madmac

Sensei. I don't think i have heard of that before, same number of nucleons but less mass, very interesting. I am especially weak re sub-atomic stuff, so the less i say the better, i don't want to risk embarrassing myself & wasting everyone's time. But, i know just enough to allow me to have a belief or two, & i think i read something last month that might shed some light on this. I will find that article & report back. But in the meantime i am not surprised that mass is less after emission of a gamma, because gammas are particles (photons), & have mass (real mass, not just equivalent mass or something). I know so little that i don't even know whether this sort of thinking is mainstream. So, the enigma for me changes, it becomes a question of how can a nucleon lose a photon yet not change form(?). What energy created the not-needed photon(?). Thanks for the wiki-link, i did read it, & if it answered my new question then this proves how silly i am. But i will find that article (i must have a thousand articles in my computer) & report back (re non-proof of mass=energy). It was a sort of Arab name, or Eurasian.

swansont. Most of my favourite sources-articles do not come from top journals because they are sceptical of the mainstream (censorship). Some are a review of the mainstream theory, a real peer review, not a (mainstream) pal review. But sometimes they provide new experimental info. Either way, i would love to see mainstream reviews of these reviews (rarely happens). An article might be say anti relativity, & the usual put-down is that it is anti relativity, & that relativity has been accepted & proven for umpteen years. I am easily bamboozled by science, but i reckon that i can get a good feel for truth by the way that scientists move & duck & punch. And when a scientist is in the ring on his/her own its hard to tell if he/she is good or bad. Re links, i usually mention a name &-or title, & hope that anyone interested will only take seconds to google. Cut & paste doesn't work for me on this forum. Almost nothing works, i even hav trouble getting italics or bold or underline (seriously). And hitting quotes doesn't give me quotes. It might be my satellite link down here in the bush, or kangaroos have been chewing the cables again. Perhaps my satellite still thinks that messages go east-west at the same speed as west-east. StringJunky. I have a vague idea of Galileo, didn't Newton plagiarise a lot off him(?). Didn't Galileo initially think that a ship actually got smaller as it sailed away? If Einstein wrote a thesis that a ship actually did dilate with relative distance, & that it was valid for an observer on the ship to believe that the pier moved because the pier was not absolute, then he would have been locked away, but in the modern era this sort of theory rules.

Studiot. Thanks for thems links. Isnt history marvellous. Today scientists measure stuff to better than 1 part in a billion (but rubbish nonetheless) --- whereas the pioneers worked in the dark with homemade gear with little funding.

swansont. Re diurnal change in ticking. This is mentioned on -- page 34 & 35 -- Section 3.6, Clock Bias on and Near Earth -- of -- Report on the ["Clocks and the Equivalence Principle" by Ronald R Hatch] -- by Jonathan Alzetta (April 1, 2011). Alzetta says that Hatch said that -- "Hill reported that millisecond pulsars external to the solar system reveal a difference in clock rate between clock located at noon and at midnight". The difference is about 300 ps/sec, & is due to Earth's orbit & daily spin. SR does not recognise any orbital contribution. GR suggests that the difference should be only 0.42 ps/sec, ie due to a greater gravitational potential due to the sun at noon. Re the reality of Einstein's Relativity. I like the following 4 articles that i had a look at this morning that happen to be at the top of my list on my computer for no good reason, some of the other 14 further down my list might be better. These 18 articles are filed under GPS. I have perhaps 1000 articles, mostly related to aether, & some will be better than these 4 (re Einstein's Relativity). What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twins's Paradox -- Tom Van Flandern (this is much more interesting than it looks). The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light -- Paul Marmet (love it). Light Transmission and the Sagnac Effect on the Rotating Earth -- Stephan J G Gift (nice). GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview -- Henry F Fliegel & Raymond S DiEsposti (old article, but interesting). Plus look at all of Ronald R Hatch's articles, eg -- In Search of an Ether Drift. He is praps the guru of GPS. Re Aether-Wind. I like the articles (about 40 of them) by Prof Reginald Cahill (Adelaide) & his students & fellow staff. Cahill never uses the word aether, nor aether-wind. He uses the term Dynamic Space. Cahill discovered/invented the proper calibration for M&M, which takes into account the refractive index of air (& helium in some tests). Vacuum givs a null result (ie most modern tests). Actually i recently discovered that Cahill wasn't the first to find the proper calibration, but he is my hero nonetheless. The sad saga of De Witte (who was the first to measure the one-way velocity of light) will bring a tear to every aetherist's eyes. Cahill's discovery of what he calls Gravitational Waves is fascinating.

