http://www.physorg.com/news85336254.html
is always an eternal found;is always a surprise.noone speaking
that einstein is wrong,and must return the newton"s time...but yes,that he always something to say.believe the its fluxiones when
well-understanding will be a high mathematical tool to explain many aspects of the physics.the difference between newton and einstein,is that newton was also a
fantastic pure mathematician
Please rephrase your wording into an understandable syntax.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Dec 15 2006, 10:37 AM)
http://www.physorg.com/news85336254.html
is always an eternal found;is always a surprise.noone speaking
that einstein is wrong,and must return the newton"s time...but yes,that he always something to say.believe the its fluxiones when
well-understanding will be a high mathematical tool to explain many aspects of the physics.the difference between newton and einstein,is that newton was also a
fantastic pure mathematician
?
is always an eternal found;is always a surprise.noone speaking
that einstein is wrong,and must return the newton"s time...but yes,that he always something to say.believe the its fluxiones when
well-understanding will be a high mathematical tool to explain many aspects of the physics.the difference between newton and einstein,is that newton was also a
fantastic pure mathematician
?
mr.wensveen
i only said:that the studies about newton are always very interesting and with many surprises.did understand,now ? is only this.
I only digo:que os estudos acerca de newton sao sempre muito interessante.e com muitas surpresas.entendeu,agora,PÔ? É SOMENTE ISSO
i only said:that the studies about newton are always very interesting and with many surprises.did understand,now ? is only this.
I only digo:que os estudos acerca de newton sao sempre muito interessante.e com muitas surpresas.entendeu,agora,PÔ? É SOMENTE ISSO
archer
i only said,what newton is genius.only this.do understood?
do already read joyce?the optiks of newton.i don't know...bur i have surely absolute that you read not noyhing.
i only said,what newton is genius.only this.do understood?
do already read joyce?the optiks of newton.i don't know...bur i have surely absolute that you read not noyhing.
QUOTE
"The manuscript is important in part, because it shows how Newton linked alchemy to his early theory of gravitation," Newman says. "Many alchemists had argued that an ethereal substance circulated between the center of the earth and the sun, and that this invisible material was responsible for combustion, for the subterranean generation of metals, and for the preservation of life in general. In 'Of Natures obvious laws' the young Newton adopted this alchemical theory and modified it by saying that the ether pushed all matter towards the center of the earth, hence accounting for why things fall." in New transcription reveals Newton's rare 'theory of everything'
A very brief historical introduction to the Aether, mostly from different Wikipedia articles:
The aether (also written as "ether") was widely accepted in ancient Greek philosophy and science. This Greek concept seems to derive directly from the akasha, its Hindu counterpart. In Greek doctrines it seems that the aether was the celestial fire, the pure essence where the gods lived and which they breathed. In this connection, it seems that aether is radiative heat like that of the sun, which is able to propagate in empty space. The Greek word aither derives from an Indo-European root aith- ("burn, shine"). This root figures in the name of Aithiopia (Ethiopia), which means something like "burnt land".
The aether is a concept used in ancient and medieval science, i.e. Alchemy, as a substance. The aether was believed to be the substance which filled the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. Aristotle included it as a fifth element distinct from the other four, Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. Note that the classical elements can be seen as compared to our known phases of matter: Solid (Earth), Liquid (Water), Gas (Air), Plasma (Fire); the aether has been still illusive to our science. Aether was also called Quintessence (from quinta essentia, "fifth element"). Its Platonic solid, according to Plato, was the Dodecahedron.
The etheric plane or etheric region is one of the planes of existence, or more specifically a subplane or planes, in esoteric philosophies, in some religious teachings and in New Age thought. In neo-Theosophical and Christian Rosicrucian cosmology the etheric plane constitutes the fourth[higher] subplane of the physical plane, the lower three being the states of solid, liquid, and gaseous matter. According to these teachings, there is - in addition to the solids, liquids, and gases which compose the Chemical Region of the Physical World - a finer grade of matter called ether, which permeates the atomic structure of the earth and its atmosphere. The ether, which is disposed in four grades of density, is considered to be physical matter and responsive to the same laws which govern other physical substances upon the physical world (the blue haze seen in mountain canyons is said to be in fact ether of the kind known to occult investigators as chemical ether).
