the flat earth
hypothesis. I am convinced that motion is a causal phenomenon.
>Oh wait, you said "believe". The Pope believes his god on a stick
>was born of a virgin...
>Oh well, not much hope for you as a scientist if you have
>irrational faith.
It's all faith, man. It has always been faith. Haven't you read
Descartes? You can't prove that what you sense is real and exists
apart from your mind. Descartes showed that you could be part of a
Matrix-like experiment. All the BS about science not being about faith
is just that, BS. Ultimately, we must have faith in our own
rationality and hunches. May the best religion win in the end. That's
all.
Androcles
The simplest and most convincing way to understand it is to first
understand Doppler shift and the principle of relativity (the real one,
not Einstein's crap).
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
Aether (if it existed like air), would provide a third frame of reference.
But MMX showed no aether, so of the two forms of Doppler shift,
c
f' = f *-----------------
c+v
and c+v
f' = f * ---------------
c
(only one of which is discussed in wackypedia), the correct one for
light has to be the second.
This diagram:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/ship2starX.gif
makes no sense (although it would for sound), the moving ship is pushing
the aether along with it.
This does make sense, however:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/star2ship.gif
|
| >| Having said that, I disagree with the relativist's claim that the
| >| speed of light relative to any observer is constant. This flies in the
| >| face of elementary logic. There is a diffference between measured
| >| speed and actual speed.
| >|
| >| It is obvious to me why the relative speed of light in a vacuum is
| >| *measured* to be constant by all observers. The reason is that
| >| relative c is part and parcel of the working of the very instruments
| >| that we use to measure it. This is analogous to use a ruler to measure
| >| itself. Regardless of the actual length of the ruler, we always get
| >| the same answer. So, whenever a brain-dead relativist insists that c
| >| is constant for all observers, we must remind him/her that a
| >| measurement is just as much the result of the phenomenon being
| >| measured as it is that of the measuring instrument.
| >
| >Nobody, but nobody, has ever measured the speed of light
| >from a moving source with a distance/time method. One can
| >use the doppler method, however.
| >c = wavelength * frequency, but even then be cautious.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm
|
| Pretty cool graphics. I'm impressed. Still not convinced.
The standing wave has exactly the same frequency and wavelength as
the travelling wave beside it, yet the speed of the standing wave is
zero. Hence we must be cautious when talking about speed.
|
| >| At any rate, I do believe that the *absolute* speed of light in a
| >| vacuum is constant.
| >
| >Why?
|
| I don't want to get into my theory of motion because it will open up a
| whole discussion that I can't afford to get into right now. Suffice to
| say that the idea that things can move in empty space, all by
| themselves, as if by magic, is a fairy tale worse than the flat earth
| hypothesis. I am convinced that motion is a causal phenomenon.
I'm convinced the Earth and Moon and planets and bullets can and
DO can move in empty space (as if by magic), and so can light,
eclipses are real enough. Occasionally the Moon blocks the light
and the Sun is not seen, and every single night the Earth itself
blocks out sunlight from my day as it places itself between my eyes
and the Sun.
If we can't agree on that simple observation then there is no basis
for any discussion.
|
| >Oh wait, you said "believe". The Pope believes his god on a stick
| >was born of a virgin...
| >Oh well, not much hope for you as a scientist if you have
| >irrational faith.
|
| It's all faith, man. It has always been faith. Haven't you read
| Descartes? You can't prove that what you sense is real and exists
| apart from your mind. Descartes showed that you could be part of a
| Matrix-like experiment. All the BS about science not being about faith
| is just that, BS. Ultimately, we must have faith in our own
| rationality and hunches. May the best religion win in the end. That's
| all.
|
I'm not relying on Rene Descartes or faith or religion or any kind
of gobbledegook about matrices to know what day and night are.
Traveler
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>I'm convinced the Earth and Moon and planets and bullets can and
>DO can move in empty space (as if by magic),
Well, I don't believe in magic. It's worse than irrational faith, IMO.
>If we can't agree on that simple observation then there is no basis
>for any discussion.
Yeah, you're right. See ya around. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Androcles
| On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:44:05 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
|
| >I'm convinced the Earth and Moon and planets and bullets can and
| >DO can move in empty space (as if by magic),
|
| Well, I don't believe in magic. It's worse than irrational faith, IMO.
Oh, yes you do. Magic is defined as anything you don't understand, in
fact it is irrational faith.
|
| >If we can't agree on that simple observation then there is no basis
| >for any discussion.
|
| Yeah, you're right. See ya around. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
|
| Louis Savain
|
| Rebel Science News:
| http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
And just to make certain... *plonk*
Darwin123
> And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
> that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
> Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
> result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
> contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations.
inconsistent with the Newtonian motion of particles. Therefore, light
can not conform to the Newtonian motion of particles. Therefore,
Newtonian laws can not explain the null results of the Michaelson
Morley experiment.
A more interesting question: Between Spaceman and Valev, which is
more ignorant? For a long time, I had my money on Spaceman. However,
this latest argument of yours may surpass even Spaceman's arguments.
He at least has repaired cars.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
> be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
> Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
> fields" is absolutely necesary:
But it doesn't really matter with Gauss-wannabee stooges like
scientoons.
Since neither digital, lasers, fiber optics, CD, nor DVD+rw, nor
even history could exist,
without fields.
Thomas Heger
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:b0a04b8a-b27d-43e7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
> fields" is absolutely necesary:
>
I suggest the opposite and we should get rid of particles and replace them
by patterns in spacetime.
TH
Spaceman
Which "spacetime" should we use for the "patterns"?
meterseconds
milehours
inchminutes
milimeterdays
footyears?
lightyearnanoseconds
etc...
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Pentcho Valev
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:b0a04b8a-b27d-43e7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
> > John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> > dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> > Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
> > fields" is absolutely necesary:
>
> I suggest the opposite and we should get rid of particles and replace them
> by patterns in spacetime.
>
> TH
Even Divine Albert would find your idea quite silly:
http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Thomas Heger
"Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8s6dnRUGC4sj7DnV...@comcast.com...
Well it sounds very stupid, I would agree, but it goes a bit different. I
think, that actually GR describes our world correctly. Spacetime, I assume,
is a real space, that is 'beyond' our observation, since we observe only a
part of it. Better to use quaternions for relativity, than its easier to
explain. They model an imaginary, multiplicative and antisymetric space with
three dimensions. This antisymmetry we could experience in various ways.
I.e. we can't move backwards in time. But we can't move through walls
neither or jump into the sky. It is possible, to model even atoms out of
such a model.
I suppose our real world as what we could see from those patterns in this
imaginary space, since we could only see a part of that. The rest we could
only - well- feel.
thomheg
> On Aug 14, 7:51 pm, "Thomas Heger" <tomheg_...@web.de> wrote:
>> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:b0a04b8a-b27d-43e7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> Even Divine Albert would find your idea quite silly:
I can show you, that it's not as silly as it seems.
