Authors trying to sell Relativity to a student have a problem. They
cannot go through a logical sequence of historical events - the history
of relativity is quite frankly embarrassing. Neither can they appeal to
common sense, relativity is of course counter intuitive. Some text books
use semantic trickery. The most honest I have seen is an on-line Harvard
university text book where the author says in effect "it may seem daft
but it works". I would point out however that the same could be said of
the geocentric theory of the solar system. A dominant belief that the
earth was at the centre forced the maths to be transformed in such a way
that they gave the right answer.

"If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation I
should have recommended something simpler." Alfonso 'the wise' of
Castile (1221-1284) having studied the Ptolemaic system.

As I will explain later I see parallels in the history of relativity
where I will show that a dominant belief played a part in distorting our
way of viewing things.

If you are a follower of Occam then the MMX shows that the speed of
light is not constant w.r.t the aether as had been supposed and so must
therefore be constant w.r.t the source - there being no plausible
causality by which 'where it ended up' could be responsible for the
speed at which it travelled to get there. Ritz's emission theory of
light published in 1908 and Waldron's Ballistic theory of light
published in 1977 are both based on the assumption that the speed of
light is source dependent. Both theories were suppressed, not by any act
of censorship but by totally ignoring them - which is much more
effective.

My suggestion is that the ballistic theory is based on a correct concept
and what the Lorentz transforms do is transform a wrong concept ( the
basis of SR) in such a way as to give the correct answer. It shares with
the geocentric theory the fact that though mathematically adequate it is
impossible to ascribe to it a physical description of the physical
processes described by the maths, i.e. a causal description of what is
going on.

The following experiments demonstrate how my suspicion arose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________
train [____________X____________] --v
|
|
|
|
T T'


Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X.
Suppose it fires a very short burst of light, triggered by a switch on
the track when X is exactly opposite distant target T.

Now the train does a high speed run and the laser is triggered at time
zero. What will an observer at the target T see?

Ballistic theory says that the light will have a horizontal component v
which means that although the laser is exactly opposite T when it is
fired the effective source of the light will continue to move with the
train and the flash will, at time t hit T' not T where T' is a distance
vt from T.

SR says that light emitted at point X in the observers FoR (that of T)
will move from X at c. The source of the light remaining at X.

We do not need to perform this experiment - It would hit T' not T just
as predicted by Ballistic theory. We know this because if we look at it
from the PoV of an observer on the train both theories predict the same
thing. He will see the light travel away from the train at c at right
angles to the train. In the trains FoR it is aiming at a moving target.
If you want to hit a moving target you do not aim AT it, you aim in
front of it, you aim at the point where it is going to be when whatever
travels (bullet or flash of light) gets there. If you want to hit T' you
aim at T.

So does this disprove relativity? I assume not. Someone would have
noticed ) I will have to ask the help of a relativist on this one but
I assume - but don't know for certain - that SR says that what is a
right angle in the FoR of the train is transformed in the FoR of the
target to an angle such that SR says that it hits T' because in the FoR
of the target the laser was pointing at T' and not at right angles to
the train. Maybe someone can confirm that. If so then this change of
angle is not the result of any identified physical process, there is no
physical explanation. It simply *has* to be so in order to get the right
answer - in order to get the same answer ballistic theory gives.
Ballistic theory also has a full physical explanation of what is going
on.

An important point here is that ANY experiment viewed from the FoR of
the source must have the same outcome for both theories as both theories
state that in the FoR of the source light travels at c w.r.t the source.
---------------------------------------------------------

OK let us change the experiment a little. Instead of a laser let there
be an omni-directional flash of light from X when the train hits the
switch. Light will hit both T and T'

Ballistic Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] --v


Flash occurs

T T'

_________________________
train [__________X'_____________] --v
|
|
Flash arrives |
|
T T'

If the frequency of the light as measured on the train is Fo then
according to Ballistic theory the light arriving at T' will have a
frequency Fo because the effective source X' is orthogonal to T' i.e.
the source has no component of velocity either towards or away from the
observer at T' to cause Doppler shift. If the frequency could be
measured [it would actually be very difficult] I can with confidence
predict that it would indeed be Fo exactly as predicted by Ballistic
theory.