In the early 21st century, the British physicist and electrical engineer Harold Aspden writes "In it [his book The Physics of Creation, 2003] you will discover some of the truths of physical science that have eluded mention in standard textbooks on physics. I believe there are two intermeshing worlds, both having three space dimensions, the material world that we can see and the unseen ghost-like underworld [etheric] that we can sense by phenomena which the orthodox physicist cannot explain, notably gravitation. My subject is 'Creation' and the related quest of 'Unification', that Holy Grail of the theoretical physicist, which can only be found by those willing to wander in the darkness, probing the fluid-crystal-like structure of the aether, the oscillatory jitter of which accounts for its quantum electrodynamic properties and, arising from its need for dynamic balance, the force of gravitation."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "The manuscript is important in part, because it shows how Newton linked alchemy to his early theory of gravitation," Newman says. "Many alchemists had argued that an ethereal substance circulated between the center of the earth and the sun, and that this invisible material was responsible for combustion, for the subterranean generation of metals, and for the preservation of life in general. In 'Of Natures obvious laws' the young Newton adopted this alchemical theory and modified it by saying that the ether pushed all matter towards the center of the earth, hence accounting for why things fall." in New transcription reveals Newton's rare 'theory of everything' |
A very brief historical introduction to the Aether, mostly from different Wikipedia articles:
The aether (also written as "ether") was widely accepted in ancient Greek philosophy and science. This Greek concept seems to derive directly from the akasha, its Hindu counterpart. In Greek doctrines it seems that the aether was the celestial fire, the pure essence where the gods lived and which they breathed. In this connection, it seems that aether is radiative heat like that of the sun, which is able to propagate in empty space. The Greek word aither derives from an Indo-European root aith- ("burn, shine"). This root figures in the name of Aithiopia (Ethiopia), which means something like "burnt land".
The aether is a concept used in ancient and medieval science, i.e. Alchemy, as a substance. The aether was believed to be the substance which filled the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. Aristotle included it as a fifth element distinct from the other four, Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. Note that the classical elements can be seen as compared to our known phases of matter: Solid (Earth), Liquid (Water), Gas (Air), Plasma (Fire); the aether has been still illusive to our science. Aether was also called Quintessence (from quinta essentia, "fifth element"). Its Platonic solid, according to Plato, was the Dodecahedron.
The etheric plane or etheric region is one of the planes of existence, or more specifically a subplane or planes, in esoteric philosophies, in some religious teachings and in New Age thought. In neo-Theosophical and Christian Rosicrucian cosmology the etheric plane constitutes the fourth[higher] subplane of the physical plane, the lower three being the states of solid, liquid, and gaseous matter. According to these teachings, there is - in addition to the solids, liquids, and gases which compose the Chemical Region of the Physical World - a finer grade of matter called ether, which permeates the atomic structure of the earth and its atmosphere. The ether, which is disposed in four grades of density, is considered to be physical matter and responsive to the same laws which govern other physical substances upon the physical world (the blue haze seen in mountain canyons is said to be in fact ether of the kind known to occult investigators as chemical ether).
In the early 21st century, the British physicist and electrical engineer Harold Aspden writes "In it [his book The Physics of Creation, 2003] you will discover some of the truths of physical science that have eluded mention in standard textbooks on physics. I believe there are two intermeshing worlds, both having three space dimensions, the material world that we can see and the unseen ghost-like underworld [etheric] that we can sense by phenomena which the orthodox physicist cannot explain, notably gravitation. My subject is 'Creation' and the related quest of 'Unification', that Holy Grail of the theoretical physicist, which can only be found by those willing to wander in the darkness, probing the fluid-crystal-like structure of the aether, the oscillatory jitter of which accounts for its quantum electrodynamic properties and, arising from its need for dynamic balance, the force of gravitation."
"In 'Of Natures obvious laws' the young Newton adopted this alchemical theory and modified it by saying that the ether pushed all matter towards the center of the earth, hence accounting for why things fall."