The whole idea of particles is based on observations. We can observe
particles. But what is actually observation?
Relativity tells us, that certain relations change if we move or
accelerate. Now whe have to think about, what actually we observe. We
could think, that not accelerate, but some object. That is equivalent -
according to the relativity principle.
Now look at pictures from accelerators. What do we get there? We get
particles. Since now, we have not seen the fault, but the LHC has much
higher energy and than we see it: way too many particles-
Androcles
"Thomas Heger" <tomhe...@web.de> wrote in message
news:g81vbq$qd3$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
What with?
Androcles
"thomheg" <tom...@web.de> wrote in message
news:g8203s$rt8$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Pentcho Valev schrieb:
>> On Aug 14, 7:51 pm, "Thomas Heger" <tomheg_...@web.de> wrote:
>>> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
>>> Newsbeitragnews:b0a04b8a-b27d-43e7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> Even Divine Albert would find your idea quite silly:
>
> I can show you, that it's not as silly as it seems.
> The whole idea of particles is based on observations. We can observe
> particles. But what is actually observation?
> Relativity tells us, that certain relations change if we move or
> accelerate.
Idiot.
Spaceman
Actually it might describe it pretty well, but it lacks any physical
causes for what it describes.
lengths and times mushed together do not give a physical cause
for gravity.
length is a measurement of "distance between mass" or the mass
itself.
The mass is what is the actual physical, the distance between
is the lack of mass.
> Spacetime, I assume, is a real space, that is 'beyond' our
> observation, since we observe only a part of it. Better to use
> quaternions for relativity, than its easier to explain. They model an
> imaginary, multiplicative and antisymetric space with three
> dimensions. This antisymmetry we could experience in various ways.
> I.e. we can't move backwards in time. But we can't move through walls
> neither or jump into the sky. It is possible, to model even atoms out
> of such a model.
> I suppose our real world as what we could see from those patterns in
> this imaginary space, since we could only see a part of that. The
> rest we could only - well- feel.
If you actually find all the "reals" the 3D space and one dimension
that we use for timing the motion using absolute timing with a single
standard along with the single standard for measurement works
best of all.
No spacetime needed at all.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
thomheg
wrong. It's a common fault and makes obviously no sense, because you
cannot say time has a form. Time is NOT a degree of freedom (we can't
move in time). Relativity describes relations and what is actually
distance. The time coordinate is a scalar, that depends on the spatial
coordinates.
To have such a relation, we should think about a multiplicative space
What we usually do, is to add things: vectors, atoms to a crystal, drops
to an ocean. A distance is a subtraction. Or we take derivatives.
That space requires quotients as generic tool and a quaternion to come
from vector A to vector B. That defines 'points' with an orientation,
that multiply each other and only the orientation moves. We call that
space and time and matter, because we are part of that and expect matter
to be stable in time. The unstable part we call field or radiation.
Now we could turn matter into radiation and back. We could have that at
the same time (a pattern is radiating and stable at the same time), what
makes the whole idea of particles as being fundamental questionable.
Thomas Heger
Benj
> Well, I don't believe in magic. It's worse than irrational faith, IMO.
Of course you do! If you believe in QM then you believe in "magic"!
> >If we can't agree on that simple observation then there is no basis
> >for any discussion.
>
> Yeah, you're right. See ya around. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Um, yes. Good choice. Now if we can only wean you from that irrational
belief in QMechanical "magic".
Benj
> Light conforms to Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations are
> inconsistent with the Newtonian motion of particles. Therefore, light
> can not conform to the Newtonian motion of particles. Therefore,
> Newtonian laws can not explain the null results of the Michaelson
> Morley experiment.
Light does NOT conform to Maxwell's equations. Light is not a wave.
It's a particle with statistics that emulate wave solutions. Therefore
the valid question to ask would be does ANYTHING emulate non-particle
behavior? Magnetic fields or Electric fields for example? One has to
ask if there is any proof that low frequency emanations be they
electro-magnetic "waves" or even near-field magnetic fields are indeed
"particles"? I hope everyone her has noticed that this whole range of
so-called "explanations" for light and EM "waves" is a total mess. One
has to ask if the "continuous" model is actually valid for any
phenomena?
> A more interesting question: Between Spaceman and Valev, which is
> more ignorant? For a long time, I had my money on Spaceman. However,
> this latest argument of yours may surpass even Spaceman's arguments.
> He at least has repaired cars.
Hmmm. Yes, that is an interesting question. The "who is more ignorant"
one always is.
Darwin123
> On Aug 11, 9:51 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Light conforms to Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations are
> > inconsistent with the Newtonian motion of particles. Therefore, light
> > can not conform to the Newtonian motion of particles. Therefore,
> > Newtonian laws can not explain the null results of the Michaelson
> > Morley experiment.
>
> Light does NOT conform to Maxwell's equations. Light is not a wave.
> It's a particle with statistics that emulate wave solutions.
any other type of wave. More to the point, the particle does not
conform to Newton's equations. A Newtonian particle has behavior that
doesn't at all resemble the behavior of a photon.
There are several nonNewtonian properties of a photon that do
not conform to those of a Newtonian particle. There is no "uncertainty
constraint" in the position and momentum of a Newtonian particle, for
instance. There is an "uncertainty constraint" in the position and
momentum of a photon. Photons do not have the range of speeds
available to a Newtonian particle. Even when the velocity of the
source is fixed, the speed of a Newtonian particle varies over a large
range.
The speed of light in vacuum and air on the surface of the earth
is 3.00x10^5 m/s. Therefore, a real photon is moving at a constant
3.00x10^5 m/s. It never varies. A bullet on the surface of the earth
can vary in speed over many orders of magnitude. It can rest in a
holder with zero speed, or it can be fired at supersonic speeds.
Neither real photons nor virtual photons are Newtonian particles.
Valev was quoting Banesh Hoffman, who occasionally worked with
Einstein. Banesh Hoffman said that if light was made of Newtonian
particles, then one can explain the Michaelson Morley experiment. What
Valev didn't want to point out is that photons are not Newtonian
particles. The photon statistics couldn't conform to the Maxwell's
equations if the photon was a Newtonian particle.
>Therefore the valid question to ask would be does ANYTHING emulate non-particle behavior? Magnetic fields or Electric fields for example?
virtual photons. Virtual photons violate are definitely not Newtonian
particles either. They violate conservation of momentum and energy,
and they appear and disappear in short amounts of time, and they even
turn into other types of particles spontaneously. Virtual photons can
go faster than the C, which is one property that a Newtonian particle
could have. However, moving faster than C would not help explain the
Michaelson Morley (MM) experiment.
Static electric and Magnetic fields would not have formed the
interferometric bands in the MM experiment. Since Hoffman and
presumably Valev are claiming that Newtonian particles could explain
the MM results, performed with electromagnetic waves (real particles),
static fields are irrelevant.
> One has to
> ask if there is any proof that low frequency emanations be they
> electro-magnetic "waves" or even near-field magnetic fields are indeed
> "particles"?