Ballistic theory says that the light arriving at T is a lower frequency
than Fo due to Doppler shift because X' is not orthogonal to T but is
moving away from T. Again I have confidence that this would be found to
be the case. My confidence is based upon the fact that SR predicts the
same result:

SR Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] --v


Flash occurs

T T'

_________________________
train [________X'_______________] --v
|
|
Flash arrives |
|
T T'


What SR says is as illustrated. In the FoR of T light is emitted from
point X and when it arrives at T the source is still at the same point.
i.e. X' is the same place as X relative to T. Light reaching T is
therefore orthogonal. The source is neither moving away from T or
towards T so true Doppler is zero. However SR says that because the
light source is moving at v the 'clock' generating the light will be
'dilated' and the frequency will be lower than Fo. As I will show later
it predicts the same lower frequency as ballistic theory.

SR agrees with ballistic theory that the frequency measured at T' will
be Fo but it says it is because X' is moving towards T' which increases
the frequency due to Doppler shift and at T' this increase is equal and
opposite to the effect of time dilation - resulting in a frequency of Fo
at T'.

I will now show that Ballistic theory predicts exactly the same
frequency as SR at point T.

_______________________
train [__________X____________] --v





Y T

Again it is back to hitting a moving target. In order for light leaving
X to hit T it has to set out in the direction XY where YT = vt. The
photons have a component of velocity c in the direction XY and a
component v in the X direction such that the resultant is in the
direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle XY = c YT = v so

the velocity XT = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag
So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L
But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength)
So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)

So Ballistic theory predicts the same result using a velocity triangle
as SR predicts as being due to 'time dilation'.

Note again that there is no identifiable physical mechanism which causes
time dilation it is simply assumed to take place as it is necessary to
get the right answer - i.e. the answer given by the credible physical
explanation of ballistic theory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPS "Time Dilation"

As seen above the frequency measured when orthogonal to the source is
predictably the same for both theories. The centre of the earth is
always orthogonal to the motion of a GPS satellite (assuming a circular
orbit) therefore the frequency will always be Fo x Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)
whichever theory is used. The ballistic theory explains it without
exotic time dilation. It is simply the result of a velocity triangle.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Note therefore that although both theories give identical results the
explanation is completely different and that of Ballistic theory is by
far the simpler. These examples are far from a special case. Fox wrote:

".. 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."

Put simply the 'vast quantity' of experiments which most relativists
explain by relativistic electromagnetic theory, and which they are under
the impression can only be described by relativity turn out, as in the
case of the above example, to be explainable by either theory.

Ritz's died in 1909 and despite the indisputable fact his theory
represented a serious challenge to relativity, his theory was simply
ignored and virtually written out of the literature to such an extent
that it did not come to Waldron's notice until after he had developed,
and was about to publish his own theory in 1977. I do not know if Fox
ever looked at Waldron's theory but if he was impressed by how near Ritz
came he should have been more impressed still by Waldron as Waldron took
account of much experimental data unavailable to Ritz. Waldron lists the
following optical experiments as being mathematically consistent with
both his ballistic theory and relativity:

Arago, Hoek, Fizeau, Aberration, Double star observations, The MMX,
Majorana 1, Majorana 2, Sagnac, Michelson, James-Sternburg repetition of
Kantor's experiment*, Babcock-Bergman repetition of Kantor's experiment,
Beckmen-Mandics repetition of Kantor's experiment, Beckmen-Mandics 1,
Beckmen-Mandics 2, Sadeh, Ives-Stilwell.

*Kantor's own experiment apparently disproved SR and Ballistic theory
which is why it was repeated - and found not to.
-------------------------------------------------------

Let us move on.
"In much later reminiscences, he [Einstein] reports that during the
following year (1895-1896) he conceived of a thought experiment:
what would happen if an observer tried to chase a light wave? Could s/he
catch up with it? If so, s/he ought to see a non-moving light wave form,
which somehow seemed strange to him. In retrospect, he called this "the
first childish thought-experiment that was related to the special
theory of relativity."

Ballistic theory says that if you *could* travel at c away from the
source you would indeed keep pace with the light and *see* a stationary
image of what you are travelling away from - except that the frequency
would be Doppler shifted to zero so you wouldn't *actually* see anything
(i.e. it is a limiting case).

Is it such a silly idea as Einstein assumed? Well his SR theory gives
the same limiting case. If you travel at c away from the source, SR
says time stops for the source so again you would get a stationary image
and again of course the frequency would be Doppler shifted to zero so
you wouldn't actually see anything.

