Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.

On Sep 11, 11:02*am, "harry"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"John Kennaugh" wrote:
I accept that that would be true if light was indeed a wave. It isn't. If
it were it could not possibly knock electrons out of a metal unless the
intensity was sufficient to make the metal hot enough to release thermal
electrons. Once you accept that light is particles and that the waves do
not physically exist then you have no need for a medium. Instead you need
to concentrate on trying to explain how photons can produce such a
convincing facsimile of a wave. Something seriously neglected by physics.
I believe that Waldron is on the right lines [1]

Not only that, you would also have to explain how it has that basic wave
characteristic that is called the second postulate...

Einstein's 1905 second postulate is by no means "basic wave
characreristic". It has nothing to do with the wave model and in fact
with any sane model of light, right or wrong. According to Maxwell's
wave theory, the speed of light is variable and obeys the equation c'=c
+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the aether and v is the
speed of the observer relative to the aether. Einstein's 1905 light
postulate c'=c is just an absurdity, which makes it INCOMMENSURABLE
with both Newton's particle model of light and Maxwell's wave model of
light.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Sep 11, 11:02 am, "harry"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"John Kennaugh" wrote:
I accept that that would be true if light was indeed a wave. It isn't.
If
it were it could not possibly knock electrons out of a metal unless the
intensity was sufficient to make the metal hot enough to release thermal
electrons. Once you accept that light is particles and that the waves do
not physically exist then you have no need for a medium. Instead you
need
to concentrate on trying to explain how photons can produce such a
convincing facsimile of a wave. Something seriously neglected by
physics.
I believe that Waldron is on the right lines [1]

Not only that, you would also have to explain how it has that basic wave
characteristic that is called the second postulate...

: Einstein's 1905 second postulate is by no means "basic wave
: characreristic".

It is a basic characteristic of waves that the propagation speed is a
constant that is independent of the motion of the source (as far as we
know).

: It has nothing to do with the wave model and in fact
: with any sane model of light, right or wrong. According to Maxwell's
: wave theory, the speed of light is variable and obeys the equation c'=c
: +v, where c is the speed of light relative to the aether and v is the
: speed of the observer relative to the aether.

Here you refer to the fact that people incl. Maxwell did not expect the PoR
(the first postulate) to hold for waves. As Einstein admitted, the two
postulates are "apparently irreconcilable".

: Einstein's 1905 light
: postulate c'=c is just an absurdity,

No, apparently irreconcilable is not the same as an absurdity...

: which makes it INCOMMENSURABLE
: with both Newton's particle model of light and Maxwell's wave model of
: light.

In SRT there isn't any issue with Maxwell's wave model of light, only with
his Newtonian model of matter- it was well understood that those two were
incompatible, as you also notice here above.

Harald

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:16:19 +0200, "harry"
wrote:


"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Sep 11, 11:02 am, "harry"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"John Kennaugh" wrote:
I accept that that would be true if light was indeed a wave. It isn't.
If
it were it could not possibly knock electrons out of a metal unless the
intensity was sufficient to make the metal hot enough to release thermal
electrons. Once you accept that light is particles and that the waves do
not physically exist then you have no need for a medium. Instead you
need
to concentrate on trying to explain how photons can produce such a
convincing facsimile of a wave. Something seriously neglected by
physics.
I believe that Waldron is on the right lines [1]

Not only that, you would also have to explain how it has that basic wave
characteristic that is called the second postulate...

: Einstein's 1905 second postulate is by no means "basic wave
: characreristic".

It is a basic characteristic of waves that the propagation speed is a
constant that is independent of the motion of the source (as far as we
know).

That is not true.
For one thing neither YOU nor anyone else 'knows' anything about light speed
from a moving source. No experiment has ever measured it.

However, most observed variable star brightness curves can be produced by
assuming that their emitted light moves at c+v wrt Earth, as they orbit around
a barycentre with a companion star or planet. This is convincing evidence that
light from distant sources travels across empty space at virtually any speed
wrt earth.

Local aetherlike media such as the Earth's atmosphere can modify the speed of
light passing through.



Harald



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people. Send abortion pills not food aid.

