GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
. net...
: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:46:57 -0600, Tom Roberts

: wrote:
: How does your "ballistic theory" of light explain the need for
: relativistic kinematics in particle interactions that do not involve
: light at all?
:
: As far as I can tell, there is always a plausible alternative
explanation to
: any so-called 'relativistic phenomenon'.
:
: Why don't you tell, then? -- to date, NOBODY has proposed "a plausible
: alternative explanation" for for relativistic kinematics that is in
: agreement with the experiments.

Lying *******!

****in' Roberts has his head up his arse.


:
: For starters: please explain how it is that elementary particles never
: travel faster than c, no matter how much kinetic energy they have.


Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.

:
: That, of course, is just a start on the rich topic of relativistic
: kinematics....

Rich word soup, no meat in it.



:
: For instance the Sagnac effect is fully xplained in purely ballistic
terms.
:
: There's no need for relativistic kinematics in discussing the Sagnac
effect.

Lying ****.


:
:
: I
: have also put forward an alternative to the 'relativistic mass
increase'.
:
: Why is it that particles never travel faster than c, no matter how much
: kinetic energy they have?
Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.
Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.
Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.
Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.
Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.
Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.
Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.
Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.
Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.
Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.
Same reason no baseball can travel faster than a pitcher's arm, its the
top speed of the driving field.
:
:
: The only situations where the LTs might have any relevance might be when
local
: fields exist in such a way that they contitute a virtual 'rest medium'.
:
: You quite clearly don't have a clue.

Wilson is indeed as clueless as Roberts.

:
:
: One thing is certain. Light travels across EMPTY space purely
ballistically.
:
: So you claim. But many experiments refute that claim. shrug

Lying ****.
Many experiments refute Einstein's relativity. shrug

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:20:54 GMT, Tom Roberts
: wrote:
:
: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:46:57 -0600, Tom Roberts

: wrote:
: How does your "ballistic theory" of light explain the need for
: relativistic kinematics in particle interactions that do not involve
: light at all?
:
: As far as I can tell, there is always a plausible alternative
explanation to
: any so-called 'relativistic phenomenon'.
:
: Why don't you tell, then? -- to date, NOBODY has proposed "a plausible
: alternative explanation" for for relativistic kinematics that is in
: agreement with the experiments.
:
: For starters: please explain how it is that elementary particles never
: travel faster than c, no matter how much kinetic energy they have.
:
: Hahaha!


What's this "hahaha" crap?
You were asked a serious question. Give him a decent answer.
Oh yeah, right, as far as you can tell you haven't a clue.
****ing useless sheep shagger.

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:20:54 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:
For starters: please explain how it is that elementary particles never
travel faster than c, no matter how much kinetic energy they have.

[red herring omitted]

Particles cannot be accelerated to beyond c in an accelerator for the simple
reason that the applied field tends towards zero in their vicinity as they
approach that speed. The additional energy required goes into the 'local
reverse field'.

This does not make sense, and does not correspond to actual
observations. In a particle accelerator, the particles continue to
increase their kinetic energy but don't speed up by an observable amount
once they reach c (within measurement resolution). If the field really
"tends toward zero" they would not increase kinetic energy. They do.

When particles interact, it is the kinetic energy of the particles that
counts, not some imaginary "reverse field". Even if one were to imagine
that such a "reverse field" is present, it must be present within a
volume of radius 10^-18 cm, which is the radius to which particle form
factors have been measured -- that is much smaller than the radius of a
proton, and it's not clear how you could possibly distinguish this
"reverse field" from the proton itself.

You keep basing arguments on your personal ignorance, not on actual
facts. That is not a formula for success in science.


[more red herrings omitted]

Why is it that particles never travel faster than c, no matter how much
kinetic energy they have?

....faster than c relative to what?

Relative to any frame used to measure them. Such as the lab frame of
Fermilab. Or CERN. Or ....

[Think about what that means, and why the earth's rotation,
orbit, etc. are not important....]


[still more red herrings omitted]

One thing is certain. Light travels across EMPTY space purely ballistically.
So you claim. But many experiments refute that claim. shrug

Not the ones I have investigated.