================================================== ====================
The universe is about 15 billion years old. Astronomers claim to be able
to see back to say 1 billion years after the big bang. At first sight it
would seem that in order to see that far back the source must be 14
billion light years away from us and yet had only 1 billion years since
the big bang to get there = a separation velocity = 14c. Wrong of course
that is without time dilation. Because it is travelling away from us at
nearly the speed of light relativity says that it doesn't age as quickly
as we do so we see it as much younger than one might expect.
I did a worked example:
--------------------------------------------------------

The story according to relativity
=================================
If the universe started at time 0
If the Age of the Universe is Tau
If we and a Far Galaxy have been separating at speed v
and light has just reached us which left at time T
Then we were separated by distance vT when the light left.
It has been travelling for (Tau - T) at speed c.
so vT = c(Tau-T) = cTau - cT
T(c+v) = c.Tau
T = c.Tau/(c+v)

However due to time dilation the age we observe will be
Age = T.sqr(1-vv/cc) = [c.Tau/(c+v)].sqr(1-vv/cc)

Suppose we take Tau = 15x10^9

Age we see of Far Galaxy = (15.c/c+v).sqr(1-vv/cc) billion years

if say v = 0.900c then Age we observe = 3.441236 billion years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now we cannot directly measure the speed of a receding galaxy we
calculate its speed using Doppler.

The relativistic Doppler equation for a receding source is

fo = fs. sqr(1-vv/cc)/(1+v/c)

If in the above analysis v was calculated from the relativistic Doppler
equation then 0.9c resulted from a Doppler shift fo/fs = 0.2294157.

The Ballistic Doppler shift equation is much simpler than the
Relativistic one:

fo = fs((c-v)/c)

That same Doppler shift would be interpreted by the Ballistic theory as
v = 0.770584266c
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story According to the Ballistic theory
===========================================

The Ballistic explanation is that if the far galaxy is travelling away
from us at near c then its light takes longer to travel to us because it
is only travelling at a modest c-v relative to us.

If the universe started at time 0
If the age of the universe is Tau
If we and a Far Galaxy have been separating at speed v
and light has just reached us which left Far Galaxy at time T
Then we were separated by distance vT when it left.

It has been travelling for (Tau - T) at speed c-v.

so vT = (c-v)(Tau-T)
T(v/(c-v)) = Tau - T
T( v/(c-v) + 1 ) = Tau
T( c/(c-v)) = Tau
T = Tau.(c-v)/c

Age seen of Far Galaxy = 15 (c-v)/c billion years

Now for the same Doppler shift we calculated v = 0.770584266c

So according to Ballistic theory we calculate the Age of the Far Galaxy
as 3.441236 billion years.

To save you having to page back the age previously calculated for SR was
also 3.441236 billion years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So whether you do the calculation using Relativity or using the
ballistic theory, you again end up with exactly the same result. Compare
the complexity of the equations:

Relativity Ballistic
Age (Tau.c/c+v).sqr(1-vv/cc) Tau(c-v)/c

Doppler sqr(1-vv/cc)/(1+v/c) (c-v)/c)


I did the sums out of curiosity but the result was not unexpected. I
*expect* both theories to give the same result. The ballistic theory
gives a simple, credible, physical explanation and simple maths. SR
requires "time dilation" to get the right answer but can give no
physical explanation as to why the sources time should be changed by our
motion relative to it. Explanations of the effect always default to a
description of the mathematics.

I have given a number of example covering a range of effects. Surely one
should as why they give the same answer?

The answer would seem to be that what the Lorentz transforms do is
transform a wrongly based theory such as to get the right answer just as
the geocentric theory of the solar system can be transformed to give the
same result as the sun centred theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the geocentric theory was a result of belief distorting science. Can
we see in the history a similar distortion relating to relativity? I say
we can.

Maxwell's wave in aether theory was very convincing. 3 branches of
physics had been unified and a single aether explained the nature of
fields (stress pattern in the aether), action at a distance force
(interaction between those stress patterns), and light propagation
(stress propagating in the aether).

Two predictions of the theory we

Prediction 1 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the source.
Prediction 2 - Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the
speed of an observer relative to the aether will add to or subtract
from the speed of light in the aether.

The MMX was intended to confirm the existence of the aether by testing
prediction 2. The prediction was proved WRONG.

Another failure came (Lord Rayleigh 1900) when Maxwell's electrodynamics
were used to predict black body radiation and the prediction found to be
BADLY WRONG (the ultraviolet catastrophe).

Planck worked out why - light is generated in very un-wavelike discreet
lumps.

Finally Einstein showed that not only was it generated in discreet lumps
it remained in discreet lumps. Put simply it does not, as some thought
after Planck, form itself into waves having been generated in discreet
lumps. Light particles arriving at their destination unchanged from what
set out. The conclusion would seem inescapable. Light does not consist
of waves, it consists of particles and the nature of those particles is
such that they give rise to wavelike phenomena.

