🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 24, 12:55 pm, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 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

I see no logically self-contradictory concepts anywhere.

> 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;

The first statement that space=nothing is not a true statement. It is
devoid of matter. That does not mean it is nothing. Remember, we do
not DEFINE what nature is, we attempt to DESCRIBE what nature is. If
you describe natural space as being nothing, then you have described
it improperly, that's all.

> waves = variations in a medium AND
> in empty space;

Waves are not variations in a medium by definition. I don't know where
you ever got the impression they were.
Waves are phenomena that occur when the laws of physics that apply in
that system take the form of the wave equation, period. Sometimes that
happens when there is a medium present. Sometimes not. You are just
mistaken that

> fields = variation in a component of reality AND not
> made of anything;

And here the conflict is of your own making because you insist (but
only you) that a component of reality MUST be "made of" material
stuff. Physics doesn't share that opinion. There are more things in
the natural world and which obey very strict natural laws than just
material stuff.

> object properties = invariant defining
> characteristics AND values varying by viewpoint;

There is no conflict here. There are some properties of one category
and others of the other category. What makes you think that all
properties need to be of just one of those categories.

> causality = invariant
> determinism across time AND anything goes.

Neither is correct. Causality has NEVER required time-ordered
determinism, though a number of people suspected it should be that way
(because that seemed comfortable). On the other hand, the absence of
strict time-ordering does not imply anything goes. This is a logical
fallacy called the excluded middle.

> 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.

As you can see, there are no contradictions. There are only some
statements where you THOUGHT one statement is held by physics, when in
fact it is not.

> 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.