Unfortunately for you, that is apparently quite true. That is, you keep
basing your arguments on IGNORANCE, not facts. As I said, that is not a
formula for success in science.

[There's no point in continuing this, until you get a clue
and STUDY the experimental record.]


Tom Roberts

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:28:03 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:20:54 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:
For starters: please explain how it is that elementary particles never
travel faster than c, no matter how much kinetic energy they have.

[red herring omitted]

Particles cannot be accelerated to beyond c in an accelerator for the simple
reason that the applied field tends towards zero in their vicinity as they
approach that speed. The additional energy required goes into the 'local
reverse field'.

This does not make sense, and does not correspond to actual
observations. In a particle accelerator, the particles continue to
increase their kinetic energy but don't speed up by an observable amount
once they reach c (within measurement resolution). If the field really
"tends toward zero" they would not increase kinetic energy. They do.

It makes a lot of sense.

Bolometer experiments show that the energy of the particles PLUS the surounding
'reverse field bubble' increases as though the particle mass is increasing by
'gamma'. I say it doesn't all go into kinetic energy of the particle. It takes
lot of energy to set up a local field in vacuum. A charge moving at high speed
between two capacitor plates constitutes a current flowing through an extremely
high resistance. That creates a very high 'local' voltage drop with a lot of
associated energy.

When particles interact, it is the kinetic energy of the particles that
counts, not some imaginary "reverse field". Even if one were to imagine
that such a "reverse field" is present, it must be present within a
volume of radius 10^-18 cm, which is the radius to which particle form
factors have been measured -- that is much smaller than the radius of a
proton, and it's not clear how you could possibly distinguish this
"reverse field" from the proton itself.

I don't think it could be easily distinguished....and I don't see why it has to
be present within the volume. I imagine the 'bubble' surrounds the charge and
more or less moves with it.

You keep basing arguments on your personal ignorance, not on actual
facts. That is not a formula for success in science.

You on the other hand base your arguments on what you want to believe.
It stands to reason that a moving - or accelerating - charge MUST create a
reactive electric field that opposes the applied accelerating field.

[more red herrings omitted]

Why is it that particles never travel faster than c, no matter how much
kinetic energy they have?

....faster than c relative to what?

Relative to any frame used to measure them. Such as the lab frame of
Fermilab. Or CERN. Or ....

You're just repeating the unproven second postulate.
..... you're just another religious fanatic.


[Think about what that means, and why the earth's rotation,
orbit, etc. are not important....]

A particle moving at 0.999c here will move at c relative to a distant star
moving towards us.



[still more red herrings omitted]

One thing is certain. Light travels across EMPTY space purely ballistically.
So you claim. But many experiments refute that claim. shrug

Not the ones I have investigated.

Unfortunately for you, that is apparently quite true. That is, you keep
basing your arguments on IGNORANCE, not facts. As I said, that is not a
formula for success in science.

I have plenty of facts....in the form of variable star curves.
These are the only real test for c+v.

[There's no point in continuing this, until you get a clue
and STUDY the experimental record.]


Tom Roberts



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Tom Roberts wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:21 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:
if there were actual indications that a ballistic approach was
needed, physicists would respond to them.
There is no indication that any approach OTHER THAN the ballistic
one is
needed.

That is HOPELESSLY naive.

If I may say so you are the one who takes everything you read as being
correct.

How does your "ballistic theory" of light explain the need for
relativistic kinematics in particle interactions that do not involve
light at all?

Very simply. Study Waldron. Again as always you assume that if something
is explained by relativity it cannot be explained by anything else.
Basically it comes down to a choice. Either as per Einstein you assume
the validity of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics and come up with a
theory which distorts space and time, or you assume space and time are
undistorted and make the necessary modifications to electrical theory.
The result is the same.

As Maxwell's electrodynamics depended on an aether which no one now
believes in, and as Maxwell's wave in aether theory was seriously
compromised by the fact that light is made up of particles not waves the
latter would seem the logical choice. Especially as the basis of Maxwell
- Faradays relationships - had been derived in low speed experiments. It
is an article of faith that force on a charged particle caused by a
potential gradient will be the same when the charged particle is moving
at high speed.