Historically two theories of light have dominated physics for two or
three centuries. One said that light was waves of energy propagating in
an 'elastic' medium capable of temporarily storing the energy in transit
- the speed of propagation being a property of the medium. The other
that space is empty and something travels from source to destination its
speed being a function of the process generating it. These may be
summarized as 'Light Propagates', or 'light travels'.

If Physics had not been dominated by Maxwell the MMX would have been
seen in the wider context as being the first experiment which predicts
different results for these two alternative theories. The null result is
as predicted by the 'light travels' theory.

Promising though Maxwell's wave in aether theory had been its
predictions were WRONG, light isn't waves in aether it is particles
which don't need aether to allow them to travel.

While OBJECTIVELY Maxwell's wave in aether theory was quite clearly
WRONG physicists refused to change their BELIEFS. The entire basis of SR
is a BELIEF that Maxwell's aether theory is an impeccable description of
nature to be trusted as something one should build on with impunity and
accept whatever consequences result. Interpreted from that point of view
the null result of the MMX is a valid measure of the observer's speed
w.r.t the aether i.e. zero. Put simply, to believers, the MMX shows that
for some unexplained reason an observer always finds himself stationary
w.r.t the aether and therefore any ray of light moving in his system of
co-ordinates, (in the aether he is stationary w.r.t) will have the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by
a moving body. i.e the second postulate is simply describing what an
observer, stationary w.r.t the aether would experience.

The second postulate was not the result 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. If you
study his 1905 paper 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."

In order to get the maths to work Einstein had to ditch 3 axioms of
physics relating to time, length and mass. Now whatever people like Tom
Roberts may say, you do not ditch 3 long established and perfectly
sensible axioms of physics UNLESS you BELIEVE the theory which implies
the need for such a change is impeccable. A cornerstone of modern
physics is therefore based, not on objective science but on untenable
belief. Put another way one of the two predictions of Maxwell's theory
had been shown to be false yet SR assumes, without any experimental
backing that the other is still true. Others may convince themselves
that sound science can nevertheless result. I can not.

Physics, having made that enormous sacrifice in order to retain BELIEF
in Maxwell's wave in aether theory decided a decade or two later that it
didn't like the aether and ditched it!!!! Contrary to popular myth
getting rid of the aether had nothing to do with SR. Einstein actually
argued in favour of the aether (1920 lecture). Neither was it the result
of experiment nor the result of some theoretical wizardry but by the
totally arbitrary decision that physics theory no longer needed a
physical interpretation to compliment the maths. Physics was subject to
a take over by mathematicians and natural philosophy jettisoned. Thus
Maxwell's maths became regarded as theory without the physical
interpretation which went with it - which had been what had convinced
people of its validity in the first place.

Physics was turned inside out. 3 perfectly sensible axioms of physics
were ditched and the nature of physics itself redefined - all on the
basis of an assumption that a theory which had quite clearly been
objectively disproved beyond any reasonable doubt is nevertheless
impeccable. This is the cornerstone on which Physics is built and as one
might expect trying to build on such a dodgy foundation has led to some
pretty bizarre ideas. The result is that in modern physics it is assumed
that it is nature which is weird and it is no longer a part of physics
remit to try and make sense of it.

The problem now is that once it is accepted that it is nature which is
cocked up rather than physics which has got it wrong, there really is no
quality assurance criteria. You cannot reject an idea on the basis that
"physics is weird but it cannot be THAT weird" so now anything goes
including a universe with 10 or perhaps 26 dimensions and parallel
universes.

The idea of an independent 'field' existing (independent of anything
causing it) is still part of modern physics and yet a field was
according to Maxwell a stress pattern in the aether - and physics no
longer accepts the existence of the aether. No one sees any need to ask
what a field consists of if it is not a stress pattern in the aether.
That is a physical question therefore a question physics is
(conveniently) no longer obliged to answer. Provided you can write an
equation of what a 'field' does, you no longer need to explain,
postulate or even think about what it IS or how it fits into our
conception of the other matter existing in the universe. Physics hasn't
got rid of the aether at all. All they have done is renamed it
'something in which independent fields can exist'.

As I have said the main justification given for relativity is not that
it makes sense historically (it clearly doesn't), nor physically (it
clearly doesn't) but purely that "it works". I have suggested why it
works. Although it is a wrongly based theory the transforms distort
reality to give the right answer - just as you can make a curve look
straight if you assume you are looking at it with a curved mirror. Such
an idea works mathematically but unless you can identify "the mirror"
does not work physically.

