| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jan Panteltje" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2005 04:42:48 AM |
| Object: |
A true sequence of events? |
About 1905 or 1906 Albert Einstein proposes C is a constant for all observers.
(Papers on relativity).
1913 De Sitter confirms this by doing math with data from binary star systems:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/desit-1e.htm
but in doing so dismisses statistical evidence that c+v could be true:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/desit-2e.htm
1923 De Broglie states that:
<quote>
Let us apply this to an atom of light. I showed elsewhere (2) that the
atom of light should be considered as a moving object of a very small mass (
g) that moves with a speed very nearly equal to (although slightly less).
We come therefore to the following conclusion: The atom of light, which is
equivalent by reason of its total energy to a radiation of frequency , is
the seat of an internal periodic phenomenon that, seen by the fixed
observer, has at each point of space the same phase as a wave of frequency
propagating in the same direction with a speed very nearly equal (although
very slightly greater) to the constant called the speed of light.
</quote>
http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/broglie/broglie.shtml
1924 Einstein does the derivation of the Bose-Einstein condensate,
and refers to De Broglie's thesis from 1924 (same year).
These are high resolution pictures of just discovered original papers from
1924 by Einstein:
http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/Einstein_archive/Einstein_1925_manuscript/Pages/Einstein_1925_08.html
He calls De Broglie's work 'sehr bemerkenwerte' (=very remarkable see
footnote in that paper).
And since the Broglie's reasoning is in fact based on c+v did Einstein see
his postulate of c was broken?
Now he had 3 options.
1) Join the quantum club, and lose face.
2) Prove De Broglie wrong (but no way, itwas big stuff).
3) Keep silent.
He did choose 3.
Einstein encountered more and more opposition, not only because he was a jew
from the Hitler side, but also scientifically.
1933 Einstein leaves for the US, where he gets political asylum.
1940
The quantum club starts to work on the A bomb, Einstein is NOT part of it.
1945 The quantum club has results, A bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, but this
technology should be kept from the rest of the world.
Einstein is now launched as the hero and his (wrong) theory superimposed
on humanity, while in the secret labs in Los Alamos the c+v and the correct
periodic system are used (they found that was wrong too, but did not tell
anyone).
Such is the power of deception, today many still parrot Einstein's postulate.
Einstein never made an other discovery after 1024 of cause, he was 'out'.
If he did chose it that way, or if it was a deal with the US government,
over to others to find out.
A true sequence of events?
.
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: A true sequence of events? |
22 Aug 2005 03:40:37 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
About 1905 or 1906 Albert Einstein proposes C is a constant for all observers.
(Papers on relativity).
1913 De Sitter confirms this by doing math with data from binary star systems:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/desit-1e.htm
but in doing so dismisses statistical evidence that c+v could be true:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/desit-2e.htm
1923 De Broglie states that:
<quote>
Let us apply this to an atom of light. I showed elsewhere (2) that the
atom of light should be considered as a moving object of a very small mass (
g) that moves with a speed very nearly equal to (although slightly less).
We come therefore to the following conclusion: The atom of light, which is
equivalent by reason of its total energy to a radiation of frequency , is
the seat of an internal periodic phenomenon that, seen by the fixed
observer, has at each point of space the same phase as a wave of frequency
propagating in the same direction with a speed very nearly equal (although
very slightly greater) to the constant called the speed of light.
</quote>
http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/broglie/broglie.shtml
1924 Einstein does the derivation of the Bose-Einstein condensate,
and refers to De Broglie's thesis from 1924 (same year).
These are high resolution pictures of just discovered original papers from
1924 by Einstein:
http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/Einstein_archive/Einstein_1925_manuscript/Pages/Einstein_1925_08.html
He calls De Broglie's work 'sehr bemerkenwerte' (=very remarkable see
footnote in that paper).
And since the Broglie's reasoning is in fact based on c+v did Einstein see
his postulate of c was broken?
Now he had 3 options.
1) Join the quantum club, and lose face.
2) Prove De Broglie wrong (but no way, itwas big stuff).
3) Keep silent.
He did choose 3.
Einstein encountered more and more opposition, not only because he was a jew
from the Hitler side, but also scientifically.
1933 Einstein leaves for the US, where he gets political asylum.
1940
The quantum club starts to work on the A bomb, Einstein is NOT part of it.
1945 The quantum club has results, A bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, but this
technology should be kept from the rest of the world.
