THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Theoretically, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment can
be obtained by assuming that:

(A) The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source (c'=c
+v); the principle of relativity is correct; there are no miracles
(length contraction, time dilation).

(B) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) is correct; the principle
of relativity is correct; there are miracles (length contraction, time
dilation).

There is no reasonable third alternative. That is, Newton's emission
theory of light with its constitutive equation c'=c+v is the ONLY
alternative to special relativity. Moreover, the emission theory is
TRUE and special relativity FALSE unless one finds natural that a
long train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, an 80m long pole can
be trapped inside a 40m long barn and a bug can be both dead and
alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...related&search

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 27, 1:05*pm, spudnik wrote:
waht he said. *ultimately, it is all mediated
by radiation, but "stuff gets in the way of it."

there is another mode of heat transfer, perhaps
also less analyzable a la Fourier,
"trasporative heat flow," when water flows
over a warm object e.g.

That would seem to allow transmission of information.

message in a bottle(s) ??

That would seem to allow transmission of information.

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

On Mar 28, 6:50*pm, Jennifer The Book Extraordinare
wrote:
message in a bottle(s) ??

I suppose, I was imagining it more like the wind carrying a whisper
but it is a material transfer. How would a signal travel in the heat
source if we varied the water flow?

On Mar 28, 7:37*pm, M Purcell wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:50*pm, Jennifer The Book Extraordinare

wrote:
message in a bottle(s) ??

I suppose, I was imagining it more like the wind carrying a whisper
but it is a material transfer. How would a signal travel in the heat
source if we varied the water flow?

Rather like an electrical signal I guess, maybe it could be used as
part of a thermal circuit.

On 17 feb, 10:25, "Androcles" wrote:
"Mike Terry" wrote in message

...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
....
Theoretically, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment can
be obtained by assuming that:

(A) The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source (c'=c
+v); the principle of relativity is correct; there are no miracles
(length contraction, time dilation).

(B) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) is correct; the principle
of relativity is correct; there are miracles (length contraction, time
dilation).

There is no reasonable third alternative. That is, Newton's emission
theory of light with its constitutive equation c'=c+v is the ONLY
alternative to special relativity. Moreover, the emission theory is
TRUE *and special relativity FALSE unless one finds natural that a
long train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, an 80m long pole can
be trapped inside a 40m long barn

..in the sense described below it can be..

and a bug can be both dead and
alive:

The bug can't be both dead and alive (quantum effects aside!), so if the
article below is claiming this it is wrong...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...related&search

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

..so no problem from either the barn owner's perspective or the runner's
perspective. *Or are you claiming there is some internal contradiction in
the scenario?

Yes. According to the algebra of the theory, moving poles stretch/expand,
they do not shrink/contract. Division by something less than one will
increase
the quotient, 2 = 1/0.5.

No. According to the algebra of the theory, the _do_ shrink/contract.
This is well known. Maybe you've swapped the two frames of reference.

Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is expanded in the direction
of motion, contrary to Baez's lying claim.

That's what _you_ say. It's _not_ what Special Relativity says.

All crackpot theoretical physicists are failed mathematicians.

Why this verbal violence? Does it contribute anything to the argument?

Han de Bruijn

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Theoretically, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment can
be obtained by assuming that:

(A) The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source (c'=c
+v); the principle of relativity is correct; there are no miracles
(length contraction, time dilation).

(B) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) is correct; the principle
of relativity is correct; there are miracles (length contraction, time
dilation).

There is no reasonable third alternative. That is, Newton's emission
theory of light with its constitutive equation c'=c+v is the ONLY
alternative to special relativity. Moreover, the emission theory is
TRUE and special relativity FALSE unless one finds natural that a
long train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, an 80m long pole can
be trapped inside a 40m long barn and a bug can be both dead and
alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...related&search

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 27, 10:47 am, M Purcell wrote:
On Mar 27, 6:30 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
wrote:



On Mar 24, 12:51 pm, (Michael Stemper)
wrote:

In article , "Tim Golden BandTech.com" writes:

On Mar 5, 1:08 pm, spudnik wrote:
heat is infrared lightwaves. there is nothing wrong

This statement on heat merely worsens the conflict, for now you are
claiming that heat propagates at the speed of light,

There are three modes of heat transfer:
1. Radiation
2. Conduction
3. Convection

The first of these, the one that's relevant to spudnik's statement,
does propagate at the speed of light.

yet the
conduction of heat through a solid is extremely slow;

Yup, conduction is much slower than radiation. So is convection. But,
those aren't propagation by infrared E-M waves, but by other mechanisms,
so they're irrelevant.

No Michael.

His argument is in response to my presentation.
I am discussing heat conduction.

Particularly I am discussing the discrepancy between the rate of
propagation of heat to the rate of propagation of sound, both of which
are accepted in modernity to be 'vibrating atoms'. This discussion
does not take place in advanced physics, e.g. Kittel's Solid State
Physics.