Relativity does not work if one insists on a physical explanation. Take
Doppler shift. The maths work fine but by insisting that the speed of
light from a source remains at c w.r.t the observer when an observer
changes his speed you end up with physical nonsense. Suppose you are
stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. Light travelling w.r.t. you
travels at c having separated from the source at a speed of separation
c. If you now change your speed so that you are travelling away from the
source at v the frequency of the light you observe will be lower due to
Doppler shift but according to relativity the light still travels at c
w.r.t you. If c hasn't changed and the frequency has then the wavelength
must have changed. What the maths is saying is that the wavelength has
changed because the light is now separating from the source at c+v
generating longer wavelengths than previous. The problem with this is
that your change of speed has caused a change in what is happening at
the source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is
even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated to 1 light year
ago as there is no 1 year delay in the frequency changing. In effect the
only way of avoiding the causality problem is to assume that when you
change speed you change from a universe where light separates from the
source at c to a parallel universe where it separates from the source at
c+v and always has done.

Physical interpretation of SR is not allowed. Relativity is a principle
theory (a posh name for a mathematical model) and as such makes no
attempt to address physical questions. However if you study SR maths and
the descriptions of the maths then what I describe above is duplicated
exactly except that the different universes are referred to as different
Frames of Reference. The fact is that a FoR is a mathematical
abstraction which cannot impose physical restrictions on light photons.
The problem is that the physical space which the FoR maps out is claimed
not to contain anything which can possibly impose physical restrictions
on light photons either.

Einstein preferred to assume that EM theory is correct and that the laws
of mechanics had to change. The alternative, followed by Ritz/Waldron is
that the laws of mechanics are correct and that it is the EM theory
which needs modifying. While the Einstein route requires the ditching of
3 apparently sensible axioms of physics the alternative route requires
only two changes to electric theory.

Firstly that light speed is source dependent If one accepts what
experiment showed, that light is not a propagated wave but particles
shot out by the source then what is more natural than that their speed
be a property of the physical process which sends them on their way, the
physical process taking place at the source. What other possible
physical process is there? Take away the aether and the source is
surrounded by nothing which can take part in a physical process - so
there can be no other physical process.

Secondly Coulomb's law must be modified such that the force between
moving charges varies with the speed between them. This is also
reasonable if one assumes that the force has a maximum speed c at which
it can act. Think of a child's play area with a roundabout. If you stand
by the roundabout and try and give the bar a push every time it goes
around to make it go faster eventually the bar will travel as fast as
your arm can move and you cannot make it go any faster. In a particle
accelerator there is no way of telling whether the effective mass
increases by gamma as per SR or whether the effect on the charge
decreases by gamma as per Waldron.

One of the predictions of relativity is that nothing with mass can
travel at c and therefore photons cannot have mass. But all the evidence
is that photons do have mass. A photon has momentum and is affected by
gravity the same way as any other particle with mass.

Waldron produces a formula for the mass of a photon. Based on
experimental evidence he concludes that the energy of a photon has two
components its kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 and internal energy (1/2)mc^2 .
From a stationary source v = c so total energy = mc^2.
So hf = mc^2 or
m = hf/c^2.

(He later derives the same equation using quantum mechanics). Based on
that he shows that experimental results agree.

The force caused by light hitting a reflective surface is as predicted
as is the different force on an absorbent surface.

If you calculate the increase in energy for such a mass falling under
gravity it works out right for photons as per Pound Rebka.

If you use the same maths on a photon escaping from a planets gravity as
you would use for any other projectile the energy lost works out as per
'gravitational red shift'.

If you work out the total mass of the two photons which result from a
positron, electron collision each photon has the same mass as an
electron. i.e. the pair of photons has the same mass as the electron and
positron combined.

If you have a photon with more than twice the mass of an electron
encountering a massive nucleus it can split into an electron positron
pair and any excess mass is carried away as a low energy photon. The
mass equation balances. It is said that the rest mass of a photon is
zero yet this experiment approximates to bringing a photon (very nearly)
to rest and having as a result something of known mass - an electron and
a positron.

He calculates the deviation of light caused by gravity - it agrees.

He derives exactly the same equation for the Compton effect as does
orthodox quantum physics. His maths in accord with Newton.

I doubt that Waldron had all the right answers but his theory is an
impressive attempt for someone working part time. There may be
experimental evidence which appears to contradict ballistic theory but
ballistic theory cannot be ruled out without a serious attempt to make
it work.

"Today the mass of an object is defined as the norm of its 4-momentum."
- Tom Roberts.

I rest my case.
--
John Kennaugh

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
|
| Authors trying to sell Relativity to a student have a problem. They
| cannot go through a logical sequence of historical events - the history
| of relativity is quite frankly embarrassing. Neither can they appeal to
| common sense, relativity is of course counter intuitive. Some text books
| use semantic trickery. The most honest I have seen is an on-line Harvard
| university text book where the author says in effect "it may seem daft
| but it works".