Einstein is now launched as the hero and his (wrong) theory superimposed
on humanity, while in the secret labs in Los Alamos the c+v and the correct
periodic system are used (they found that was wrong too, but did not tell
anyone).
Such is the power of deception, today many still parrot Einstein's postulate.
Einstein never made an other discovery after 1024 of cause, he was 'out'.
If he did chose it that way, or if it was a deal with the US government,
over to others to find out.
A true sequence of events?
How do you get that de Broglie applied c+v? Regardless of your
interpretations of his comments on the subject, his conclusions are
easily reachable by applying special relativity to Planck's
energy-frequency relation. I think you're misrepresenting this big
time.
The way I've always understood it, the ballistic theory of light has
one major problem. And it's something that would be observable in
everyday electrodynamics. Since speed of light depends on both
permittivity and permeability, the speed of light could not change
without changing at least one of these factors. If permittivity and/or
permeability were dependent on the speed of the source, then the
linearity of Maxwell's equations will go right out the window. Yet
this doesn't appear to happen.
If you can construct a ballistic theory that keeps Maxwell's equations
in the nice and tidy form that we observe everyday, you're welcome to
it. But I don't think it can be done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: A true sequence of events? |
23 Aug 2005 01:22:15 AM |
|
|
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1124743237.789782.70440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| The way I've always understood it, the ballistic theory of light has
| one major problem. And it's something that would be observable in
| everyday electrodynamics. Since speed of light depends on both
| permittivity and permeability, the speed of light could not change
| without changing at least one of these factors.
Yes, that is correct. Diamond, water, glass, air, all have their own
permittivity and permeability, which gives us the characteristic
value known as 'index of refraction'.
| If permittivity and/or
| permeability were dependent on the speed of the source, then the
| linearity of Maxwell's equations will go right out the window.
Really?
Have you tried removing the matter that has the properties of
permeability
and permittivity?
Yet
| this doesn't appear to happen.
Imagine what might happen if one photon went faster than another.
The faster photon could leave later then cross the finish line at the
same instant as the slower photon.
We could even model that with computer, using Kepler's equation
E= M-e.sin(E) for an ellipse, and sent a million photons one behind
the other and work out when they arrive. Some photons might even
pass others along the way.
And when we do that, *I* get a curve that looks like this real one:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
| If you can construct a ballistic theory that keeps Maxwell's equations
| in the nice and tidy form that we observe everyday, you're welcome to
| it. But I don't think it can be done.
Oh, I think we can. Maxwell is fine while
c= 1/sqrt( mu * epsilon),
right up until
c = 1/sqrt( 0 * 0).
Then it gets a little bent out of shape.
Androcles.
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: A true sequence of events? |
23 Aug 2005 11:56:50 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1124743237.789782.70440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| The way I've always understood it, the ballistic theory of light has
| one major problem. And it's something that would be observable in
| everyday electrodynamics. Since speed of light depends on both
| permittivity and permeability, the speed of light could not change
| without changing at least one of these factors.
Yes, that is correct. Diamond, water, glass, air, all have their own
permittivity and permeability, which gives us the characteristic
value known as 'index of refraction'.
That's correct, but the fact that index of refraction is a property of
the material itself and has no dependence on the speed of the source of
radiation dispels the whole notion of the ballistic theory of light.
You can't have it both ways.
| If permittivity and/or
| permeability were dependent on the speed of the source, then the
| linearity of Maxwell's equations will go right out the window.
Really?
Have you tried removing the matter that has the properties of
permeability
and permittivity?
Yet
| this doesn't appear to happen.
Imagine what might happen if one photon went faster than another.
The faster photon could leave later then cross the finish line at the
same instant as the slower photon.
We could even model that with computer, using Kepler's equation
E= M-e.sin(E) for an ellipse, and sent a million photons one behind
the other and work out when they arrive. Some photons might even
pass others along the way.
And when we do that, *I* get a curve that looks like this real one:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Non sequitor.
| If you can construct a ballistic theory that keeps Maxwell's equations
| in the nice and tidy form that we observe everyday, you're welcome to
| it. But I don't think it can be done.
Oh, I think we can. Maxwell is fine while
c= 1/sqrt( mu * epsilon),
right up until
c = 1/sqrt( 0 * 0).
Then it gets a little bent out of shape.