Heed the words of Fox.

"it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the VAST QUANTITY
of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory."
[my emphasis]

He looked into it. You haven't. I accept that he knew a damn sight more
about it than I do. In the end he decided narrowly in favour of
relativity based mainly I believe on Alvaeger et al. I assume that the
rest of relativistic physics at that date came under "the VAST QUANTITY
of phenomena" which could equally well be explained by Ritz's theory.

Can you not get it into your head that it is a very close run thing and
relativity might come out on top for no other reason than the total lack
of effort which has gone into trying to make the far simpler ballistic
theory work and the fact that Ritz died prematurely in 1909 leaving a
clear field for Einstein.

Waldron discusses the Alvaeger Nilsson and Kjellman experiment of 1963.
The basis of the experiment was that both carbon and oxygen nuclei when
bombarded with alpha particles absorb the particle and re-emit it at a
lower energy - the difference is emitted as a photon. The carbon
re-emits the photon while the nucleus is still recoiling from the impact
and therefore constitutes a moving source while the delay in the case of
the Oxygen is sufficient for the recoil motion to have ceased.

"From their observations Alvaeger et al concluded that the invariance
postulate was verified. However they published a set of typical
observations and my calculations from these indicated a difference in
the times of flight from the fixed and moving sources. This supports the
ballistic theory and contradicts the Lorentz- Einstein theory. The
reason for this opposed conclusion is not clear and correspondence with
Dr Alvaeger has failed to clear up the discrepancy" Waldron 1977

It is clear that Alvaeger set out to prove the invariance postulate. It
is not clear whether he would be interested in publishing anything which
gave the 'wrong' answer. Would he perhaps keep modifying his set up
until it gave the answer he wanted to publish. It is easily done without
any intent to be fraudulent. In his later, more famous experiment there
appears in the experimental set up a totally unexplained lead collimator
about 1m long with a 5mm hole in it which the gamma photons are expected
to negotiate. The question one has to ask is firstly what was it doing
there and secondly how did his paper pass peer review with a part of the
apparatus unexplained? On can assume that the collimator had an effect
on the results otherwise it wouldn't have been inserted.

There are a whole load of other question re Alvaeger which allow far too
much wiggle room for anyone criticising it. It would of course convince
anyone wanting to be convinced )

--
John Kennaugh

Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
My version of BaTh says that light consists of discreet
particle-like objects
called photons,
Use a different word -- that one is already taken, and has a VERY
different meaning.
I always thought it was confounded cheek of Einstein to rename
'corpuscles' 'photons' but as that is the name used for the particles
of light Henri is entitled to use it even if you don't care for what
he thinks they are composed of.

I think that such PUNs are very confusing, and often completely destroy
an argument or discussion.


Maybe you would care to enlighten us as to what you think they are
composed of.

This is not "me", this is the common and well-established meaning of
"photon": In the standard model, photons are elementary particles with
no internal structure.

Article of faith - how can anyone possible know. Totally illogical see
below.
If they have no internal structure then there must be an infinite number
of different photons each with a different energy? If they do have an
internal structure that could store energy and all photons could be the
same, apart from the energy stored in them. The latter I find more
attractive.

They have no mass

What is your definition of mass? Surely one measures mass either from
momentum (which a photon has) or by the effect of gravity - photons are
attracted by gravity. So photons have mass it is just that this
conflicts with SR which says that anything with mass cannot travel at c
and doctrine says SR cannot be wrong.

or charge, but do interact electromagnetically with charged particles.

If it does not contain charge how can it "interact electromagnetically
with charged particles". If it does not contain charge why do Maxwell's
equations, based solely on the interaction of charges work so well?
If there is no aether for a field to be a stress in then the alternative
is that a field is simply a 'field of influence' of action at a distance
force which cannot exist without a source of influence i.e. charge.
How can something neutral and without any internal structure have
properties related to frequency which is suggestive of a dynamic
internal mechanism? It seems perfectly logical to me that a photon, or
something within the structure of a photon rotates, the faster it
rotates the higher the frequency, the faster it rotates the more energy
it stores and as it is associated with electromagnetic fields it seems
logical that what rotates is charge.