Would you care to deny that the mechanism of conduction of heat
through say a bar of steel is via atomic translation? What about
sound?

Particularly, I may take a nail with a very sharp point and hammer it
into one end of the bar of steel and observe that a local perturbation
does conduct through the bar very rapidly. Next take an acetylene
torch at full blast applied to the end of the bar and observe how
remarkably slow that heat will transfer to the other end of the bar.

The interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is flawed. There must be
a more loosely coupled interaction at work in the conduction of heat.

Indeed, the conduction of heat is not as organized as a wave, it's
more analogous to the diffusion of a scent.

Well the rate of propagation of a scent is actually pretty impressive
I think, compared to the rate of conduction of heat. Interesting. Nice
contribution. I agree that the informational problem is not coherent,
but this only adds to the criticism of the interpretation of heat as
vibrating atoms. You are the first that I have seen to accept this
criticism. I hope I am not stuffing words in your mouth.

You use the word 'organized' yet would we call white noise organized?
Here there has to be a stronger characterization I think. Even if we
put 100 small white noise sources up to a bar of steel we may still
possibly measure the 101st's rate of propagation so long as it comes
alone after the others are established, and we have a sufficient power
measuring device. Then too, we'll be heating the bar with our sound
devices won't we...

I think this recognition that heat is actually open to
reinterpretation should be placed alongside the mysteries of mass that
we see in present day. If anything this should be good news to the
string theorist types, but instead they fit their theory in beneath
existing physics.

From the informational perspective we can use heat to signal, and its
low pass effect can be helpful for some signal processing. As a delay
line this is kind of sweet. So for instance a piece of steel wire and
a piece of copper wire terminated with thermocouples would show unique
signals even when applied to the same variable heat source. Varying
their length should alter the filtering mechanism. In terms of duty
cycle measurements or power measure these should be fine. Some of the
best electrical RMS measuring devices use heat measurement don't
they?

Unlike other signalling mechanisms the maximum usable frequency of a
heat conducted signal varies inversely with distance.

- Tim

On Mar 31, 10:28*am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:47 am, M Purcell wrote:





On Mar 27, 6:30 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:51 pm, (Michael Stemper)
wrote:

In article , "Tim Golden BandTech.com" writes:

On Mar 5, 1:08 pm, spudnik wrote:
heat is infrared lightwaves. *there is nothing wrong

This statement on heat merely worsens the conflict, for now you are
claiming that heat propagates at the speed of light,

There are three modes of heat transfer:
1. Radiation
2. Conduction
3. Convection

The first of these, the one that's relevant to spudnik's statement,
does propagate at the speed of light.

* * * * * * * * *yet the
conduction of heat through a solid is extremely slow;

Yup, conduction is much slower than radiation. So is convection. But,
those aren't propagation by infrared E-M waves, but by other mechanisms,
so they're irrelevant.

No Michael.

His argument is in response to my presentation.
I am discussing heat conduction.

Particularly I am discussing the discrepancy between the rate of
propagation of heat to the rate of propagation of sound, both of which
are accepted in modernity to be 'vibrating atoms'. This discussion
does not take place in advanced physics, e.g. Kittel's Solid State
Physics.

Would you care to deny that the mechanism of conduction of heat
through say a bar of steel is via atomic translation? What about
sound?

Particularly, I may take a nail with a very sharp point and hammer it
into one end of the bar of steel and observe that a local perturbation
does conduct through the bar very rapidly. Next take an acetylene
torch at full blast applied to the end of the bar and observe how
remarkably slow that heat will transfer to the other end of the bar.

The interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is flawed. There must be
a more loosely coupled interaction at work in the conduction of heat.

Indeed, the conduction of heat is not as organized as a wave, it's
more analogous to the diffusion of a scent.

Well the rate of propagation of a scent is actually pretty impressive
I think, compared to the rate of conduction of heat. Interesting. Nice
contribution. I agree that the informational problem is not coherent,
but this only adds to the criticism of the interpretation of heat as
vibrating atoms. You are the first that I have seen to accept this
criticism. I hope I am not stuffing words in your mouth.

You use the word 'organized' yet would we call white noise organized?
Here there has to be a stronger characterization I think. Even if we
put 100 small white noise sources up to a bar of steel we may still
possibly measure the 101st's rate of propagation so long as it comes
alone after the others are established, and we have a sufficient power
measuring device. Then too, we'll be heating the bar with our sound
devices won't we...

I think this recognition that heat is actually open to
reinterpretation should be placed alongside the mysteries of mass that
we see in present day. If anything this should be good news to the
string theorist types, but instead they fit their theory in beneath
existing physics.