He's still lying, it doesn't work and it is still daft.
You have a strange idea of "honest".

John Kennaugh wrote:
Authors trying to sell Relativity to a student have a problem. They
cannot go through a logical sequence of historical events - the history
of relativity is quite frankly embarrassing.

That is not uncommon in most fields of human endeavour. They way
most things get to the way that they are today is rarely simple or
logogical.

Neither can they appeal to
common sense, relativity is of course counter intuitive.

Yes.


Some text books
use semantic trickery. The most honest I have seen is an on-line Harvard
university text book where the author says in effect "it may seem daft
but it works". I would point out however that the same could be said of
the geocentric theory of the solar system. A dominant belief that the
earth was at the centre forced the maths to be transformed in such a way
that they gave the right answer.

"If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation I
should have recommended something simpler." Alfonso 'the wise' of
Castile (1221-1284) having studied the Ptolemaic system.

The difference is that relativity is the simplest theory that
explains all the facts.


As I will explain later I see parallels in the history of relativity
where I will show that a dominant belief played a part in distorting our
way of viewing things.

If you are a follower of Occam then the MMX shows that the speed of
light is not constant w.r.t the aether as had been supposed and so must
therefore be constant w.r.t the source - there being no plausible
causality by which 'where it ended up' could be responsible for the
speed at which it travelled to get there. Ritz's emission theory of
light published in 1908 and Waldron's Ballistic theory of light
published in 1977 are both based on the assumption that the speed of
light is source dependent. Both theories were suppressed, not by any act
of censorship but by totally ignoring them - which is much more
effective.

Ballistic theories were discarded because they are provably wrong, which
makes the rest of this post pointless.

Martin Hogbin

On Apr 25, 9:52*am, John Kennaugh
idiocies snipped
But, old fart, it is well known that the ballisic theory fails the
Ives Stilwell experiment and a whole bunch of others, look he

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...g-source_tests

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...
| John Kennaugh wrote:
| Authors trying to sell Relativity to a student have a problem. They
| cannot go through a logical sequence of historical events - the history
| of relativity is quite frankly embarrassing.
|
| That is not uncommon in most fields of human endeavour. They way
| most things get to the way that they are today is rarely simple or
| logogical.
|
| Neither can they appeal to
| common sense, relativity is of course counter intuitive.
|
| Yes.
|
|
| Some text books
| use semantic trickery. The most honest I have seen is an on-line Harvard
| university text book where the author says in effect "it may seem daft
| but it works". I would point out however that the same could be said of
| the geocentric theory of the solar system. A dominant belief that the
| earth was at the centre forced the maths to be transformed in such a way
| that they gave the right answer.
|
| "If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation I
| should have recommended something simpler." Alfonso 'the wise' of
| Castile (1221-1284) having studied the Ptolemaic system.
|
| The difference is that relativity is the simplest theory that
| explains all the facts.
|
|
| As I will explain later I see parallels in the history of relativity
| where I will show that a dominant belief played a part in distorting our
| way of viewing things.
|
| If you are a follower of Occam then the MMX shows that the speed of
| light is not constant w.r.t the aether as had been supposed and so must
| therefore be constant w.r.t the source - there being no plausible
| causality by which 'where it ended up' could be responsible for the
| speed at which it travelled to get there. Ritz's emission theory of
| light published in 1908 and Waldron's Ballistic theory of light
| published in 1977 are both based on the assumption that the speed of
| light is source dependent. Both theories were suppressed, not by any act
| of censorship but by totally ignoring them - which is much more
| effective.
|
| Ballistic theories were discarded because they are provably wrong, which
| makes the rest of this post pointless.
|


Go on then, let's see "they" "logogical" provably wrong, **** for brains.

John Kennaugh wrote:
Authors trying to sell Relativity to a student have a problem.

Boy, you sure display your bias up front. This isn't "selling", this is
_teaching_. It's sad that you cannot tell the difference, and that
reflects on you far more than anyone else.


They
cannot go through a logical sequence of historical events - the history
of relativity is quite frankly embarrassing.

History is not "logical". Nor is it "embarrassing" except possibly to
those who participated.


Neither can they appeal to
common sense, relativity is of course counter intuitive.

Yes. "Common sense" is JUST THAT -- rules of thumb we use based on our
common, everyday experience. Nobody grows up with experience of speeds
approaching c, and sensible people realize that there's no reason why
phenomena at the scale of our lives should be valid in domains far
removed from our lives.