This is one way how the concept of virtual photons us used. It
helps model the effect of the electromagnetic field under near field
conditions (what you just described). Their properties are chosen to
conform to the behavior of electric and magnetic fields that are close
to an electric charge or an electric current.
It is a matter of philosophy whether the virtual particles are
physically real or not. Scientists call the particles that mediate
light waves to be real photons. So I guess this is a subconscious way
of admitting that "virtual particles" are merely a mathematical
artifice, and not physically real. However, the concept can sure
simplify an quantum mechanical calculation. When working on practical
engineering and physics problems, that is real enough.
>I hope everyone her has noticed that this whole range of
> so-called "explanations" for light and EM "waves" is a total mess.
When working on practical engineering and physics problems, that is
real enough.
>One has to ask if the "continuous" model is actually valid for any
> phenomena?
Continuous is rather robust for limiting condition. However, it
is a limiting condition. Look at water. Water is made of molecules,
which under most conditions act like Newtonian particles. I know
molecules are not truly Newtonian particles, but they come close under
oceanic conditions. However, most calculations of hydrodynamics assume
that water is a continuous media. Or not. There is that numerical
problem.
Aside from all these high abstraction theories, there is the
little problem of truncation error in numerical calculations.
Basically, when doing a real calculation, there are discrete steps
marked by significant figures. So there is a separate problem with the
concept of continuous just in doing the arithmetic.
>
> > A more interesting question: Between Spaceman and Valev, which is
> > more ignorant? For a long time, I had my money on Spaceman. However,
> > this latest argument of yours may surpass even Spaceman's arguments.
> > He at least has repaired cars.
>
> Hmmm. Yes, that is an interesting question. The "who is more ignorant"
> one always is.
What I like about Valev's latest is that he managed to take Banesh
Hoffman down with him. He found one of Hoffman's least inspired
statements, built it into the Valev mythology, and so managed to make
Hoffman look like an idiot. Robbing Hoffman of his reputation while
making it sound like support is almost brilliant.
Spaceman
> Except that the same effect (speed of light in a vacuum not depending
> on the observer) is measured, by experiment, by different
> instruments.
That is the biggest bullshit lie relativists sell.
100% snake oil.
The speed of light can not be constant to all.
It is by nature, a speed.
All speeds are relative.
Why do relavists ignore part of the basis for the theory,
to support the rest of the bullshit in the theory?
Hint: To get grants for the next con man to sell the snake oil
also.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Rock Brentwood
> Light conforms to Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations are
> inconsistent with the Newtonian motion of particles.
A point of technicality here: Maxwell's equations are not inconsistent
with Newtonian physics; it's the Maxwell-LORENTZ equations which are.
The source of the confusion is that nowadays, "Maxwell-Lorentz theory"
is usually shortened "Maxwell's Theory", though the correct name
(Maxwell-Lorentz) was used in print for it as late as a few years ago
in the 1970's and 1980's.
In fact, the "macroscopic" part of the equations is entirely
independent of the underlying spacetime -- i.e., it's diffeomorphic
invariant, and can therefore survive intact on any causal structure
(even a Euclidean 4+0 dimensional space, or a quasi-"Newtonian" 2+1+1
dimensional spacetime or any other signature you want to impose it
on).
Locally, its invariance group is a superset of GL(4) (superset:
because there is a residue of "complexion" symmetry still intact; D ->
D - t B, E -> E + t H).
The difference between Maxwell vs. Maxwell-Lorentz resides SOLELY in
which set of constitutive laws are used. And, most to the point:
Maxwell did NOT use the modern-day Maxwell-Lorentz constitutive
relations (which define the "Lorentz" in Maxwell-Lorentz theory), but
an entirely different set of ones which -- almost forgotten today --
employed a reference velocity, G, for the vacuum. This is why, for
instance, in the alphabet soup that Maxwell devised you have a gap, A,
B, C (= J + dD/dt), D, E, F (= force density), H, I (= magnetization),
J, where G used to be.
The diffeomorphism-invariant part of the Maxwell[-Lorentz] theory
comprise the equations:
div B = 0, curl E + dB/dt = 0, div D = rho, curl H - dD/dt = J.
The way you can tell they're diffeomorphism invariant is that they can
be written entirely in the language of differential forms (which is
the only calculus structure, other than Lie derivatives, which resides
at the level of diffeomorphism invariance). Maxwell, himself,
essentially did so, himself, writing:
#E = E_x dx + E_y dy + E_z dz
#H = H_x dx + H_y dy + H_z dz
#B = B^x dydz + B^y dzdx + B^z dxdy
#D = D^x dydz + D^y dzdx + D^z dxdy
#J = J^x dydz + J^y dzdx + J^z dxdy
#Q = rho dxdydz
and referring to (#E, #H), (#B, #D, #J) and (#Q), respectively, as
quantities referred to line, surface and volume integrals (i.e., in
20th/21st century language, "1-forms", "2-forms", "3-forms").
Maxwell, in fact, explicitly used the language of differential forms
citing the rule dxdy = -dydx, for instance, which lies at the root of
the Grassmann calculus that underlies differential forms.
The only oversight was in not fully integrating the equations. They
don't just read:
del(#D) = #Q, del(#H) - d(#D)/dt = #J, del(#B) = 0, del(#E) + d(#B)/
dt = 0
where "del" is the 3-dimensional exterior derivative, but as
d(#D - #H dt) = #Q - #J dt, d(#B + #E dt) = 0.
The part of the "Maxwell" or "Maxwell-Lorentz" theory that is specific
to the causal structure of space-time, and which distinguishes one
from the other, is the constitutive relation. For Maxwell's original
theory, they read as the equivalent of:
B = mu (H - G x D), D = epsilon (E + G x B).
where mu, epsilon may be variable (even for a vacuum; hence the
designation "Macroscopic" when applied to "Macroscopic equations" is a
misnomer. These equations were meant to be applied at the MICROSCOPIC
level too, with variable constitutive coefficients -- Maxwell made a
huge point of this in Chapter 1, explaining its absolute necessity to
resolve the divergence problem in field theory).
For Maxwell-Lorentz, they read:
B = mu_0 H, D = epsilon_0 E
where mu_0 and epsilon_0 are constants. Lorentz threw the baby (mu,
epsilon) out with the bathwater (G), by not only removing the
reference velocity, G, but "shutting off" the vacuum, turning the
variable epsilon and mu into constants. As a consequence, the
distinction between "macroscopic" and "microscopic" was born. The
distinction was lost, once again, once you get to quantum field
theory, where the variable epsilon and mu return (in the somewhat
obfuscatory guise of the so-called "running of the couplings"). This
is best seen, for instance, with the effective Lagrangian (i.e. the
Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian).
The most general constitutive relations respecting the invariance
(apart from the reference velocity, G, which breaks symmetry under
boosts) of the Galilean group (which is the symmetry group underlying
Newtonian law) is
H = B/mu + epsilon G x (E + G x B) + theta E
D = epsilon (E + G x B) - theta H,
involving two independent coefficients, epsilon and mu, and an axial
coefficient theta, whose asymptotic free-field value can (without loss
of generality) be taken to be 0.