From the informational perspective we can use heat to signal, and its
low pass effect can be helpful for some signal processing. As a delay
line this is kind of sweet. So for instance a piece of steel wire and
a piece of copper wire terminated with thermocouples would show unique
signals even when applied to the same variable heat source. Varying
their length should alter the filtering mechanism. In terms of duty
cycle measurements or power measure these should be fine. Some of the
best electrical RMS measuring devices use heat measurement don't
they?

Unlike other signalling mechanisms the maximum usable frequency of a
heat conducted signal varies inversely with distance.

I accept any rational critism but your critism of physics seems
unfounded since you seem to be ignorant of it. Scent is distributed by
Brownian Motion.

On Mar 31, 2:06 pm, M Purcell wrote:
On Mar 31, 10:28 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
wrote:



On Mar 27, 10:47 am, M Purcell wrote:

On Mar 27, 6:30 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:51 pm, (Michael Stemper)
wrote:

In article , "Tim Golden BandTech.com" writes:

On Mar 5, 1:08 pm, spudnik wrote:
heat is infrared lightwaves. there is nothing wrong

This statement on heat merely worsens the conflict, for now you are
claiming that heat propagates at the speed of light,

There are three modes of heat transfer:
1. Radiation
2. Conduction
3. Convection

The first of these, the one that's relevant to spudnik's statement,
does propagate at the speed of light.

yet the
conduction of heat through a solid is extremely slow;

Yup, conduction is much slower than radiation. So is convection. But,
those aren't propagation by infrared E-M waves, but by other mechanisms,
so they're irrelevant.

No Michael.

His argument is in response to my presentation.
I am discussing heat conduction.

Particularly I am discussing the discrepancy between the rate of
propagation of heat to the rate of propagation of sound, both of which
are accepted in modernity to be 'vibrating atoms'. This discussion
does not take place in advanced physics, e.g. Kittel's Solid State
Physics.

Would you care to deny that the mechanism of conduction of heat
through say a bar of steel is via atomic translation? What about
sound?

Particularly, I may take a nail with a very sharp point and hammer it
into one end of the bar of steel and observe that a local perturbation
does conduct through the bar very rapidly. Next take an acetylene
torch at full blast applied to the end of the bar and observe how
remarkably slow that heat will transfer to the other end of the bar.

The interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is flawed. There must be
a more loosely coupled interaction at work in the conduction of heat.

Indeed, the conduction of heat is not as organized as a wave, it's
more analogous to the diffusion of a scent.

Well the rate of propagation of a scent is actually pretty impressive
I think, compared to the rate of conduction of heat. Interesting. Nice
contribution. I agree that the informational problem is not coherent,
but this only adds to the criticism of the interpretation of heat as
vibrating atoms. You are the first that I have seen to accept this
criticism. I hope I am not stuffing words in your mouth.

You use the word 'organized' yet would we call white noise organized?
Here there has to be a stronger characterization I think. Even if we
put 100 small white noise sources up to a bar of steel we may still
possibly measure the 101st's rate of propagation so long as it comes
alone after the others are established, and we have a sufficient power
measuring device. Then too, we'll be heating the bar with our sound
devices won't we...

I think this recognition that heat is actually open to
reinterpretation should be placed alongside the mysteries of mass that
we see in present day. If anything this should be good news to the
string theorist types, but instead they fit their theory in beneath
existing physics.

From the informational perspective we can use heat to signal, and its
low pass effect can be helpful for some signal processing. As a delay
line this is kind of sweet. So for instance a piece of steel wire and
a piece of copper wire terminated with thermocouples would show unique
signals even when applied to the same variable heat source. Varying
their length should alter the filtering mechanism. In terms of duty
cycle measurements or power measure these should be fine. Some of the
best electrical RMS measuring devices use heat measurement don't
they?

Unlike other signalling mechanisms the maximum usable frequency of a
heat conducted signal varies inversely with distance.

I accept any rational critism but your critism of physics seems
unfounded since you seem to be ignorant of it. Scent is distributed by
Brownian Motion.

Yes, you are leaning on the gas form to make your way. And it takes
just a tiny bit of scent vapor in the air to be detected. I suppose we
could go on to challenge adiabatic type behaviors, but I'd just as
soon stick to the solid form. The gas form is much more challenging.
Place a gas in outer space and baboom! it distributes itself out.
Place a solid in outer space and it just sits there, solid as ever.

Will you extend your claim of Brownian motion onto the solid?

I'm not so sure that diffusion and brownian motion are exactly the
same as you are claiming. Here is a statement:
'Brownian motion is observed in molecules that are so large that
they are not driven by their own thermal energy but by collisions with
solvent particles.'
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion
I'll admit the difference is subtle and they are closely related.

Diffusion does not require any temperature difference as I've
attempted to discuss. Your bottle of scent can be the same temperature
as the air it is in. Still, I do think that the example is a nice
addition to the conversation. Yes, when you open it it may cool a bit
as the scent evaporates. This is very complicated stuff and I believe
that the solid example is a more simplified environment to puzzle
over.

- Tim