swansont. I will be looking at the above No12 (Einstein's famous train (thought) experiment) in detail, & i expect that there will be lots of discussion. I decided to do this as a result of looking at the sister-thread which is based on the youtube version showing a short bullet-train, & showing the observer on the platform standing about half the length of the train back away from the train. The bullet-train version differs from Einstein's original in many ways (i assume that the 1920 book version is faithful to the original), which changes some things. And the bullet-train version is so badly described (re who saw what where & when) that it is almost impossible to analyse.

swansont. Yes ticking usually slows or fasts if u move a clock to a different position or if u change a clock's speed. But here u will need a bit of patience while i put on my aetherist hat. Aetherists believe in absolute time (universal time). The fastest a clock can tick is when it is stationary in the aether (zero aether-wind). Clocks tick slower if they feel an aether-wind. They feel the speed of the wind, the acceleration makes no difference. Gravity is due to acceleration of aether (not vel). Aether accelerates into Earth & Sun & all matter. The general background aether-wind in our part of the cosmos is about 475 km/sec passing south to north approx. 25dg off Earth's axis. Einstein's relativity & aether theory give similar answers most of the time, & identical answers some of the time. But relativity cannot explain the diurnal change in ticking, only aether-theory can explain it. Lorentz (& Fitzgerald) gave an electromagnetic reason for length dilation, based on the vel of aether-wind. This was criticised by some, even though it is not ad hoc. And Lorentz gave an electromagnetic reason for time dilation, based on the speed of aether-wind, but this was ad hoc (u could use the same reasoning to suggest that ticking got faster instead of the desired slower). But Einstein did not give any reason whatever for time dilation & length dilation in relativity, certainly not any electro-dynamic reason (despite the title of his paper), he merely provided some math trickery that gave the supposed "correct" answers, based on nothing more than it explains the difference in what a moving observer supposedly sees & what a fixed observer supposedly sees, none of which is based on any reality at all. Here by electro-dynamic i mean re the shape of atoms contracting in a certain direction. The passage of light itself (photons) is not electro-dynamic, there isn't any electron involved (nor any charge)(but this is the first time i have given this any thought).

swansont. Re no neutrinos. Buechner & van de Graaff in 1946 did a calorimetric test showing that there was no energy deficit needing neutrinos. Re conservation, i did see some sort of article way back that said something about angular momentum not being scalar. Re photons having mass, we know that they travel at c, hencely perhaps if they had little mass or zero mass they would travel at more than c (but it would still be c)(See????). This is a sort of circular argument. Another thing. If photons have zero mass then how can E=mc^2. If all of a lump of mass was converted to energy, where would the energy go? How would it go? There is no such thing as energy. The only place that energy could go is into kinetic energy of photons. And if photons have no mass then how could they have kinetic energy. Thusly E=mc^2 is silly. Some of the mass must always be retained in the form of new photons (which have mass), & the lost mass would then manifest as the extra kinetic energy of them photons. Thusly E=mc^2 must have a coefficient (a fraction) that defines the maximum possible loss of mass, which would differ for different reactions (ie the coefficient would not be a constant). The failure of standard physics here starts with the notion that there are waves, & that waves have energy, & that energy = mass. No, there is no such thing as wave. Offhand i don't know of experiments proving that photons have mass. But conversely (almost conversely) i don't know of any that show that a loss of mass gives energy. Sensei. I believe that mass is mass. Mass doesn't change with speed (that's only a math trick). Rest mass & relativistic mass are not real, just a (good) math trick. Re photons, i believe that these are the fundamental (smallest) particle, & have mass. Other (larger & more massive) sub-atomic particles are made up of one or more confined photons. A free photon has a very very small mass, it could almost be called a quasi-particle. Confinement (an electron is a confined photon) somehow adds lots of mass. J G Williamson describes how confinement can make 3 types of quark, & other particles. There are lots of google articles out there that analyse & criticise supposed neutrino detectors, i have 7 (Carezani is one, Hilster is another).

Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1920). Has lots of imaginings. I am mostly interested in trains, but will mention a few of the others. (a) Alby erects a pole perpendicularly on Trafalgar Square to reach a cloud, measuring its L with a rod, to specify position. 1. A moving railway carriage with a window, Alby, dropped stone, ground (embankment) -- to show that trajectories are relative. 2. 1 again, but with 2 clocks that tick, a man, a man on a footpath -- to better measure the stones falling trajectory. 3. Railway carriage, embankment, flying raven, 2 observers -- to show movement in a straight line in different frames of reference. 4. Embankment, railway carriage, organ-pipe (emitting a note when parallel)(& when perpendicular) -- showing effect of orientation. 5. Earth (orbiting the sun), railway carriage (v = 30 km/sec) -- to show that the laws of nature are not affected by orientation. 6. Railway carriage, rails, man (walking along carriage)(or standing still for 1 sec), embankment -- theorem of addition of vel (later to be shown false). 7. Embankment, air (removed), ray of light (like man walking), tip of ray (vel c), railway carriage (vel v), railway lines -- vel of ray relative to carriage is less than c. 8. (7 again). Advising that 7 conflicts with the principle of relativity set forth earlier. 9. Lightning (2 strokes), striking rails on embankment at A & B (far apart) simultaneously, Alby (commissioned to determine whether the 2 events took place simultaneously), meteorologist (with a theory for simultaneous lightning) -- requires a definition of simultaneity which includes a method to decide. 10. (9 again). Observer (at midpoint M of A-B), holding 2 mirrors (inclined at 90dg to see A&B) -- can see if simultaneous. Alby says that 10 is ok if the lightning flash vel A-M is the same as B-M. Alby says.... "That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which i can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity". (Comment -- i don't understand). 11. (Further to 10). Clocks (placed at ABC of the railway line)(with pointers set simultaneously the same) -- give the time of an event if at an event. Alby says that 11 is ok if clocks go at the same rate, ie if they are of identical construction, & at rest in that reference frame. Alby says.... "This stipulation contains a further physical hypothesis, the validity of which will hardly be doubted without empirical evidence to the contrary". 12. Railway embankment, a very long train (at least 100 carriages)(vel = v), people in the train, 2 strokes of lightning at A & B -- full details tomorrow. 13. (Further to 12). A 3D consideration, by means of a framework of rods, for 3 co-ordinate planes -- showing equations for the Lorentz transforms. 14. (Further to 6). Instead of a man walking inside a carriage, a point moving -- giving an equation for addition of vel in one direction. 15. (Further to 14). The Fizeau experiment, the vel of light in a moving liquid in a tube. The tube plays the part of the railway embankment, the liquid the carriage, the light plays the part of the man walking -- Zeeman's measurements accord with the above equation to within 1%. 16. Embankment, railway carriage -- either are ok for a reference-body re the general laws of nature. 17. (Further to 16). An occupant, brakes (giving a jerk & non-uniform motion) -- Galileain law does not hold (& mentions general principle of relativity). (b) A spacious chest (in space), with hook & rope attached to lid, with a being pulling, observer inside chest (equipped with apparatus), observer fastened with strings to floor -- leading to law of equivalence of inertial & gravitational mass. 18. (Further to 17 & (b)). Re observer in carriage experiencing a jerk due to brake -- might interpret this to a gravitational field. (c ) Alby, a gas range, with 2 pans (alike, half filled with water), steam emitting from only one pan, a luminous blueish color under this pan but not the other -- Alby is not astonished by the different behaviour. (d) (Further to (b)). A ray of light in the accelerated chest -- the path is curvilinear -- we conclude that in general rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields. Alby says that the estimated curvature for rays grazing the sun is 1.7 seconds of arc, & should manifest by observing stars during eclipse. Alby says that the special theory holds only if no gravitational field. (e). A plane circular disc rotating in its plane, an observer on the disc might think he was at rest & that the force was gravitational -- an outside observer would interpret it as an effect of inertia & centrifugal force. (f). (Further to (e)). Observer on disc uses clocks & rods . A clock at the rim is in motion & ticks slower than a (stationary) clock at the center (for both observers), even though the observer on the disc thinks both clocks are at rest. Alby says that this shows that in a gravitational field a clock will tick more quickly or less quickly according to position. (g). (Further to (f)). If the observer on the disc uses a short rod to measure the circumference & diameter, he will arrive at a ratio larger than pi, because the rod is contracted when measuring the circumference of the rotating disc, but not when measuring the dia. Alby says that this shows that Euclidean geometry cannot hold exactly on the rotating disc, nor in general in a gravitational field. (h). Alby, a marble table (or slab), covered by lots of small rods forming squares giving Cartesian co-ordinates. We heat the central part of the slab, those rods expanding & giving disorder. Alby says that this corresponds to the situation brought about by the general postulate of relativity.