On 13 sep, 14:16, "harry" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...
On Sep 11, 11:02 am, "harry"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

"John Kennaugh" wrote:
I accept that that would be true if light was indeed a wave. It isn't..
If
it were it could not possibly knock electrons out of a metal unless the
intensity was sufficient to make the metal hot enough to release thermal
electrons. Once you accept that light is particles and that the waves do
not physically exist then you have no need for a medium. Instead you
need
to concentrate on trying to explain how photons can produce such a
convincing facsimile of a wave. Something seriously neglected by
physics.
I believe that Waldron is on the right lines [1]

Not only that, you would also have to explain how it has that basic wave
characteristic that is called the second postulate...

: Einstein's 1905 second postulate is by no means "basic wave
: characreristic".

It is a basic characteristic of waves that the propagation speed is a
constant that is independent of the motion of the source (as far as we
know).

: It has nothing to do with the wave model and in fact
: with any sane model of light, right or wrong. According to Maxwell's
: wave theory, the speed of light is variable and obeys the equation c'=c
: +v, where c is the speed of light relative to the aether and v is the
: speed of the observer relative to the aether.

Here you refer to the fact that people incl. Maxwell did not expect the PoR
(the first postulate) to hold for waves. As Einstein admitted, the two
postulates are "apparently irreconcilable".

: Einstein's 1905 light
: postulate c'=c is just an absurdity,

No, apparently irreconcilable is not the same as an absurdity...

: which makes it INCOMMENSURABLE
: with both Newton's particle model of light and Maxwell's wave model of
: light.

In SRT there isn't any issue with Maxwell's wave model of light, only with
his Newtonian model of matter- it was well understood that those two were
incompatible, as you also notice here above.

Harald

El motor MARINOV NO CUMPLE en absoluto las ecuaciones de Maxwell, ¿qué
quiere decir esto?.

Inglish:

The MARINOV engine does not meet any equation of Maxwell, what is
this?

Greetings

"Xaustein" wrote in message
...
On 13 sep, 14:16, "harry" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...
On Sep 11, 11:02 am, "harry"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

"John Kennaugh" wrote:
I accept that that would be true if light was indeed a wave. It isn't.
If
it were it could not possibly knock electrons out of a metal unless
the
intensity was sufficient to make the metal hot enough to release
thermal
electrons. Once you accept that light is particles and that the waves
do
not physically exist then you have no need for a medium. Instead you
need
to concentrate on trying to explain how photons can produce such a
convincing facsimile of a wave. Something seriously neglected by
physics.
I believe that Waldron is on the right lines [1]

Not only that, you would also have to explain how it has that basic wave
characteristic that is called the second postulate...

: Einstein's 1905 second postulate is by no means "basic wave
: characreristic".

It is a basic characteristic of waves that the propagation speed is a
constant that is independent of the motion of the source (as far as we
know).

: It has nothing to do with the wave model and in fact
: with any sane model of light, right or wrong. According to Maxwell's
: wave theory, the speed of light is variable and obeys the equation c'=c
: +v, where c is the speed of light relative to the aether and v is the
: speed of the observer relative to the aether.

Here you refer to the fact that people incl. Maxwell did not expect the
PoR
(the first postulate) to hold for waves. As Einstein admitted, the two
postulates are "apparently irreconcilable".

: Einstein's 1905 light
: postulate c'=c is just an absurdity,

No, apparently irreconcilable is not the same as an absurdity...

: which makes it INCOMMENSURABLE
: with both Newton's particle model of light and Maxwell's wave model of
: light.

In SRT there isn't any issue with Maxwell's wave model of light, only with
his Newtonian model of matter- it was well understood that those two were
incompatible, as you also notice here above.

Harald

: El motor MARINOV NO CUMPLE en absoluto las ecuaciones de Maxwell, ¿qué
: quiere decir esto?.

: Inglish:

: The MARINOV engine does not meet any equation of Maxwell, what is
: this?

I have met a guy who has visited Marinov and who asked for a demonstration.
Regretfully, at that time the demo failed, the engine still needed some more
improvement. I wonder if it ever really worked?

Cheers,
Harald