Hurray for your answer. People don't comprehend the difficulty of a different language. Yes, Newton had a gift for mathematics and Einstein did not, but each was a genius.
ekhalom Posted: Dec 15 2006, 06:09 PM some text which included:
"... I believe there are two intermeshing worlds, both having three space dimensions, the material world that we can see and the unseen ghost-like underworld [etheric] that we can sense by phenomena which the orthodox physicist cannot explain, notably gravitation. "
I regard that anything to do with the hypothetical concept "aether" lost scientific meaning when the Michelson-Morley measurement of the velocity of light demonstrated that the direction of light travel in their apparatus showed no difference no matter the time of year or direction with respect to a compass.
I have long interpretted their experiment to show that the velocity of light was invariant no matter when or where observed, but someone corrected me that the missing ether-drift was the objective of Michelson and Morley.
So far as the two intermeshing worlds goes, that sounds like Plato's theory of the real and ideal worlds which goes back over two millenia. I know that Roger Penrose believes in the Plato concept, but I don't.
The praise of Harold Aspden's books seems questionable so far as revealing anthing important goes, but I'll look into it if I ever run across it.
I assume that ekhalom doesn't not care for Einstein's space-time work so far as it includes a theory of gravitation, but that's his problem, not mine.
"... I believe there are two intermeshing worlds, both having three space dimensions, the material world that we can see and the unseen ghost-like underworld [etheric] that we can sense by phenomena which the orthodox physicist cannot explain, notably gravitation. "
I regard that anything to do with the hypothetical concept "aether" lost scientific meaning when the Michelson-Morley measurement of the velocity of light demonstrated that the direction of light travel in their apparatus showed no difference no matter the time of year or direction with respect to a compass.
I have long interpretted their experiment to show that the velocity of light was invariant no matter when or where observed, but someone corrected me that the missing ether-drift was the objective of Michelson and Morley.
So far as the two intermeshing worlds goes, that sounds like Plato's theory of the real and ideal worlds which goes back over two millenia. I know that Roger Penrose believes in the Plato concept, but I don't.
The praise of Harold Aspden's books seems questionable so far as revealing anthing important goes, but I'll look into it if I ever run across it.
I assume that ekhalom doesn't not care for Einstein's space-time work so far as it includes a theory of gravitation, but that's his problem, not mine.
QUOTE (CactusCritter+Dec 17 2006, 07:20 AM)
The praise of Harold Aspden's books seems questionable so far as revealing anthing important goes, but I'll look into it if I ever run across it.
Thank you for your comments. It is not my aim to engage here in a vanity discussion about physics theories or the history of physics in the 19th and 20th centuries. Yes, do give a good look into Aspden's work: the orthodox bishop wasn't able to give that same look into Galileo's telescope and we all know what happened afterwards.
See you.
Thank you for your comments. It is not my aim to engage here in a vanity discussion about physics theories or the history of physics in the 19th and 20th centuries. Yes, do give a good look into Aspden's work: the orthodox bishop wasn't able to give that same look into Galileo's telescope and we all know what happened afterwards.
See you.
NEWTON VERSUS EINSTEIN IN THE ROYAL SOCIETY
Some time ago the Royal Society conducted a poll that gave a conclusion more or less like "Newton is greater than Einstein":
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880
This conclusion is misleading. In terms of initial principles the only difference between Newton and Einstein is that Newton regarded light as DISCONTINUOUS particles whose speed, like the speed of other particles, could only be VARIABLE (varies with the speed of the light source), whereas Einstein based his theory on the concept of light as a CONTINUOUS field and postulated that the speed of light was CONSTANT (independent of the speed of the light source). The importance of this initial difference was given by Einstein himself:
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
So Newton cannot be just greater than Einstein. Either the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source and then Einstein has improved Newton's theory, or the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source and then Einstein has destroyed modern physics. A new poll is necessary where the question should be: "Who was right about the speed of light?". In a normal world such problems would not be resolved in polls but in Einstein's world that is the only choice.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Some time ago the Royal Society conducted a poll that gave a conclusion more or less like "Newton is greater than Einstein":
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880
This conclusion is misleading. In terms of initial principles the only difference between Newton and Einstein is that Newton regarded light as DISCONTINUOUS particles whose speed, like the speed of other particles, could only be VARIABLE (varies with the speed of the light source), whereas Einstein based his theory on the concept of light as a CONTINUOUS field and postulated that the speed of light was CONSTANT (independent of the speed of the light source). The importance of this initial difference was given by Einstein himself:
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
So Newton cannot be just greater than Einstein. Either the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source and then Einstein has improved Newton's theory, or the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source and then Einstein has destroyed modern physics. A new poll is necessary where the question should be: "Who was right about the speed of light?". In a normal world such problems would not be resolved in polls but in Einstein's world that is the only choice.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev Posted: Today at 6:57 AM "replying to Newon".