[... HIGHLY biased claims, bordering on just plain wrong]

If you are a follower of Occam then the MMX shows that the speed of
light is not constant w.r.t the aether as had been supposed and so must
therefore be constant w.r.t the source

NONSENSE! There is no "so must therefore" here. Your attempt to argue
from exhaustive enumeration is JUST PLAIN WRONG. There are other
possibilities, such as SR being correct.


[... further nonsense based on his ignorance of modern physics, most
especially SR.]


Tom Roberts

Dono wrote:
On Apr 25, 9:52*am, John Kennaugh
idiocies snipped
But, old fart, it is well known that the ballisic theory fails the
Ives Stilwell experiment and a whole bunch of others, look he

Have you actually studied the Ives-Stilwell experiment or have you
simply picked a comforting statement off a website which allows you to
continue with your pseudo religious belief.


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ments.html#mov
ing-source_tests

Try "The wave and ballistic Theory of light " RA Waldron Muller
It give a description of the experiment P56 and the theoretical basis on
which it was intended to show the validity of Lorentz/Einstein. It is
consistent with Lorentz/Einstein but he analyses it according to his
theory and on Page 160 -161. It concludes:

"As explained in section V.15 the apparent frequencies to be expected
are
f = fo(1 +/- v/c + v^2/2c^2) which is just the values
observed in the experiment thus the Ives-Stillwell experiment fails to
discriminate between the Lorentz-Einstein theory and the ballistic
theory".

As is often the case something which is consistent with SR is assumed to
therefore rule out Ballistic theory while I have shown that they give
the same answer. What it is actually testing is the so called 'time -
dilation' component which was believed to be only consistent with SR. As
I have shown in at least two of my own examples, effects said to be due
to time dilation are consistent with ballistic theory and Newton's
Mechanics.

The problem with most such experiments is that they have no clear idea
of what theory they are trying to disprove. If light travelling at c+v
goes through glass does it emerge at c w.r.t the glass or does it resume
its journey a c+v? If light hits a mirror at c+v does it bounce off
elastically or does it become c w.r.t the mirror? Having answered those
questions you can then tackle other questions such as whether a lens has
the same focal length if the light is travelling at c+v as it does if it
is travelling at c. If photons have their speed changed when going
through a transparent medium does the wavefront associated with those
photons travel at the same speed - which requires some insight as to how
photons and wavelike phenomena are related. Basically in order to
disprove a theory you have first to develop the theory using
experimental evidence to answer the questions. Waldron has done this and
found answers which are consistent. I suspect it requires more work but
physicists prefer the web of mysticism they have woven.

If an accepted theory hits a snag - the BB theory for example - no one
sees that as a failure - it is simply patched up with inflation, dark
matter and dark energy - or whatever is needs. Relativists tend to grasp
at anything which seems to counter ballistic theory so that they can
continue with their belief. The fact is that no one, apart from Ritz and
Waldron have tried to make the theory work. Ritz died in 1909 one year
after proposing his theory leaving Einstein unopposed and Waldron taught
maths and studied Physics in his spare time - and was also ignored.

NO ONE has made a serious attempt to look at the theory and until it is
properly evaluated by a team trying to make it work it CANNOT be ruled
out.

If you can come up with an experiment which I cannot fault it means
absolutely nothing. I am not a physicist nor a mathematician but I have
found many of the experiments put forward by people like you can be
dismissed rather too easily indicating that they have not actually been
studied by the person putting it forward. In may cases it is simply that
the results agree with SR - so it is assumed it won't agree with
Ballistic theory. As I have shown, if there is an experiment which give
differently predicted results for SR and ballistic theory it is a very
rare exception.
--
John Kennaugh

On Apr 26, 3:40 am, John Kennaugh
wrote:
Dono wrote:
On Apr 25, 9:52 am, John Kennaugh
idiocies snipped
But, old fart, it is well known that the ballisic theory fails the
Ives Stilwell experiment and a whole bunch of others, look he

Have you actually studied the Ives-Stilwell experiment or have you
simply picked a comforting statement off a website which allows you to
continue with your pseudo religious belief.


Yes, I did , old fart. Bye.

Androcles wrote:
"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
o.uk...
|
| Authors trying to sell Relativity to a student have a problem. They
| cannot go through a logical sequence of historical events - the history
| of relativity is quite frankly embarrassing. Neither can they appeal to
| common sense, relativity is of course counter intuitive. Some text books
| use semantic trickery. The most honest I have seen is an on-line Harvard
| university text book where the author says in effect "it may seem daft
| but it works".

He's still lying, it doesn't work and it is still daft.
You have a strange idea of "honest".

