🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 11, 11:34 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >John Kennaugh wrote:
> >> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>> John Kennaugh wrote:
> >>>> The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the
> >>>>classic  sense of the word 'interfere'.
> >>> Sure. But the QUANTUM meaning of the word is what applies. The
> >>>photon  is NOT a "classical" object.
> >>  That is the modern view certainly but physics has now embraced
> >>mysticism  to such an extent that the phrase "quantum particle" is
> >>used almost as  an incantation forbidding anyone from trying to make
> >>sense of it.
>
> >Nonsense. It is just "forbidden" for idiots who do not understand basic
> >quantum mechanics to "make sense of it". And there is a simple and
> >obvious solution: LEARN SOMETHING!
>
> >>> Remember, however, that in QM the waves do not propagate in the same
> >>>direction; indeed, they normally propagate in all possible
> >>>directions....
> >>  As I say physics has embraced mysticism big time.
>
> >"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> >                   -- Arthur C. Clarke
>
> >You merely substitute "mysticism" for "magic". If you would LEARN about
> >modern physics, you would not be mystified.
>
> You clearly do not understand the difference between technology and
> science.
>
>
>
> >> A photon has mass because:
> >> [...]
>
> >If you had any understanding of modern physics,
>
> I understand what modern physics says. I do not accept the validity of
> its basis. Physics has granted itself so many concessions it no longer
> has any right to call itself science.
>
> >you would understand why EVERY ONE of your claims here is wrong, and
> >NONE OF THEM imply that a photon has mass.
> > Specifically: giving photons a mass larger than the current upper
> >limit causes electrodynamics to not agree with experiments.
>
> 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)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

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. 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. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

> > EVERY ONE of your items is fully consistent with photons having zero
> >mass.
>
> Only if you ditch a perfectly reasonable and long established definition
> of Mass. If I recall your new definition is:
>
> "The mass of an object is defined as the norm of its 4-momentum"
>
> How many intellectual hoops are you willing to go through?  Maxwell
> united three branches of physics and showed that a single aether can
> explain what a field is (=stress), magnetic and electrostatic action at
> a distance (interaction between stress patterns), and the propagation of
> that stress in the form of electromagnetic waves. That was mind
> bogglingly impressive at the time but in the end it turned out to be
> wrong. No one believes in the aether.
> --
> John Kennaugh