I assume that Newton, not Newon was the intended typing.
"This conclusion is misleading. In terms of initial principles the only difference between Newton and Einstein is that Newton regarded light as DISCONTINUOUS particles whose speed, like the speed of other particles, could only be VARIABLE (varies with the speed of the light source), whereas Einstein based his theory on the concept of light as a CONTINUOUS field and postulated that the speed of light was CONSTANT (independent of the speed of the light source). The importance of this initial difference was given by Einstein himself:"
Inasmuch as Einstein, in his creative outburst of 1904, published the theory of the photoelctric effect, using the insight about photons priovided by Planck's work with the spectral characteristics of blackbody radiation, I fail to understand how you can state that Einstein regarded as a continuous field.
In addition to Einstein's theoretical work, Michelson and Morley of 1888 (IIRC) demonstrated that there was no ether drift which I believe represents proof that the velocity of light is independent of the direction and velocity f the source.
If my thinking is too shalllow, please direct me to where I can straighten out the misunderstanding that your statements indicate that I have.
I assume that Newton, not Newon was the intended typing.
"This conclusion is misleading. In terms of initial principles the only difference between Newton and Einstein is that Newton regarded light as DISCONTINUOUS particles whose speed, like the speed of other particles, could only be VARIABLE (varies with the speed of the light source), whereas Einstein based his theory on the concept of light as a CONTINUOUS field and postulated that the speed of light was CONSTANT (independent of the speed of the light source). The importance of this initial difference was given by Einstein himself:"
Inasmuch as Einstein, in his creative outburst of 1904, published the theory of the photoelctric effect, using the insight about photons priovided by Planck's work with the spectral characteristics of blackbody radiation, I fail to understand how you can state that Einstein regarded as a continuous field.
In addition to Einstein's theoretical work, Michelson and Morley of 1888 (IIRC) demonstrated that there was no ether drift which I believe represents proof that the velocity of light is independent of the direction and velocity f the source.
If my thinking is too shalllow, please direct me to where I can straighten out the misunderstanding that your statements indicate that I have.
QUOTE (CactusCritter+Mar 1 2007, 07:17 AM)
Pentcho Valev Posted: Today at 6:57 AM "replying to Newon".
I assume that Newton, not Newon was the intended typing.
"This conclusion is misleading. In terms of initial principles the only difference between Newton and Einstein is that Newton regarded light as DISCONTINUOUS particles whose speed, like the speed of other particles, could only be VARIABLE (varies with the speed of the light source), whereas Einstein based his theory on the concept of light as a CONTINUOUS field and postulated that the speed of light was CONSTANT (independent of the speed of the light source). The importance of this initial difference was given by Einstein himself:"
Inasmuch as Einstein, in his creative outburst of 1904, published the theory of the photoelctric effect, using the insight about photons priovided by Planck's work with the spectral characteristics of blackbody radiation, I fail to understand how you can state that Einstein regarded as a continuous field.
In addition to Einstein's theoretical work, Michelson and Morley of 1888 (IIRC) demonstrated that there was no ether drift which I believe represents proof that the velocity of light is independent of the direction and velocity f the source.
If my thinking is too shalllow, please direct me to where I can straighten out the misunderstanding that your statements indicate that I have.
That Einstein's theory of relativity is based on the concept of light as a continuous field is a commonplace fact.
Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c' is the speed as measured by an observer, c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. If one wishes to reconcile the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment with Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light, one should additionally introduce miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.). Einsteinians did introduce miracles and so destroyed physics.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
I assume that Newton, not Newon was the intended typing.
"This conclusion is misleading. In terms of initial principles the only difference between Newton and Einstein is that Newton regarded light as DISCONTINUOUS particles whose speed, like the speed of other particles, could only be VARIABLE (varies with the speed of the light source), whereas Einstein based his theory on the concept of light as a CONTINUOUS field and postulated that the speed of light was CONSTANT (independent of the speed of the light source). The importance of this initial difference was given by Einstein himself:"
Inasmuch as Einstein, in his creative outburst of 1904, published the theory of the photoelctric effect, using the insight about photons priovided by Planck's work with the spectral characteristics of blackbody radiation, I fail to understand how you can state that Einstein regarded as a continuous field.
In addition to Einstein's theoretical work, Michelson and Morley of 1888 (IIRC) demonstrated that there was no ether drift which I believe represents proof that the velocity of light is independent of the direction and velocity f the source.
If my thinking is too shalllow, please direct me to where I can straighten out the misunderstanding that your statements indicate that I have.
That Einstein's theory of relativity is based on the concept of light as a continuous field is a commonplace fact.
Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c' is the speed as measured by an observer, c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. If one wishes to reconcile the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment with Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light, one should additionally introduce miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.). Einsteinians did introduce miracles and so destroyed physics.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev subscribes to the "emitter theory" of light, and is insensitive to the evidence against it.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...-source%20tests
or the articles linked to here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=82048
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...-source%20tests
QUOTE
If the light emitted from a source moving with velocity v toward the observer has a speed c+kv in the observer's frame, then these experiments place a limit on k.
Experiments Using Cosmological Sources
Comstock, Phys. Rev. 10 (1910), p267.
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, pg 1297-1298 (1913);
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, pg 395--396 (1913).
Zurhellen, Astr. Nachr. 198 (1914), p1.
Observations of binary stars. k < 10-6.
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977).
Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source-velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2*10^-9.
Heckmann, Ann. D'. Astrophys. 23 (1960), p410.
Differential aberration, galaxies versus stars.
These experiments are all subject to criticism due to extinction effects in the interstellar gas; see for instance J.G. Fox Am. J. Phys. 30, p297 (1962); AJP 33, 1 (1964). The standard reference for optical extinction is Born and Wolf, Principles of Optics.
Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources
Beckmann and Mandies, Radio. Sci. 69D (1965), p623.
A moving mirror experiment.
Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964).
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million.
Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), p271.
Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e- annihilation (with center-of-mass v/c ~ 0.5) to be c within 10%.
Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964).
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), p B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c + v, and are consistent with SR.
Because of the high energies of the gammas in Alvaeger, extinction is not a problem for it; Filipas and Fox specifically designed their experiment to avoid extinction.
Experiments Using Cosmological Sources
Comstock, Phys. Rev. 10 (1910), p267.
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, pg 1297-1298 (1913);
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, pg 395--396 (1913).
Zurhellen, Astr. Nachr. 198 (1914), p1.
Observations of binary stars. k < 10-6.
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977).
Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source-velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2*10^-9.
Heckmann, Ann. D'. Astrophys. 23 (1960), p410.
Differential aberration, galaxies versus stars.
These experiments are all subject to criticism due to extinction effects in the interstellar gas; see for instance J.G. Fox Am. J. Phys. 30, p297 (1962); AJP 33, 1 (1964). The standard reference for optical extinction is Born and Wolf, Principles of Optics.
Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources
Beckmann and Mandies, Radio. Sci. 69D (1965), p623.
A moving mirror experiment.
Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964).
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million.
Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), p271.
Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e- annihilation (with center-of-mass v/c ~ 0.5) to be c within 10%.
Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964).
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), p B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c + v, and are consistent with SR.
Because of the high energies of the gammas in Alvaeger, extinction is not a problem for it; Filipas and Fox specifically designed their experiment to avoid extinction.
or the articles linked to here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=82048
Pentcho Valev Posted: Today at 8:06 AM wrote stuff I still have to disagree with.
