🚀 go-pugleaf

maxwell <spsi@shaw.ca> wrote in message
  b609b964-123a-4fea-bd12-ab0cc6029b25@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
> 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.

... and making sure that every little physicist in the world can
afford a FAT CAR, paid for by YOUR tax contribution. HA!

Dirk Vdm