🚀 go-pugleaf

John Kennaugh wrote:
> 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.

The math of *every* physical theory has a direct link to measurement, 
and that link /is/ the "physical interpretation".

> 
> 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.

What do you think cause-and-effect relationships /are/, Kennaugh, 
other than logical connections between certain behavior of Nature and 
other behavior?  And what do you think physical theories /are/, other 
than devices for inferring certain behavior of Nature from other 
behavior*?

* the ordering of logical relationships within any given theory isn't 
generally unique, so cause-and-effect designations are generally 
arbitrary.