🚀 go-pugleaf

Pentcho Valev wrote:
>On Jun 11, 11:34�pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:

[snip]

>> Electrodynamics does not agree with experiment because it is WRONG. It
>> was disproved. Light isn't waves in aether it is particles with mass.
>> There is no aether so the waves of electrodynamics are not physical
>> waves and cannot transport physical energy. Photons are real physical
>> particle which can. I don't care if electrodynamics does not agree with
>> experiment - I don't expect it to. Why should it? It is a disproved
>> theory. It started with Maxwell's theory. Its predictions were falsified
>> by the MMX and then by Lord Rayleigh, then by Planck and finally by
>> Einstein who showed that light was generated in quantized lumps it
>> remained in quantized lumps - it does not metamorphose into waves once
>> generated as Planck and others thought.
>>
>> Einstein then totally ignored the fact that he had shown that light
>> isn't waves and set about fixing Maxwell's wave in aether theory - but
>> only in respect of the MMX - not in respect of its other failures. To
>> even do that partial fix he had to ditch 3 perfectly reasonable and long
>> established axioms of physics.
>
>Here it is almost obligatory to quote Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's
>apostle:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
>(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)

not a lot of point My French isn't good enough

[snip] French
>
>Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
>of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
>earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
>moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
>rest.

and a photon from a source moving towards you, has higher energy than a 
photon from a similar stationary force.

>Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
>independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
>consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
>particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
>not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
>transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
>Morley experiment.

Quite so. Whatever happened to the idea of accepting the simplest 
explanation.

> Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
>temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
>simple and familiar.

I don't think "resist" is nearly strong enough. In formulating SR Albert 
totally ignored his own discovery that light is not only generated in 
quantized lumps (as per Planck) but remains particulate until it reaches 
its destination. i.e. at no time does it become a wave. At no point does 
it require aether. At no point does it conform to Maxwell's concept of 
light.

>He introduced his second postulate, more or less
>evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."

"more or less evident" is correct. My researches conclude that the 
second postulate was a simple statement of what was generally accepted 
by physicists of the time having been brought up with an unshakeable 
belief in Maxwell. That is why in AE's 1905 paper he goes to some length 
to justify his first postulate - which he saw as potentially 
controversial - and makes no attempt whatsoever to justify the second as 
it was what was generally accepted.

If you have an unshakeable belief in Maxwell then the MMX showed that 
for some reason an observers speed relative to the aether is always zero 
i.e. the observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether. The second 
postulate is simply describing what an observer stationary w.r.t the 
aether would observe. It is simply saying

"Let us assume that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether and so 
for every observer light will travel every which way at c"

This is reflected in the maths:

"Let us assume that every observer is stationary w.r.t an inertial FoR 
and that for every observer light will travel every which way at c"

How a mathematical abstraction (a FoR) can posses the same physical 
properties as the aether and force light to propagate every which way at 
c when it defines physical space which those same relativists are 
adamant contains nothing physical - no aether - is absurd.

I have Tom Roberts in effect saying "never mind the physical, jump in 
the maths is luverly." The maths works provided you have complete 
freedom to redefine anything which prevents it from working and you 
accept the modern view that physical interpretation is not only 
unnecessary but a singularly bad idea.

If it doesn't work on a physical level - it doesn't work. If there is 
nothing to cause a physical effect then there cannot be a physical 
effect. Nothing happens because the maths says so. Things happen because 
of real physical processes and it is a legitimate aim of physics to try 
and understand nature not merely to mathematically model it.
-- 
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world."  Dr Scott Murray