Then tell me, where do these factors vanish? Even in vacuum they have
finite CONSTANT values. So much for ballistic theory!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: A true sequence of events? |
23 Aug 2005 12:26:44 PM |
|
|
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1124816210.597015.17230@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
| > news:1124743237.789782.70440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > | The way I've always understood it, the ballistic theory of light
has
| > | one major problem. And it's something that would be observable in
| > | everyday electrodynamics. Since speed of light depends on both
| > | permittivity and permeability, the speed of light could not change
| > | without changing at least one of these factors.
| >
| > Yes, that is correct. Diamond, water, glass, air, all have their own
| > permittivity and permeability, which gives us the characteristic
| > value known as 'index of refraction'.
|
|
| That's correct, but the fact that index of refraction is a property of
| the material itself and has no dependence on the speed of the source
of
| radiation dispels the whole notion of the ballistic theory of light.
| You can't have it both ways.
Matter will stop a bullet.
Vacuum will not stop a bullet.
The whole notion that a bullet's velocity is added to the velocity
of the gun is wrong, you can't have it both ways.
|
|
| >
| > | If permittivity and/or
| > | permeability were dependent on the speed of the source, then the
| > | linearity of Maxwell's equations will go right out the window.
| >
| > Really?
| > Have you tried removing the matter that has the properties of
| > permeability
| > and permittivity?
| >
| > Yet
| > | this doesn't appear to happen.
| >
| > Imagine what might happen if one photon went faster than another.
| > The faster photon could leave later then cross the finish line at
the
| > same instant as the slower photon.
| > We could even model that with computer, using Kepler's equation
| > E= M-e.sin(E) for an ellipse, and sent a million photons one behind
| > the other and work out when they arrive. Some photons might even
| > pass others along the way.
| > And when we do that, *I* get a curve that looks like this real one:
| > http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
|
|
| Non sequitor.
You don't know what it means and you don't know how to spell it.
|
| >
| > | If you can construct a ballistic theory that keeps Maxwell's
equations
| > | in the nice and tidy form that we observe everyday, you're welcome
to
| > | it. But I don't think it can be done.
| >
| > Oh, I think we can. Maxwell is fine while
| > c= 1/sqrt( mu * epsilon),
| > right up until
| > c = 1/sqrt( 0 * 0).
| > Then it gets a little bent out of shape.
|
|
| Then tell me, where do these factors vanish? Even in vacuum they have
| finite CONSTANT values. So much for ballistic theory!
Phuckwit.
*plonk*
Androcles.
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A true sequence of events? |
22 Aug 2005 09:15:44 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
About 1905 or 1906 Albert Einstein proposes C is a constant for all observers.
(Papers on relativity).
From A. Einstein (1905)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for
example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the
customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in
which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For
if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain
definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the
conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the
conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive
force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which
gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases
discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as
those produced by the electric forces in the former case".
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium,'
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first
order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and
optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the
purport of which will hereafter be called the 'Principle of
Relativity') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another
postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of
a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving
bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The
introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous
inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an
'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties, nor
assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place".
I call Panteltje's attention to the two postulates:
o the laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames
of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
o light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: A true sequence of events? |
22 Aug 2005 11:08:20 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:j6lOe.270644$x96.205083@attbi_s72...
Jan Panteltje wrote:
About 1905 or 1906 Albert Einstein proposes C is a constant for all observers.
(Papers on relativity).
From A. Einstein (1905)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
[snip]
I call Panteltje's attention to the two postulates:
Don't.
After all, you are dealing with SuperJan here:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/superjan/index.html
Hobbies and interests:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/jan/interests.html
| "My hobbies are science, computers, electronics, etc..
| I do meditation."
And "Panteltje" sounds like this:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/jan/pantel.wav
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: A true sequence of events? |
22 Aug 2005 09:56:27 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:15:44 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <j6lOe.270644$x96.205083@attbi_s72>:
<snipped stuf i already did read and was alos posted here recently>
I call Panteltje's attention to the two postulates:
o the laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames
of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
I have a theory that has a little twist on that, in fact it predicts
tha the laws may hold, but all parametrs change as yo umove furtehr aways from teh big bang origin,
publishes here yeatrs before seeiong any of your postings.
For the current discussion we can assume (local to here) this will hold.
o light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Now PLEASE explain this to yourself (and the avid reader).
*Speed* is always relative to *something*.