The most general constitutive relations that respect Lorentz symmetry
(the symmetry group of Special and General Relativity) is
H = B/mu + theta E, D = epsilon E - theta H
where mu is now constrained to be 1/(epsilon c^2).
In both cases, epsilon and theta can be variable (hence, the
imposition of the condition by Lorentz that epsilon be constant was
not warranted, strictly, by the requirement of Lorentz invariance). In
general, epsilon and theta would be functions of the 2 Lorentz
invariants, I1 = E^2 - B^2 c^2 and I2 = B.E. In fact, the coefficients
would just be the derivatives
epsilon = dL/d(I1), theta = dL/d(I2)
of whatever Lagrangian governs the field law.
For the Galilean case, the 3 invariants are I1 = |E + GxB|^2, I2 = E.B
and I3 = B^2. This leads to the 3 coefficients, epsilon, mu and theta,
in a similar way, with
mu = -dL/d(I3).
> Therefore, light can not conform to the Newtonian motion of particles.
> Therefore, Newtonian laws can not explain the null results of the
> Michaelson Morley experiment.
The "null results" are not just one minor -- and relatively
insignificant -- experiment, but run deep and prevalently throughout
the entire structure of the Maxwell theory. In short, there is no non-
zero value for G, in Maxwell's constitutive law. In particular, there
is no influence by the magnetic field B on the electric displacement D
in the manner indicated by the Maxwell relation
D = epsilon (E + G x B).
Such would show up easily in a terrestial environment, since the Earth
is bathed in a large magnetic field!
There are numerous other ways, just as subtle and little-commented,
that clearly show that G = 0 in ALL frames of reference.
THIS Is what distinguishes the (invalid) Maxwell theory from the
(corrected) Maxwell-Lorentz theory; and, in turn, the (invalid)
Galilean spacetime symmetry group from the (corrected) Poincare' and
Lorentz symmetry that underlies Einstein's Special Relativity and
Minkowski's geometric representation of Poincare' invariance.
Spaceman
> Am Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:05:05 -0400 schrieb "Spaceman"
> <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> in
> D5CdnaVFf-n2bznV...@comcast.com in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> schrieb im
>>> Newsbeitrag news:8s6dnRUGC4sj7DnV...@comcast.com...
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>>>
>> news:b0a04b8a-
>>>>>>
> [...]
>>> Well it sounds very stupid, I would agree, but it goes a bit
>>> different. I think, that actually GR describes our world correctly.
>>
>> Actually it might describe it pretty well, but it lacks any physical
>> causes for what it describes.
>
> physical causes for what it describes.
No it is not like such at all, you see, centrifugal forces have physical
forces causing such.
Spacetime" has no physical forces and only has mathematical bullshit.
>> lengths and times mushed together do not give a physical cause for
>> gravity.
>
> For events, lengths and times must be *both* specified. If "mushing"
> them together is a problem for you, then how would *you* describe
> distinguishable events?
Events that mush the lengths and times by using multiple standards
for distance and time are a freakin joke to anyone that understands
the science of measurement and the use of single standards for distance
or time.
>> length is a measurement of "distance between mass" or the mass
>> itself.
>
> What if there is no mass, such as with a photon? Actually length is
> the distance between two cotemporal events.
No mass = no "real" physics.
Do you know where the word "physics" comes from?
>> The mass is what is the actual physical, the distance between is the
>> lack of mass.
>
> Seems to me to be a silly way to define length.
It is not the silly definition, it is "THE" definition.
Length is a distance between 2 points.
It can be the distance of how big an object is or it can be
the distance that is between two different objects.
I see you have been brainwashed pretty well to think otherwise.
You must also think the shortest "physical" distance between two
points is a curved line?
>> If you actually find all the "reals" the 3D space and one dimension
>> that we use for timing the motion using absolute timing with a single
>> standard along with the single standard for measurement works best of
>> all.
>> No spacetime needed at all.
>
> Agreed. However, there is a difference between two different events
> that are cotemporal and two different events that are colocal. That
> is why both space and time must be used to describe an event.
I never said Space AND Time should not be used,
I said "spacetime" should not be used because you should not be mixing
the two seperate measurement systems like such.
The only way the mixed up spacetime can work out mathematically
is to indeed use multiple standards of measurement and that is just
not scientific at all.
As I say all the time
Rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks will not get you too much
further than a splat into a planet that was not there yet according
to the rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks.
Thomas Heger
"The TimeLord" <math-n-ph...@att.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Ie2dndQSULKqeDjV...@comcast.com...
> Am Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:49:08 +0200 schrieb "Thomas Heger"
> <tomhe...@web.de> in g81vbq$qd3$03$1...@news.t-online.com in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
>
>> can't move through walls neither or jump into the sky. It is possible,
>> to model even atoms out of such a model.
>
>
Try to imagine complex numbers not in a plain, but in three dimensions.
There is a construct called triality, that has three nodes as neighbors of a
root node. Now attatch a vector to a node, say v.
Than the relation of a node to the neighbor is v'=q*v*q^-1. So is actually a
formula for quaternion rotation. So these vectors spin. Our world seems to
be lefthanded for unknown reason and this space is antisymmetric. (So you
have to change the signs, if you change the direction.)
Now try to imagine how that roation would look like in three dimension.
There is a relation to Euler angles and its easier to imagine that as the
form of the flight of an airplain. Two rudders gain a spiral and three a
strange sphere (I guess its a Hopff bundle, but have not found out). Now
project that into our own space of observation and we have a lattice of
atoms. This is because these spiral turn in and out of our own lightcone and
are intermittend imaginary and real.
Thomas Heger
Spaceman
> Am Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:58:02 -0400 schrieb "Spaceman"
> <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> in
> C86dnbr8jd5HQjjV...@comcast.com:
>
>> The TimeLord wrote:
>>> Except that the same effect (speed of light in a vacuum not
>>> depending on the observer) is measured, by experiment, by different
>>> instruments.
>>
>> That is the biggest bullshit lie relativists sell. 100% snake oil.
>
> speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers and does not
> depend on the instrument used.
Apparently you have purchased a whole bunch of the snake oil.
Do you have any clue about Doppler effects?
Do you know that if the speed of light were not "relative" then
Doppler effect could not occur to light creating red nor blue shifts?
I think you better dump your supply of snake oil, Doppler effect
proves each and everyday that your snake oil is just plain wrong.
>> The speed of light can not be constant to all. It is by nature, a
>> speed.
>
> So how does a fixed value like the speed of light in a vacuum not be a
> constant?
It is not a "fixed" value,
If it were fixed, no Doppler effect would be possible with light.
"fixed" would not allow the "relative" speed cause of Doppler effect,
yet the red shift and blue shifts are found.
maxwell
> ...