"That Einstein's theory of relativity is based on the concept of light as a continuous field is a commonplace fact."
When Einstein's theory of the photoelectric effect used the concept of light photons having energy proportional to their wave length, it seems clear to me that he was clearly not thinking of light as a continuous field.
Much to my regret, the General Theory of Relativity was never offered when I was working toward my B.Sc. in Physics, although I was exposed to the Special Theory of Relativity. This took place 57 years ago, some some details are not exactly fresh in my memory.
I'm reasonably sure that the Michelson-Morley measurement of light velocit was included in my curricula. I recall that their apparatus floated on mercury in a ciruclar trough 100 feet or so in diameter; it may have been bigger. They made measurements at various times of day and various times of year.
The constancy of measured velocity within experimental accuracy was stated to have proved that there was no ether drag. If I am erroneous in believing that they drew a consclusion of the constancy of lightspeed without any c'=c+v addition, then I apologize.
I look forward to your response to rpenner whose education appears to have been a number of decades after mine.
Length contraction, I'm sure you are aware, was theoretically derived by Dutch physicist Lorentz, but was also a product of General Relativity and, perhaps, Special Relativity; I don't quite remember the latter.
"Einsteinians did introduce miracles and so destroyed physics."
Inasmuch as a number of experimental measurements have demonstrated the validity of General Relativity, I do not fatham why you make the claim that GR destroyed physics.
I strongly doubt that many physicists support that judgement.
"That Einstein's theory of relativity is based on the concept of light as a continuous field is a commonplace fact."
When Einstein's theory of the photoelectric effect used the concept of light photons having energy proportional to their wave length, it seems clear to me that he was clearly not thinking of light as a continuous field.
Much to my regret, the General Theory of Relativity was never offered when I was working toward my B.Sc. in Physics, although I was exposed to the Special Theory of Relativity. This took place 57 years ago, some some details are not exactly fresh in my memory.
I'm reasonably sure that the Michelson-Morley measurement of light velocit was included in my curricula. I recall that their apparatus floated on mercury in a ciruclar trough 100 feet or so in diameter; it may have been bigger. They made measurements at various times of day and various times of year.
The constancy of measured velocity within experimental accuracy was stated to have proved that there was no ether drag. If I am erroneous in believing that they drew a consclusion of the constancy of lightspeed without any c'=c+v addition, then I apologize.
I look forward to your response to rpenner whose education appears to have been a number of decades after mine.
Length contraction, I'm sure you are aware, was theoretically derived by Dutch physicist Lorentz, but was also a product of General Relativity and, perhaps, Special Relativity; I don't quite remember the latter.
"Einsteinians did introduce miracles and so destroyed physics."
Inasmuch as a number of experimental measurements have demonstrated the validity of General Relativity, I do not fatham why you make the claim that GR destroyed physics.
I strongly doubt that many physicists support that judgement.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 1 2007, 08:31 AM)
Pentcho Valev subscribes to the "emitter theory" of light, and is insensitive to the evidence against it.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...-source%20tests
or the articles linked to here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=82048
Elsewhere your Master Tom Roberts has set the following problem:
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/L...erts/sld011.htm
"Speed of Light Emitted by Moving Sources
As a simple test theory, assume the observed speed of light is given by V_obs=c+kV_source with k to be determined by experiment."
So what value: k=1 or k=0, has been determined by Michelson-Morley experiment? The answer: k=1 if there are no miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.); k=0 if miracles are badly needed. Do you agree? Do you understand anything?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...-source%20tests
or the articles linked to here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=82048
Elsewhere your Master Tom Roberts has set the following problem:
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/L...erts/sld011.htm
"Speed of Light Emitted by Moving Sources
As a simple test theory, assume the observed speed of light is given by V_obs=c+kV_source with k to be determined by experiment."