If you were all alone in the universe what speed would you have?
So, in your 'empty space' there is nothing and your speed is *undefined*.
Once an observer 'materializes' and has a physical size other then zero,
he can start measuring speed.
When that observer at speed v in direction <,,,,> shines a flashlight, and
then 'dematerializes' again, then what is the speed?
Do it for a 'light bullet' (photon).
Do it for a wave.
Do it for a laser beam.
Are you saying there is a medium and a reference frame?
If so and we materialize an other observer at an other place is the
wave moving at different speed in the medium for HIM so it is c for him?
All old stuff.
All based on MM and MM shows nothing.
Start from scratch.
Albert E (c). does not work, and never will.
That is why he was scientifically dead since De Broglie's paper in 1924.
Now say after me:
polly wants a cracker.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dirkbontes" |
|
| Title: Re: A true sequence of events? |
22 Aug 2005 11:32:42 AM |
|
|
the laws may hold, but all parametrs change as yo umove furtehr aways from teh big bang origin,
There never was a Big Bang. Other than that, though... Visit my
livejournal page, read the review of my astronomy book.
o light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Now PLEASE explain this to yourself (and the avid reader).
*Speed* is always relative to *something*.
Astute observation. You are quite right and I am impressed. So if c is
constant by definition, what then is the something?
If you were all alone in the universe what speed would you have?
I wouldn't know - unless I could discern the something.
So, in your 'empty space' there is nothing and your speed is *undefined*.
Once an observer 'materializes' and has a physical size other than zero,
he can start measuring speed.
When that observer at speed v in direction <,,,,> shines a flashlight, and
then 'dematerializes' again, then what is the speed?
That is an easy one: c. (Do I now get a cracker? :)
Are you saying there is a medium and a reference frame?
Yes.
If so and we materialize an other observer at an other place is the
wave moving at different speed in the medium for HIM so it is c for him?
It is c by definition of the reference frame of the medium and for any
observer. Anyway, SR is better without the observer; that guy merely
confuses the issue.
All old stuff.
All based on MM and MM shows nothing.
I dare not comment on this. It has been awhile since I looked at MM,
though I suspect I mentioned and discussed and solved it in my reviewed
astronomy book. (And I certainly did in my unfinished and unpublished
magnum opus "The nature of reality" (1995), the last chapter of which
by the way is about the inverse square law and serendipitously about a
geometrical redshift explanation similar to that of Charles Francis,
who to my sorrow last week published about it first. He deserves a
Nobel prize for it - I certainly thought I did in 1995. I suspect my
version is better written, though.)
Start from scratch.
Good advice. I did and it paid off (well anyway in results; money is
still a pipedream).
Albert E (c). does not work, and never will.
SR does. GR does not.
Now say after me:
polly wants a cracker.
At first I thought that you were just a crackpot, but occasionally you
make a lot of sense.
And you have sense of humour too.
Polly wants a cracker! (I have earned one, right?)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A true sequence of events? |
22 Aug 2005 10:21:59 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:15:44 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <j6lOe.270644$x96.205083@attbi_s72>:
<snipped stuf i already did read and was alos posted here recently>
I call Panteltje's attention to the two postulates:
o the laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames
of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
I have a theory that has a little twist on that, in fact it predicts
tha the laws may hold, but all parametrs change as yo umove furtehr aways from teh big bang origin,
publishes here yeatrs before seeiong any of your postings.
For the current discussion we can assume (local to here) this will hold.
o light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Now PLEASE explain this to yourself (and the avid reader).
*Speed* is always relative to *something*.
If you were all alone in the universe what speed would you have?
Yes it is sunny today. Yes the speed of light is always c for *all*
observers. Think about what that means Panteltje. The speed of light
is c for all observers regardless of the relative motion between
observer and light source.
That is Einstein's postulate and has empirically held up for more
than one hundred years now! In fact, there has never been a prediction
of Special Relativity that was contradicted by an observation. *Never!*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dirkbontes" |
|
| Title: Re: A true sequence of events? |
22 Aug 2005 05:47:17 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje:
About 1905 or 1906 Albert Einstein proposes C is a constant for all observers.
If your proposition is that it isn't, then prove it, measure it, show
that to some observers it isn't what it has been defined to be. As for
now your proposition is so much hot air and only balloonists will be
interested. (And I doubt that they would have appreciated it if you had
posted that hot air on their websites.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