> THIS Is what distinguishes the (invalid) Maxwell theory from the
> (corrected) Maxwell-Lorentz theory; and, in turn, the (invalid)
> Galilean spacetime symmetry group from the (corrected) Poincare' and
> Lorentz symmetry that underlies Einstein's Special Relativity and
> Minkowski's geometric representation of Poincare' invariance.
the derivative theories of Poincare, Einstein & Minkowski) because
their PHYSICAL models were wrong - they do NOT correspond to the known
nature of EM.
This phenomenon is only about charged PARTICLES, not aetherial media.
There is an observed DELAY in the interaction of remote, charged
particles whose plenitude is mainly exhibited as electrons. Electrons
have failed to show any spatial extent; in other words, they are POINT
particles.
Lorentz's electron theory proposed electrons as small spheres, coated/
filled with continuous electrical fluid (a concept Maxwell rejected)
that interacted only via Maxwell's stationary aether (wrong, wrong,
wrong). This is still the implicit model taught in classical EM but
with Lorentz's balls shrinking to zero so that regions of space are
filled with continuous 'electric density'.
Can we try to develop an EM theory that is based on the facts, not on
fantasy?
Benj
> Am Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:25:49 -0700 schrieb Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> in
> Obviously you don't know the experimental results that clearly show that
> light *does* conform to Maxwell's equations. As for light not being a
> wave, Charles Young's Experiment settled that point: light is a wave and
> not a particle. (Side note = The photoelectric effect clearly shows that
> light is a particle and not a wave.)
Um, you have no philosophical problem with light being both a particle
and wave at the same time? Yeah, I understand. Almost nobody else in
modern physics has a problem with these kinds of statements either!
> > so-called "explanations" for light and EM "waves" is a total mess. One
> > has to ask if the "continuous" model is actually valid for any
> > phenomena?
>
> It is. Example: light waves, sound waves, pressure waves, water waves,
> etc.
Um, you just said light is a particle! Sound waves and pressure waves
are not transverse. And as for water waves...Well I understand there
is this new theory of "quantum water" whereby water is composed of
particles known a Hotons [Short for H2Otons but the numbers are always
silent in pronunciation!]...
Darwin123
wrote:
> The TimeLord wrote:
> > Am Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:58:02 -0400 schrieb "Spaceman"
> > C86dnbr8jd5HQjjVnZ2dnUVZ_ofin...@comcast.com:
>
> >> The TimeLord wrote:
> >>> Except that the same effect (speed of light in a vacuum not
> >>> depending on the observer) is measured, by experiment, by different
> >>> instruments.
>
> >> That is the biggest bullshit lie relativists sell. 100% snake oil.
>
> > Actually it's accepted as fact since experiments show clearly that the
> > speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers and does not
> > depend on the instrument used.
>
> Apparently you have purchased a whole bunch of the snake oil.
> Do you have any clue about Doppler effects?
> Do you know that if the speed of light were not "relative" then
> Doppler effect could not occur to light creating red nor blue shifts?
I can give a counterexample. The speed of sound IS NOT
"relative." It is constant only in one reference frame, which is the
reference frame of the fluid or solid that is carrying it. Yet, the
speed of a source does cause a Doppler shift even in the reference
frame of fluid or solid that is carrying the sound. A person listening
to a train whistle hears the change of pitch as the train goes by him.
However, the speed of sound is constant relative to the listener. Only
the pitch changes.
Or did I make a mistake as to your definition of "relative?" You
throw out these words so freely.
> I think you better dump your supply of snake oil, Doppler effect
> proves each and everyday that your snake oil is just plain wrong.
>
> >> The speed of light can not be constant to all. It is by nature, a speed.
>
> > So how does a fixed value like the speed of light in a vacuum not be a
> > constant?
>
> It is not a "fixed" value,
> If it were fixed, no Doppler effect would be possible with light.
segment of the wave front at the same time.
A viewer perceives of different parts of the coherent wave front
being emitted from the observer at different times. No section of the
wave front is moving faster than the speed of light. Every section,
once emitted, moves at the speed of light. The result is the wave has
different wavelengths in different directions.
> "fixed" would not allow the "relative" speed cause of Doppler >effect, yet the red shift and blue shifts are found.
working in physics or engineering would notice this?
Draw the wave fronts. First draw concentric circles. This is how
light is viewed in the source frame. Then draw off center ellipses,
with the center of each ellipse progressing forward. This is light as
seen in the viewer frame.
Spaceman
> On Aug 16, 11:48 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> The TimeLord wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:58:02 -0400 schrieb "Spaceman"
>>> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> in
>>> C86dnbr8jd5HQjjVnZ2dnUVZ_ofin...@comcast.com:
>>
>>>> The TimeLord wrote:
>>>>> Except that the same effect (speed of light in a vacuum not
>>>>> depending on the observer) is measured, by experiment, by
>>>>> different instruments.
>>
>>>> That is the biggest bullshit lie relativists sell. 100% snake oil.
>>
>>> Actually it's accepted as fact since experiments show clearly that
>>> the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers and
>>> does not depend on the instrument used.
>>
>> Apparently you have purchased a whole bunch of the snake oil.
>> Do you have any clue about Doppler effects?
> Do you have a clue about anything?
>> Do you know that if the speed of light were not "relative" then
>> Doppler effect could not occur to light creating red nor blue shifts?
> I do not know this.
Then you should learn it.
If the speed of the source and the observer is irrelevant to the speed
of light, doppler can not occur.
> I can give a counterexample. The speed of sound IS NOT
> "relative." It is constant only in one reference frame, which is the
> reference frame of the fluid or solid that is carrying it. Yet, the
> speed of a source does cause a Doppler shift even in the reference
> frame of fluid or solid that is carrying the sound.
Hello!!!!
That is because the observer and the source speeds are relevant.
and if they were not relevant, the constant speed to all would never
alloow doppler at all.
What you just said actualyl agrees with me.
The speed ofthe sound is NOT constant to all frames.
The relative speeds cause the doppler effect.
Sheesh man!
> A person listening
> to a train whistle hears the change of pitch as the train goes by him.
> However, the speed of sound is constant relative to the listener. Only
> the pitch changes.
Wrong.
If the speed was the same coming from a moving source as from
a non moving source, no doppler would occur.
>> It is not a "fixed" value,
>> If it were fixed, no Doppler effect would be possible with light.
> That is not true. A source perceives of itself as generating each
> segment of the wave front at the same time.
> A viewer perceives of different parts of the coherent wave front
> being emitted from the observer at different times. No section of the
> wave front is moving faster than the speed of light.
If the motion of source is irrelevant to the wave emission rate.
Doppler would not occur.
> This isn't true. If this was true, don't you think everyone
> working in physics or engineering would notice this?
Engineers have no problem with what I am saying.
the source emits each wave at a different position,
If the motion did not do such, no doppler would occur.
The speed is the cause for the doppler.
> Draw the wave fronts. First draw concentric circles. This is how
> light is viewed in the source frame. Then draw off center ellipses,
> with the center of each ellipse progressing forward. This is light as
> seen in the viewer frame.
