EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 11, 10:30*pm, John Kennaugh
wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:
"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
o.uk
Danny Milano wrote:

Hi, I recently came across a very interesting *book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.

Of course its is.

1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt
that light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that
the waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist,

The aether is dead. *Maxwell's equations haven't relied on an
aether for over a hundred years, yet the waves persist. *Or
are you saying that diffraction, refraction, and interference
(such as in the slit experiments) don't really happen?

I'm not saying they don't happen only that light does not physically
consist of waves. If it does what are they waves IN. Perhaps you do not
understand the nature of modern physics. It is no longer a science
merely a branch of mathematics dealing with mathematical modelling. A
mathematical model which works "some of the time" is referred to as a
'theory' which works in its "Domain of Applicability". Thus if a wave
mathematical model works some of the time it is described as a theory.

"Experiments with beams of light or of electrons have been made such
that both aspects - waves and particles - are observed. For interference
to occur it is among other things also necessary for the beam to have
available more than one path from source to detector (e.g. a screen).
Interference is explained by the wave picture. When the beam intensity
is sufficiently low and the detector suitable the impact of particles
one by one can be observed. The energy quanta are then localised as if
particles in space and time."

By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase
have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the
sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a
point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent
photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. The minimum in the
low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever
reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. The maximum has
the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically
conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and
cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with
the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some
physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the
normal intensity pattern.



SR is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory
is impeccable, and therefore that the MMX showed that every observer
has nil speed w.r.t the aether.

SR does not employ an aether. *Maxwell and SR stand without aether.

I am talking about the provenance of relativity - the history - where it
came from - the mental processes which underpin it. 20 years or so after
SR was adopted physicists decided that the only thing which matters is
the maths and the maths does not have to concern itself with anything
physical. Your statement is the equivalent of saying that a weather map
does not need to concern itself with physical processes. All that is
required is something to display it on and whether it tells you whether
or not you will get wet.



Einstein's second postulate simply
describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe.
Now no one believes in the aether that interpretation of the MMX is
absurd so the second postulate has no valid foundation and SR makes
no attempt to address the problem that the waves which are the basis
of Maxwell's theory do not physically exist.

Silly. *Yes, silly. *Empirically the speed of light is always
measured to have the same value for inertially moving frames.
That's as solid a foundation for a postulate as you can hope
for.

There is no experiment prior to 1964 which anyone who has studied the
subject would seriously claim shows that the speed of light is always
measured as c from a moving source. There certainly was none when
Einstein formulated his SR theory. The second postulate was not the
result of experiment nor of Einstein's genius, nor divine inspiration it
was simply a statement reflecting the general view at the time among
those brought up on physics dominated by Maxwell. The clue is in his
1905 paper where he goes to some length to justify his first postulate
(because he saw that as potentially controversial) but adds the second
without comment as he was expressing the accepted view.

Don't take my word for it. In the second volume of Sir Edmund
Whittaker's "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity",
published in 1953:
* "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity
theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which
attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the
constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in
a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving
relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely
accepted."

If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's theory is impeccable and if
you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that an
observers speed relative to the aether is always zero i.e. that an
observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether. The second
postulate is simply describing what an observer stationary w.r.t. the
aether would experience.

The wave nature of light is also an empirical fact.

The wavelike behaviour of light is certainly well documented but a wave
cannot explain the photoelectric effect and as I show in the case of the
double slit it does not really explain that either.

That
said waves require no aether, and neither does the modern
formulation of Maxwell, vanishes your argument.

2/ SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that
physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory.

Another "I don't like it so it's wrong" argument.

[rest of maunder mercy snipped]

Note to Danny Milano - You may note how tetchy relativists get when you
attack their religion and how little their faith is built upon. They
believe all sorts of things which are not true. They believe that
Einstein came up with a theory which doesn't need the aether. He didn't
he argued in favour of the aether. Physics made an arbitrary decision
that a physics theory does not require a physical explanation and the
aether is a physical explanation so in the new order is not needed. SR
is a 'principle theory' which is another word for a mathematical model
and as such has nothing to say as to whether there is or there isn't an
aether
--
John Kennaugh
'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' Bertrand Russell.

Some Einsteinians are making their money by trying to convert Divine
Albert's Divine Special Relativity from "principle theory" into a
"constructive theory" and introducing even more idiocies - e.g. the
breathtaking idea that "the forces that hold the parts of the rod
together" are somehow responsible for length contraction:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/
Brown, Harvey R. and Pooley, Oliver (2004) "Minkowski space-time: a
glorious non-entity"

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603
"Harvey Brown thinks that most philosophers are confused about
relativity. Most centrally, he thinks they're confused about the
relativistic effects of length contraction and time
dilation.....According to (what Brown alleges is) the dominant view
among substantivalists, the geometrical structure of Minkowski
spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why
moving clocks run slow. Brown rejects this view. He asserts, instead,
that in order to explain why moving rods shrink we must appeal to the
dynamical laws governing the forces that hold the parts of the rod
together. The geometry of Minkowski spacetime plays no role in this
explanation.....He thinks that good answers to these questions say
something about the way in which the forces holding the parts of the
rod together depend on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of
what causes the particles to get closer together, and so what causes
the rod to shrink."

Pentcho Valev