So what value: k=1 or k=0, has been determined by Michelson-Morley experiment? The answer: k=1 if there are no miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.); k=0 if miracles are badly needed. Do you agree? Do you understand anything?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
While Michelson-Morley experiment cannot rule out Newtonian mechanics + emitter theory + k = 1 -- this is not what the experiment was designed to check. It is also consistant with Newtonian mechanics + Earth-dragged Luminiferous Aether but that also is not what it was designed to check. What was being checked in the Michelson-Morley experiment was Newtonian mechanics + Young's Immobile Luminiferous Aether.
Emitter theory was ruled inconsistant with the behavior of light in a medium of refractive index N > 1. In wave theory the wave is required to slow down -- in emitter theory the light is required to speed up. Tests showed that light does slow down, therefore emitter theory's predictions are shown to have the wrong sign. The experimental tests of v_obs = c + k v_source are also totally inconsistant with emitter theory.
The dragged-aether hypothesis would require the Aether to have no shear strength and so transverse waves would be ruled out. Also, dispersion means that the aether was dragged different amounts for different frequencies, turning the one Aether of 17th century thought into a very large number. Also, some experiments (Airy) seemed to rule out the dragged aether altogether.
The current theory of light, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) = Lorentzian (Einsteinian, Minkowski) kinematics (aka. Special theory of Relativity) + Quantum Mechanics + postulate of a massless spin-1 boson coupled to electric charge as a U(1) gauge field. In addition to being consistant with Michelson-Morley, it has none of the problems listed above, and gives us detailed and precise information, like the magnetic moment of the electron to 12 decimal places.
Science is progressive. We can never prove a theory is correct, but when we prove it is dead, it stays dead.
Pentcho Valev, thanks for the Fermilab slide show. I'm not at all sure how you think it strenthens you case. Perhaps you think because others oppose your views it makes you more right -- which is not the common view.
Emitter theory was ruled inconsistant with the behavior of light in a medium of refractive index N > 1. In wave theory the wave is required to slow down -- in emitter theory the light is required to speed up. Tests showed that light does slow down, therefore emitter theory's predictions are shown to have the wrong sign. The experimental tests of v_obs = c + k v_source are also totally inconsistant with emitter theory.
The dragged-aether hypothesis would require the Aether to have no shear strength and so transverse waves would be ruled out. Also, dispersion means that the aether was dragged different amounts for different frequencies, turning the one Aether of 17th century thought into a very large number. Also, some experiments (Airy) seemed to rule out the dragged aether altogether.
The current theory of light, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) = Lorentzian (Einsteinian, Minkowski) kinematics (aka. Special theory of Relativity) + Quantum Mechanics + postulate of a massless spin-1 boson coupled to electric charge as a U(1) gauge field. In addition to being consistant with Michelson-Morley, it has none of the problems listed above, and gives us detailed and precise information, like the magnetic moment of the electron to 12 decimal places.
Science is progressive. We can never prove a theory is correct, but when we prove it is dead, it stays dead.
Pentcho Valev, thanks for the Fermilab slide show. I'm not at all sure how you think it strenthens you case. Perhaps you think because others oppose your views it makes you more right -- which is not the common view.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Mar 1 2007, 06:57 AM)
NEWTON VERSUS EINSTEIN IN THE ROYAL SOCIETY
Some time ago the Royal Society conducted a poll that gave a conclusion more or less like "Newton is greater than Einstein":
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880
This conclusion is misleading. In terms of initial principles the only difference between Newton and Einstein is that Newton regarded light as DISCONTINUOUS particles whose speed, like the speed of other particles, could only be VARIABLE (varies with the speed of the light source), whereas Einstein based his theory on the concept of light as a CONTINUOUS field and postulated that the speed of light was CONSTANT (independent of the speed of the light source). The importance of this initial difference was given by Einstein himself:
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
So Newton cannot be just greater than Einstein. Either the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source and then Einstein has improved Newton's theory, or the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source and then Einstein has destroyed modern physics. A new poll is necessary where the question should be: "Who was right about the speed of light?". In a normal world such problems would not be resolved in polls but in Einstein's world that is the only choice.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
The wave-particle duality of light implies that some properties can be explained in terms of Newton's particle model of light and the variability of the speed of light is surely one of them. That other properties can be explained in terms of the field concept is important but irrelevant. When Einstein says:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
he obviously means at least one property possibly obeying discontinuity that may have been wrongly dealt with in terms of "continuous structures". He does not refer explicitly to the speed of light but there seems to be nothing else he could refer to. Only variable speed of light could be so fatal for modern physics.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Some time ago the Royal Society conducted a poll that gave a conclusion more or less like "Newton is greater than Einstein":