"relatively" speaking it is a little more honest than underhand methods
I have seen in some text books which deliberately try and deceive. They
describe the MMX and conclude that the 'speed of light is always c
independent of the speed of the observer' - without pointing out that it
showed this only for the case of no motion between source and observer.

In a later chapter it introduces relativity and states "As it was shown
that the speed of light is constant independent of the speed of the
observer....." and carries on as if the second postulate is verified
experimentally by the MMX.

My own interest in the subject and the suspicion that all is not as it
should be comes from the fact that I saw through this con. Hence my
interest in the history of how exactly we ended up where we are, and my
interest in stripping away the spin relativists attempt to sanitize it
with.

It would seem that in his early days Stephen Hawking must have had a
text book using the same con and it appears he didn't see through it and
he still believes that the second postulate - a foundation of his life's
work - comes unequivocally from the MMX.

--
John Kennaugh

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
| Androcles wrote:
| "John Kennaugh" wrote in message
| o.uk...
| |
| | Authors trying to sell Relativity to a student have a problem. They
| | cannot go through a logical sequence of historical events - the history
| | of relativity is quite frankly embarrassing. Neither can they appeal to
| | common sense, relativity is of course counter intuitive. Some text
books
| | use semantic trickery. The most honest I have seen is an on-line
Harvard
| | university text book where the author says in effect "it may seem daft
| | but it works".
|
| He's still lying, it doesn't work and it is still daft.
| You have a strange idea of "honest".
|
| "relatively" speaking it is a little more honest than underhand methods
| I have seen in some text books which deliberately try and deceive. They
| describe the MMX and conclude that the 'speed of light is always c
| independent of the speed of the observer' - without pointing out that it
| showed this only for the case of no motion between source and observer.

A jury is instructed to find the defendant either guilty or not guilty.
No grey areas, it's all or nothing.
The judge does the sentencing, taking into account mitigating
circumstances and what the law demands. If caught speeding
it's three points on your license - even if you were racing to hospital
to save a life.
There is no "little more honest" or "relatively speaking", Einstein
was dishonest and lied, your textbook is a LIE, Einstein's relativity
does not work. We can get to the mitigation when that is understood.

| In a later chapter it introduces relativity and states "As it was shown
| that the speed of light is constant independent of the speed of the
| observer....." and carries on as if the second postulate is verified
| experimentally by the MMX.

You are still overlooking the third postulate, concentrating on
the two Einstein himself claims are all he needs. Until you highlight
that you are arguing with one had tied behind your back.

Einstein writes: "These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a
simple and consistent theory" yet he is totally reliant on his third
postulate
the *he* chooses to call a definition, and nor is his theory consistent.
He uses c+v so that he can derive (c+v)/(1+v/c).
Here it is:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

The man lied. He is guilty of dishonesty.

"we establish by definition that (third postulate follows)
the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the
``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " - Einstein.

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?


| My own interest in the subject and the suspicion that all is not as it
| should be comes from the fact that I saw through this con.

But you missed the third postulate. *I* saw through his con and
I've just pointed it out to you... again. I've been doing it since 1987,
21 years.



| Hence my
| interest in the history of how exactly we ended up where we are, and my
| interest in stripping away the spin relativists attempt to sanitize it
| with.

We ended up here because John Goodricke, aged 18, decided that
Algol was a binary star in 1782. If you agree that the speed of light is
source dependent then you are compelled to accept Goodricke
HAS to be wrong.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm

However, Goodricke can be forgiven, he was naive.


Step 1: Goodricke concludes what he sees is what is happening.

Step 2: Einstein agrees with Goodricke's finding.

Step 3: Einstein is infatuated with time. (H.G. Wells' "Time Machine"
as a teenager, patent clerk for Swiss cuckoo clocks later).

Step 4: Einstein comes up with his third postulate and persuades himself
he was right, just as Goodricke did. We all do it, true objectivity is
difficult, and if you get fame and glory then you have motive as well.

Step 5: The popular press latch on to E = mc^2 after the A-bomb.

Step 6: Einstein capitalises on that as much as he can.

Nobody had heard of him before 1945 anyway.

| It would seem that in his early days Stephen Hawking must have had a
| text book using the same con and it appears he didn't see through it and
| he still believes that the second postulate - a foundation of his life's
| work - comes unequivocally from the MMX.

MMX is Sagnac with no rotation and with Sagnac a fringe shift IS seen.
The ring laser gyroscope is with us and useful as a navigational aid.

Einstein chose to ignore Sagnac, it didn't fit with his crank theory.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

-- This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/