Maybe you think he should use a different name for 'light' as his
ideas as to what it might be differ from yours.

It is not "me" that matters here, it is the accepted definitions and
usages of such words.

The definition of a photon is a particle of light. Henri was using the
word according to that definition. What you are arguing about is what
its structure is. The structure (lack of) you describe may be accepted
theory but that doesn't make it right. In fact it does not explain even
the basics I describe above.

At some point the impeccable wavelike properties produced by photons
en-mass have to be reconciled with the particulate nature of light. When
and only when physics can do that will I believe their concept of the
photon is correct. I doubt that is possible if you assume that a photon
has no internal structure.
--
John Kennaugh

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:29:56 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:

John Kennaugh wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
My version of BaTh says that light consists of discreet
particle-like objects
called photons,
Use a different word -- that one is already taken, and has a VERY
different meaning.

I always thought it was confounded cheek of Einstein to rename
'corpuscles' 'photons' but as that is the name used for the particles of
light Henri is entitled to use it even if you don't care for what he
thinks they are composed of.

I think that such PUNs are very confusing, and often completely destroy
an argument or discussion.


Maybe you would care to enlighten us as to what you think they are
composed of.

This is not "me", this is the common and well-established meaning of
"photon": In the standard model, photons are elementary particles with
no internal structure. They have no mass or charge, but do interact
electromagnetically with charged particles.

If a particle has no internal structure, it cannot possibly posssess properties
that would make it any different from 'empty space'.


How can anyone possibly know that a photon has no internal structure? It
is an article of faith.

Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can
do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you
know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can
make no claims as to the structure of a photon.

Tom is the ideal believer. If he reads it in a text book he will believe
it and defend it.

--
John Kennaugh
A mighty oak is just a nut that stood its ground.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:59:42 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:29:56 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:

John Kennaugh wrote:

This is not "me", this is the common and well-established meaning of
"photon": In the standard model, photons are elementary particles with
no internal structure. They have no mass or charge, but do interact
electromagnetically with charged particles.

If a particle has no internal structure, it cannot possibly posssess properties
that would make it any different from 'empty space'.


How can anyone possibly know that a photon has no internal structure? It
is an article of faith.

Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can
do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you
know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can
make no claims as to the structure of a photon.

It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be considered
as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind. This fits in with the BaTh explanation
of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena.
The nature of that oscillation is not known but I suspect it could be a
rotating +/- charge pair or something like a standing wave running along the
length of the photon 'envelope'.
Photons also have effective 'cross section and length', which explains the
double slit experiment.
Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation
frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its
source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it slowly lose
energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift).

I am also of the opinion that generated EM signals like RF, are just variations
in photon density. The frequency of the 'signal' is probably not directly
related to the broad range of intrinsic oscillations of the photons themselves.

Tom is the ideal believer. If he reads it in a text book he will believe
it and defend it.

It seems all supporters of relativity fit into that category.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:46:33 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:21 GMT, Tom Roberts

How does your "ballistic theory" of light explain the need for
relativistic kinematics in particle interactions that do not involve
light at all?

Very simply. Study Waldron. Again as always you assume that if something
is explained by relativity it cannot be explained by anything else.
Basically it comes down to a choice. Either as per Einstein you assume
the validity of Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics and come up with a
theory which distorts space and time, or you assume space and time are
undistorted and make the necessary modifications to electrical theory.
The result is the same.

As Maxwell's electrodynamics depended on an aether which no one now
believes in, and as Maxwell's wave in aether theory was seriously
compromised by the fact that light is made up of particles not waves the
latter would seem the logical choice. Especially as the basis of Maxwell
- Faradays relationships - had been derived in low speed experiments. It
is an article of faith that force on a charged particle caused by a
potential gradient will be the same when the charged particle is moving
at high speed.