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3880
This conclusion is misleading. In terms of initial principles the only difference between Newton and Einstein is that Newton regarded light as DISCONTINUOUS particles whose speed, like the speed of other particles, could only be VARIABLE (varies with the speed of the light source), whereas Einstein based his theory on the concept of light as a CONTINUOUS field and postulated that the speed of light was CONSTANT (independent of the speed of the light source). The importance of this initial difference was given by Einstein himself:
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
So Newton cannot be just greater than Einstein. Either the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source and then Einstein has improved Newton's theory, or the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source and then Einstein has destroyed modern physics. A new poll is necessary where the question should be: "Who was right about the speed of light?". In a normal world such problems would not be resolved in polls but in Einstein's world that is the only choice.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
The wave-particle duality of light implies that some properties can be explained in terms of Newton's particle model of light and the variability of the speed of light is surely one of them. That other properties can be explained in terms of the field concept is important but irrelevant. When Einstein says:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
he obviously means at least one property possibly obeying discontinuity that may have been wrongly dealt with in terms of "continuous structures". He does not refer explicitly to the speed of light but there seems to be nothing else he could refer to. Only variable speed of light could be so fatal for modern physics.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 1 2007, 08:31 AM)
Pentcho Valev subscribes to the "emitter theory" of light, and is insensitive to the evidence against it.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...-source%20tests
or the articles linked to here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=82048
EINSTEIN AND THE EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...3/01/Norton.doc John Norton, "Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant Electrodynamics prior to 1905":
Einstein: "I certainly knew that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is something quite independent of the relativity postulate [see chapter 7 in his "Relativity" where he derives the former from the latter]; and I considered what would be more probable, the principle of the constancy of c, as was demanded by Maxwell’s equations, or the constancy of c, exclusively for an observer sitting at the light source. I decided in favor of the first, since I was convinced that each light [ray] should be defined by frequency and intensity alone, quite independently of whether it comes from a moving or a resting light source."
Needless to say, this argument of Einstein's against the emission theory of light is absurd but John Norton gives a more serious reason why Einstein abandoned this theory:
"The principle of relativity, if implemented in Galilean kinematics, dictated that the modified theory must embody an emission theory of light. We know that Einstein entertained such a theory.....Einstein leveled objections against all theories of this type. Some were technical complications. The most fundamental, however, was that these EMISSION THEORIES ADMITTED NO FIELD THEORY.
However at the end of his life Einstein said:
"I consider it quite possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED ON THE FIELD CONCEPT, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
So one can "consider it quite possible" that modern physics died long time ago.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...-source%20tests
or the articles linked to here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=82048
EINSTEIN AND THE EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...3/01/Norton.doc John Norton, "Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant Electrodynamics prior to 1905":
Einstein: "I certainly knew that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is something quite independent of the relativity postulate [see chapter 7 in his "Relativity" where he derives the former from the latter]; and I considered what would be more probable, the principle of the constancy of c, as was demanded by Maxwell’s equations, or the constancy of c, exclusively for an observer sitting at the light source. I decided in favor of the first, since I was convinced that each light [ray] should be defined by frequency and intensity alone, quite independently of whether it comes from a moving or a resting light source."
Needless to say, this argument of Einstein's against the emission theory of light is absurd but John Norton gives a more serious reason why Einstein abandoned this theory:
"The principle of relativity, if implemented in Galilean kinematics, dictated that the modified theory must embody an emission theory of light. We know that Einstein entertained such a theory.....Einstein leveled objections against all theories of this type. Some were technical complications. The most fundamental, however, was that these EMISSION THEORIES ADMITTED NO FIELD THEORY.
However at the end of his life Einstein said:
"I consider it quite possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED ON THE FIELD CONCEPT, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
So one can "consider it quite possible" that modern physics died long time ago.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.