You are the one that needs to look more at the drawings and
stop think about the speed of the source not being relavant.
It is joke to think such.
The source can not emit the same frequency when moving
that is can when not moving.
the wavelengths will be closer together id the source is
moving towards you and further apart if moving away from you.
Sheesh man ... get a clue how doppler "Really" works.
It is caused by relative speeds.
Without relative speeds being the cause.
the source could emit waves from different spots than
it is actually in.
Sheesh AGAIN!
The TimeLord
b752765e-c388-4f1e...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 15, 4:09 pm, The TimeLord <math-n-physics-...@att.com> wrote:
>> Am Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:25:49 -0700 schrieb Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
>> in
>
>> Obviously you don't know the experimental results that clearly show
>> that light *does* conform to Maxwell's equations. As for light not
>> being a wave, Charles Young's Experiment settled that point: light is a
>> wave and not a particle. (Side note = The photoelectric effect clearly
>> shows that light is a particle and not a wave.)
>
> Um, you have no philosophical problem with light being both a particle
> and wave at the same time? Yeah, I understand. Almost nobody else in
> modern physics has a problem with these kinds of statements either!
No, I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with those who
think they've figured it all, and yet don't consider experimental facts.
>
>> > so-called "explanations" for light and EM "waves" is a total mess.
>> > One has to ask if the "continuous" model is actually valid for any
>> > phenomena?
>>
>> It is. Example: light waves, sound waves, pressure waves, water waves,
>> etc.
>
> Um, you just said light is a particle! Sound waves and pressure waves
Yeah, a particle and not a wave. It's also a wave and not a particle.
Weird, right? But that's the experimental results.
> are not transverse. And as for water waves...Well I understand there is
> this new theory of "quantum water" whereby water is composed of
> particles known a Hotons [Short for H2Otons but the numbers are always
> silent in pronunciation!]...
[smile] And light is nothing like water, air or sound.
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
Spaceman
> Am Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:48:41 -0400 schrieb "Spaceman"
> <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> in
> X8CdndgKr-ZCazvV...@comcast.com:
>
>> The TimeLord wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:58:02 -0400 schrieb "Spaceman"
>>> <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> in
>>> C86dnbr8jd5HQjjV...@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> The TimeLord wrote:
>>>>> Except that the same effect (speed of light in a vacuum not
>>>>> depending on the observer) is measured, by experiment, by
>>>>> different instruments.
>>>>
>>>> That is the biggest bullshit lie relativists sell. 100% snake oil.
>>>
>>> Actually it's accepted as fact since experiments show clearly that
>>> the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers and
>>> does not depend on the instrument used.
>>
>> Apparently you have purchased a whole bunch of the snake oil. Do you
>> have any clue about Doppler effects? Do you know that if the speed of
>
>
>> light were not "relative" then Doppler effect could not occur to
>> light creating red nor blue shifts? I think you better dump your
>> supply of
>
> effect is a wave phenomenon, light exhibits the Doppler effect. Since
> we know that the speed of light is v=c/n for any medium with index of
> refraction and n does not depend on the speed of the source or the
> observer, we conclude that for a vacuum with n=1 the speed v=c for all
> observers. This is true even in classical electromagnetic theory, so
> why do you agree with Pentcho Valev that v of light and consequently
> the index of refraction n must depend on the instrument being used to
> measure it? That's like claiming that the salt content of ocean water
> depends on who's looking at it, and so is utter nonsense.
You really don't understand that if the speed of light was not
relative that doppler could not occur at all?
Lets say it simply like this.
If one second of light is emitted from a source,
and you are traveling towards that source.
Would you see 1 whole second worth of light still
if you were moving at 0.5c?
Do you not understand that the relative speed towards
the light source creates the shorter "total" time of seeing the
light?
> Incorrect. The Doppler effect result from the wave nature of light,
> not its speed. If you had paid attention in physics class you would
> know this basic fact.
You poor thing,
You tool the brainwashing course it seems.
If you paid attention in "real" physics classes you would have a clue about
the "physical" cause for Doppler effect.
It is caused by relative speeds.
Without relative speeds, doppler does not occur at all
Do you always like to prove you skipped basic physics
and never learned the most basic cause of the doppler effect?
Darwin123
> On Aug 15, 4:09 pm, The TimeLord <math-n-physics-...@att.com> wrote:
>
> > Am Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:25:49 -0700 schrieb Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> in
> Um, you just said light is a particle! Sound waves and pressure waves
> are not transverse. And as for water waves...Well I understand there
> is this new theory of "quantum water" whereby water is composed of
> particles known a Hotons [Short for H2Otons but the numbers are always
> silent in pronunciation!]...
Even in classical mechanics without quantum electrodynamics (QED),
the water has a "quantized" nature. Water is made of molecules.
Molecules are made of atoms. Water surface waves guide the statistical
distribution of molecules and atoms.
The same goes for the classical mechanics without QED of sound in
air. Air is also made of molecules and atoms also, Therefore, the
sound we hear has a dual nature, as a wave in a continuous medium and
as a wave following discrete mechanics.
Now with quantum electrodynamics, these excitations end up having
TWO wave natures and TWO particle natures. As stated before, sound
waves and water surface waves have a "quantized" nature because the
medium that carries them is quantized in molecules and atoms. However,
QED says that these atoms and molecules have to be guided by matter
waves (e.g., DeBroglie waves). Furthermore, these waves have to be
quantized separately. So sound waves have a particle associated with
them called a bulk phonon. The water surface wave has a particle
associated with it, which is called a surface phonon.
Two wave natures and two particle natures for each "entity". A
wave and a particle for the excitation. A wave and a particle for the
medium that carries the excitation. Of course, these different
representations are coupled together and have underlying symmetries
that simplify the concepts. However, one has to get really into it
before one appreciates the underlying simplicity in waht seems to be a
complex mixture of concepts.
Thomas Heger
> Am Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:44:55 +0200 schrieb "Thomas Heger"
> <tomhe...@web.de> in g86ejr$piv$00$1...@news.t-online.com:
>
> That part I understand. However, I don't see how that allows atoms to be
> modelled without resorting to something like QM. In that case the meaning
> of the underlying quaternions would be different when modelling
> relativistic effects vs atoms, but that's not really an issue.
>
> I don't deny that it can be done, but it *does* seem like more and
> unnecessary work.
>
What do you mean with unnecessary??
I want to describe a mechanism and can do it only as I think, it actually
works.
The mechanism itself is simple and has some inner logic, but it is very
counter-intuitive. So let me try to explain, how I think it works.
Imagine three dimensional 'points' that rotate each other. A full turn in
all dirction is a sphere. Since it is antismmetric we have to go two rounds
to return, what make a half turn 'negative' and its antisymmetric
counterpart 'positive'.