Heed the words of Fox.

"it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the VAST QUANTITY
of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory."
[my emphasis]

He looked into it. You haven't. I accept that he knew a damn sight more
about it than I do. In the end he decided narrowly in favour of
relativity based mainly I believe on Alvaeger et al. I assume that the
rest of relativistic physics at that date came under "the VAST QUANTITY
of phenomena" which could equally well be explained by Ritz's theory.

I have now extended that 'vast quantity' to include binary star curves and the
Sagnac effect, two of the favorite arguments used against BaTh.

Can you not get it into your head that it is a very close run thing and
relativity might come out on top for no other reason than the total lack
of effort which has gone into trying to make the far simpler ballistic
theory work and the fact that Ritz died prematurely in 1909 leaving a
clear field for Einstein.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:59:42 +0000, John Kennaugh
: wrote:
:
: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:29:56 GMT, Tom Roberts

: wrote:
:
: John Kennaugh wrote:
:
: This is not "me", this is the common and well-established meaning of
: "photon": In the standard model, photons are elementary particles with
: no internal structure. They have no mass or charge, but do interact
: electromagnetically with charged particles.
:
: If a particle has no internal structure, it cannot possibly posssess
properties
: that would make it any different from 'empty space'.
:
:
: How can anyone possibly know that a photon has no internal structure? It
: is an article of faith.
:
: Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can
: do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you
: know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can
: make no claims as to the structure of a photon.
:
: It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be
considered
: as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind.

Wow! After nearly nine years the dingbat Wilson is finally catching on
to the obvious!


: This fits in with the BaTh explanation
: of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena.
: The nature of that oscillation is not known


Bull****, of course it is known, it is just not known by Wilson.
E = -dB/dt.
Hanson caught on right away once it was explained to him.

[hanson]
Another way to look at photon representation via a sinusoidal EM
parameter display would be by citing/using the **fundamental**
observation that/of

"A collapsing E-field generates an expanding M-field & visa
versa and these first principles / conservation laws say that

1) If there is no field of neither M nor E: Nothing happens
2) If there is a field present but no change: Nothing happens.
3) If there is a Magnetic Field that starts to collapse, an E field
arises.
4) If M becomes zero, the E will be max+ at pi/2, then
5) E starts to collapse at p/2 down to 0 at pi while
M rises from 0 at pi/2 to max at pi... ...etc & analog to/till 2pi

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../AC.htm#hanson



: but I suspect it could be a
: rotating +/- charge pair or something like a standing wave running along
the
: length of the photon 'envelope'.

Rubbish, too complicated.

: Photons also have effective 'cross section and length', which explains the
: double slit experiment.
: Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation
: frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its
: source?

Of course, idiot.
w = c/f.


.....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless

Yes, it is.


: or does it slowly lose
: energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift).

It doesn't lose any energy at all, what it does is gradually increase
its cross-sectional area and spreads the energy over a greater area.
That's what explains galactic red shift.


: I am also of the opinion that generated EM signals like RF, are just
variations
: in photon density.


No, you are guessing. Radio is a truly coherent wave.
If you want to create a low frequency photon you first
need a parabolic dish to give it direction and stop it
broadcasting in all directions or the energy will quickly
dissipate over a large area. Then you need a low frequency
source such as a radio transmitter, then you need to interrupt
the wave after a single cycle and voila! you have a photon.
A TRAIN of photons all synchronized is a wave on a beam.
A mishmash of traffic unsynchronized is a just a beam, but
each photon has the same frequency as in a laser, out of phase
with the others. (Or a beam may be a mixture of frequencies
as in a beam of white light.)


: The frequency of the 'signal' is probably not directly
: related to the broad range of intrinsic oscillations of the photons
themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Signals carry information by
modulation and one can modulate waves or photons beams equally
easily.


: Tom is the ideal believer. If he reads it in a text book he will believe
: it and defend it.
:
: It seems all supporters of relativity fit into that category.

Well, that's what you expect from non-engineers.