🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 10 2009, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2:53 pm, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 5:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 10, 12:57 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 9, 7:36 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 9, 12:54 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but
> > > > > > inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
> > > > > > emission theory of light:
>
> > > > > >http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...
> > > > > > John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
> > > > > > were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
> > > > > > pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
> > > > > > mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
> > > > > > have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
> > > > > > BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
>
> > > > > And this is directly confirmed in experiment.
> > > > > However, it is consistent with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory; you
> > > > > got that wrong.
>
> > > > The problem, Clever Draper, is whether Maxwell's electromagnetic
> > > > theory predicts that the speed of light is unaffected/affected by the
> > > > movements of the observer. Consider this, Clever Draper:
>
> > > >http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002149/01/Norton.pdf
> > > > John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells
> > > > electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
> > > > important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
> > > > propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
> > > > TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the
> > > > velocity of the emitter."
>
> > > Well, that's what Maxwell thought, though that turned out not to be
> > > implied by his equations at all. Maxwell himself later dropped the
> > > extra baggage of the ether, coming to realize what Faraday also
> > > believed, that the fields had a life of their own without need for a
> > > substrate. Einstein also dropped the extra baggage of the ether, but
> > > coming to that conclusion from a different direction -- it was imposed
> > > by the principle of relativity.
>
> > > Either way, the ether is not fundamental to electrodynamics, and
> > > Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics survive just fine without the
> > > ether.
>
> > > > Would John Norton have been right if he had written:
>
> > > > John Norton's text modified: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that
> > > > Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
> > > > important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
> > > > propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
> > > > TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is
> > > > unaffected by the velocities of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER."
>
> > > > Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the
> > > > movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic
> > > > theory?
>
> > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > These types of mediumless fields remind me of the grin of the Cheshire
> > Cat.
> > For the rest of us: no cat, no grin.
>
> Well, the "rest of us" is a rather small but cranky minority,
> apparently, who have difficulty when nature resists pigeonholing.
> Space that isn't devoid of properties, wave phenomena outside of
> media, objects that are neither particles nor waves, fields that
> aren't made of stuff, properties of objects that don't have a unique
> and frame-independent value, causality that doesn't require strict and
> time-ordered determinism -- all of these are threats to favorite
> comfort toys and cuddle bears that are difficult to let go of, even
> when it becomes plain that nature is not as simple as we thought in
> our cuddle-bear days.
>
> PD

You have that rare ability, shared by many of today's theoretical
physicists, to talk about logically self-contradictory concepts and
imagine that these contradictions actually form the basis of reality.
It is no surprise that modern theoretical physics is lost in
"Wonderland"?
Space = nothing AND has properties; waves = variations in a medium AND
in empty space; fields = variation in a component of reality AND not
made of anything; object properties = invariant defining
characteristics AND values varying by viewpoint; causality = invariant
determinism across time AND anything goes.
No, Mr Draper, it is you who are still stuck in the nursery - the
childlike world where any contradiction is allowed and where logical
consistency is not required.
Time to grow up and recognize that when your ideas are so muddled and
contradictory, you have not created a theory of the world (physics)
but a self-indulgent, fools paradise, funded by gullible
governments.