These spheres have an orientation they try to keep, because this space gets
twisted, but does not actually want that and gives it away as fast as
possible. 'It' is the energy associated to rotation. The effect is a
timelike movement of a pattern, that is more or less stable. This we call
'matter'. It is stable in respect to ourselfs as we are created from the
same stuff.
To an orientation we have an associated rotation perpendicular. Since it is
actually three dimensional, we experience that as a cloud around a tiny
node, bound to the node by invisible bonds.
Since the patterns depend on scale, we experience them as fractal behavior.
A rotation gains a helix, than lots of spheres arranged in three dimensions,
than those lattices arranged to say crystals and those to a rock, these to
mountains on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy ....
It is actually a vortex. Now the idea is, that we can see the vortext from
different sides. It has an overall rotation and has a tip that is pointlike
and wizzes around a tiny node. Now we can draw our own past-lightcone into
this picture and rotate the whole vortex in various directions. So we can
rotate it outside in spacelike direction and the rotation paces away and
returns back to create the pattern, we ourselfs are formed of. This we call
radiation, because it is not that stable (in respect to us). Now we could
start a rocket and accelerate ourselfs and twist that cone back a bit. But
easier is to smash some particles and see how that radiates. Or take same
radiation and create particles.
Thomas Heger
Darwin123
> On Aug 11, 8:51 am,Darwin123<drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Light conforms to Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations are
> > inconsistent with the Newtonian motion of particles.
>
> A point of technicality here: Maxwell's equations are not inconsistent
> with Newtonian physics; it's the Maxwell-LORENTZ equations which are.
that Newton's Third Law is stated in present tense. This implies that
if a body applies a force to another body, the other body IMMEDIATELY
exerts a force on the first body equal in magnitude but opposite in
direction. There is no room in Newton's Laws for a delay between
action and reaction. Therefore, equations usually ascribed to Newton
are uniquely defined only when there is no delay between change in
action and change in reaction. There is no delay even if there is a
sizable distance between the two bodies.
F(A/B)=-F(B/A) in Newtonian mechanics. There is no corresponding
equation that adds a delay. Furthermore, the use of a presence tense
in the wording precludes any such delay.
Thus, Kepler's Laws are derived only under the condition that
there is no delay between a planet moving in orbit and the change in
direction of the gravitational force on the sun. Given that there is
absolutely no delay between change in angle and force on sun, there is
no precession of the orbit.
Maxwell's equations are only consistent if there is always a delay
between the action and reaction force. The electromagnetic field is
not recognized to be a body. Electric charges are bodies. Therefore,
when there is a significant distance between electrically charged
bodies there is ALWAYS a delay between change of action and change of
reaction. If you shake one particle, the other particle doesn't shake
until a delay time equal to the distance divided by C. There is no way
for a charge to display immediate action at a distance.
I actually got that from H. A. Lorentz, not Einstein. Lorentz
state straight out that there was a logical contradiction between
mechanics and electrodynamics. Although he didn't exactly my words, it
is apparent from his mathematical development that the Lorentz
equations emerged from the delay. Einstein derived the same equations
from different assumptions, and didn't even mention the initial
inconsistency between mechanics and electrodynamics. However, neither
Einstein no Lorentz created the inconsistency.
Darwin123
wrote:
> Darwin123wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 11:48 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> It is caused by relative speeds.
> Without relative speeds being the cause.
> the source could emit waves from different spots than
> it is actually in.
> Sheesh AGAIN!
>
No. Doppler shift is caused by relative phase, not relative
speed. A difference in speeds can cause a difference in phase.
However, that is not the only way to cause differences in phase.
Another way to get differences in phase is to change the shape of the
wave front. Regardless of what physical dynamics you are using, you
have to consider the shape of the wave front.
In Galilean physics, the change in phase can be caused by a
change in speed, a change in frequency, or a change in shape. I
consider three cases and show how even in the full Newtonian case
shape is important.
1) The case in Galilean physics most similar to the relativistic
case is this. The sound source is not moving with respect to the air.
The listener is moving rapidly relative to the sound source. Here,
there is no relative velocity between air and source. Yet, the
listener experiences a Doppler shift. However, the listener is
perceiving of a different shape for the wave fronts then the source.
The source perceives of wave fronts which are circular, with the
observer near the source at the center of the concentric circles. The
observer near the listener perceives of the wave fronts being
elliptical, with different centers corresponding to positions of the
source at different times. This differs from the relativistic case
only that the listener perceives a different shape of the wave fronts
then the source.
2) Consider both sound source and sound receiver are moving at
the same velocity though the air. Each experience the same wind
because they are moving through the air. However, they are standing
still relative to each other. However, the wind will change the shape
of the wave fronts of sound. If the viewer is behind the source, he
hears a higher pitch. If the viewer is ahead of the source, he hears a
lower pitch. The relative velocity of the sound source to the listener
is zero in this case. This example differs very much from the
relativistic case. Both source and listener in this case perceive the
same shape for the wave fronts: elliptical. Here relative velocity is
least important. Perhaps you are thinking of this case.
3) The usual example of Galilean Doppler shift is the traditional
train whistle/listener example. In this case, the source is moving
with respect to the air while the listener is standing still with
respect to the air. Here, the listener and source have a relative
nonzero velocity with regards to each other. However, the speed
relative to the air is causing is causing a distortion in wave front
shape.
Of course, when I say the observer sees the wave fronts I am
assuming he is using some nonlocal measuring technique that doesn't
involve listening. For example, the observer may be using a lidar
(with laser beam) to view the wave fronts of sound. Light always goes
at the same speed in a vacuum.
I think the relativistic case is most similar to case one in that
the source observer sees the wave fronts as circular and the listener
sees the wave fronts as elliptical. You are using a reductio absurdum
argument, so you have to initially assume that Lorentz contraction
really happens. However, you then have to admit that the viewer will
see a different shape for the wave fronts then the viewer, regardless
of the speed of light. So the viewer will see wave fronts of
different spacing coming at him. He will see a different wavelength
than the source. This Lorentzian interpretation is most closely
similar to case 1 in the Galilean interpretation. However, neither
reviewer can use a lidar to instantaneously view the wave fronts of
light.
There is no instrument that can take a "flash photo" picture of
the wave fronts. However, there are measurement protocols for
constructing the wave fronts from "backdated" measurements. It's an
evasion to say that "backdating is absurd."
Spaceman
> On Aug 16, 3:43 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> Darwin123wrote:
>>> On Aug 16, 11:48 am, "Spaceman"
>>> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>
>> It is caused by relative speeds.
>> Without relative speeds being the cause.
>> the source could emit waves from different spots than
>> it is actually in.
>> Sheesh AGAIN!
>>
> No. Doppler shift is caused by relative phase, not relative
> speed.
Totally incorrect.
Without relative speed, no shift would be detected.
It has nothing to do with "phase" it has to do with the
speed the observer is passing by the wavelengths.
If it passes by the wavelengths faster it will detect a shorter
wavelength from the relative motion/speed.
Why you try to make doppler effect more complex than it is
is rediculous.
Darwin123
wrote:
> That is the biggest bullshit lie relativists sell.
> 100% snake oil.
Trust the snake. Never the snake oil.
John Polasek
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
snip
>>>
>>> Apparently you have purchased a whole bunch of the snake oil.
>>> Do you have any clue about Doppler effects?
>> Do you have a clue about anything?
>>> Do you know that if the speed of light were not "relative" then
>>> Doppler effect could not occur to light creating red nor blue shifts?
>> I do not know this.
Spaceman says:
>Then you should learn it.
>If the speed of the source and the observer is irrelevant to the speed
>of light, doppler can not occur.
You are wrong. Here are the equations you should use:
N = f*t is no. of cycles sent vs time
N' = f*(t - T) = f*(t - X/c) is no. of cycles received, time
delayed
f' = dN'/dt = f(1 - V/c)
The doppler effect depends only on position of the receiver. With each
cycle the receiver is further away, virtually a new customer. There is
no dependence on c+v or c-v.
John Polasek
Spaceman
You truly do not understand doppler then,
If there is 0 relative speed the only other wayto get doppler
is by a medium speed change.
And The doppler effect can and does occur with source motion
also so you are definitely lost on doppler effect.
John Polasek
snip
Source motion? Forget my trivial remark about the receiver motion.
It is clear from myequations that the doppler effect is solely due to
a changing time delay (T = X/c), which is symmetrically attributable
to source or sink motion.
It's the relative velocity that makes doppler. Please point out any
error in the 3 equations above which prove the case without
considerations of the medium.
John Polasek
Spaceman
Excuse me?
Yes Source motion or observer motion,
One or the other must be relative speed to produce a doppler effect.
I am the one saying the "relative" motion is the cause of doppler.
If you do not have relative motion such as c not being constant to all,
You simply can not get any doppler effect without c having a relative
speed
If c is constant to all frames. No Doppler effect could occur period!
c MUST BE RELATIVE.
(Just as any speed is)
John Polasek
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
OK let's try it this way.
N' = f(t-T) = whole no. of cycles received is reduced by time delay T
f' = dN'/dt = f(1 - dT/dt) = f(1 - v/c)
showing the frequency is reduced by the rate at which the time delay
increases or decreases whether due to motion of either source or
receiver.
We did not have to call on c and its stability.
I will agree there is a case to be made for a reduced value of c being
an 'impact velocity' but that begets endless arguments.
I try to stress that the conditions of the experiment are always
changing whether A or B is backing up or going forward, so it's always
a different test.
John Polasek
Spaceman
If you do not call on c, you will never find it's change.
> I will agree there is a case to be made for a reduced value of c being
> an 'impact velocity' but that begets endless arguments.
>
> I try to stress that the conditions of the experiment are always
> changing whether A or B is backing up or going forward, so it's always
> a different test.
The problem is using "wavelength*frequency = relative speed, when it simply
does not.
Wavelength * frequency gives you the "speed relative to the ground only".
It never finds a relative to observer nor source speed.
If a meter stick wrt the ground passes by you at 1 meter per second.
We will say the meter stick had 100 waves.
so that would of course mean 100waves per second passed by you
if you were at rest wrt the ground.
But then you move towards the source that "shot" the meter stick
and you move at 1 meter per second towards it now.
What "frequency do you now read?
John Polasek
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
This is so sophomoric. Your contrived meterstick example cannot be
easily be carried over to the observatory where real doppler readings
are being calculated.
But to give it a shot, your c is 1 m/s and separation X is constant to
begin with and then we move to close the gap with v = -c
Therefore we have a perceived frequency f' = f(1--1) =2f. Isn't that
the answer you wanted?
Notice it's all too easy to say "measure frequency", when nobody ever
does it. They count the number of cycles over some convenient period
of time and perform long division, as in my equation where N and N'
are the prime data.
Think about giving it a rest and adopting my equations.
John Polasek
Spaceman
You are the one that should think about it.
You actually think wavelength*frequency gives a relative speed.
It does not. the wavelengths of the relative observer only seem
like they changed.
The physical wavelength is still unchanged so you are using the wrong
"physical wavelength" if you come up with c still.
:)
John Polasek
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>> Think about giving it a rest and adopting my equations. JP
I'll humor you just once more.
>You are the one that should think about it.
I never said the following:
>You actually think wavelength*frequency gives a relative speed.
I gave you equations that avoided all that claptrap.
>It does not. the wavelengths of the relative observer only seem
>like they changed.
That's why I said "perceived". The remote observer has only 2nd hand
information as to what's going on at the source. The detected
frequency vs a known standard yields the dopper difference in
frequency. The fact that the grating equation works on wavelength
tends to obscure the fact that frequency is easier to deal with.
>The physical wavelength is still unchanged so you are using the wrong
>"physical wavelength" if you come up with c still.
Unless the source is moving toward you, then the wavelength residing
in the 'ether' is shortened. So with constant c, the observer will
observe a higher frequency. This result is given by f' = f(1-v/c) with
v negative.
John Polasek
Spaceman
> I'll humor you just once more.
>> You are the one that should think about it.
> I never said the following:
>> You actually think wavelength*frequency gives a relative speed.
> I gave you equations that avoided all that claptrap.
And what relative speed of the wave WRT the moving object
do you come up with then using such?
Or are you ignoring what I am trying to tell you to begin with,
that the speed of light can not be constant to all frames?
>> It does not. the wavelengths of the relative observer only seem
>> like they changed.
> That's why I said "perceived". The remote observer has only 2nd hand
> information as to what's going on at the source. The detected
> frequency vs a known standard yields the dopper difference in
> frequency. The fact that the grating equation works on wavelength
> tends to obscure the fact that frequency is easier to deal with.
And I am trying to show that the speed of light can not be constant
to all, what are you trying to show?
>> The physical wavelength is still unchanged so you are using the wrong
>> "physical wavelength" if you come up with c still.
> Unless the source is moving toward you, then the wavelength residing
> in the 'ether' is shortened.
No it is not.
The wavelength is not "physically" shortened, it is perceived as shortened.
The physical length does not change.
> So with constant c, the observer will
> observe a higher frequency. This result is given by f' = f(1-v/c) with
> v negative.
Again, you have jumped to the "constant c" bullshit without realizing
that you are ignoring the "relative c" that is causing the "perceived"
shortening of the wavelength and perceived increase in frequency.
You are simply ignoring the "physical wavelength and frequency"
and using the perceiveded crap instead to come up with the "constant"
c bullshit.
Are you trying to find "relative speed" at all?
No, it sure seems like you are not.
Since you are ignoring the physical and using the perceived only instead.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
.
Pentcho Valev
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
> be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
> Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
> fields" is absolutely necesary:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
> principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
> be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
> a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
> had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
> one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
> train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
> speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
> emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
> that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
> Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
> result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
> contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
> we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
> result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
> ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
> or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
> was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
> Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
> one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
> his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
> prove to be superfluous."
An interesting argument in favour of "particles":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6274f6c841416476
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com