Bender. swansont. Thanks for the link & comments. I need to read more on sub-atomic stuff (QM). Naturally i will be keeping a good eye out for anything that supports my existing beliefs, namely --- quanta = ok -- antiparticles = ok -- 3 types of quark or whatever = ok -- about half of our present 60 or so particles = not ok. Without wishing to start any off-topic discussion, i might add (just to show my state of mind) that i suspect that all particles have mass (& no other type of particle exists). And that photons are the smallest elementary particle (& have mass). And there are no neutrinos. That there is a sub-quantum aether (giving our field). That we have no waves as such (perhaps sub-quantum waves of some sort).

I printed off a copy of an English translation of -- On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (June 30, 1905). I read it over a few days, to see what Einstein said about his train-thought-experiments. Alby didn't mention any train experiment of any sort. There was a mention in Chapter 1 to explain the physical meaning of simultaneous events, here Alby says -- "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock" -- which he says means -- "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events". No experiment here. And in Chapter 7 re Doppler etc Alby mentions a -- "wave-train". Nothing to do with choo-choo trains. My copy is 24 pages long, but it felt like 240 pages (slow going), nicely written, but some wordage hurt my brain. Alby mentions -- postulates -- but sometimes he calls them -- principles (confusing). Alby mentions a -- line of thought -- (to synchronise clocks). Later -- the rule -- the manner -- the method. Alby mentions -- operations -- (to ascertain the length of a moving rod). Later -- a criterion. And as well as -- ascertained -- he later says -- determined -- discovered -- measured. We have that observers -- find that -- and later -- declare that. My math is a problem, especially when in equations i confuse v with u. And the snail-trails (Greek?) used for x, y, z etc are scary. But i was impressed, & would be more impressed if i understood more of it. Alby sure was clever (or was it Mrs Alby?). Anyhow, i had more luck with Alby's book -- Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1920) -- lots of trains, tomorrow.

Bender. Yes in reality (pun intended) all we ever have is models. But i have one model, & it has particles. In it, wave-like behaviour is created by particles. Conversely i suppose that one can have one model, having only waves, & in it the waves create particle-like behaviour. And i suppose that one can have two separate models to use as needed, perhaps with no theory explaining any possible link. In fact here one could claim both as being reality, without perhaps breaking any law of common-sense (not being sarcastic here). Any reality re a part of physics (particles, waves) is eventually & inevitably found to be unreal, & ideally is replaced by a better model (that is usually optimistically called reality)(we never learn), sometimes only after a costly & bitter war (dominated by propaganda & misinformation & censorship & Nobel Prizes) which eventually ends after one side (the aged side) is weakened by funerals.

Bender. Einsteinian is in my Shorter Oxford. Aetherist i found on page 2 of a google search, it was on page 60 of Newton & The Theory of Matter (1967) by Hall & Hall. It said that Newton was an aetherist at heart. Re M&M (& Miller) u might have a look at analyses by Hicks & by Cahill. Do u believe in particles or waves or both???

zztop. I had another read of Hicks' 1905 analysis of M&M. Hicks says that M&M took readings while the interferometer was rotating (Michelson in 1881 took stationary readings). Hicks doesn't (in 43 pages) mention Doppler as such, but he does say.... "The theory is not so simple as it may appear at first sight owing to the changes produced by actual reflexion at a moving surface. The correction due to alteration in the angle of reflexion was first introduced by Lorentz, and was taken account of in the joint paper by Michelson & Morley in 1887. But reflexion produces also a change in the wave-length of the reflected light". Hicks was fully aware of the effects of observer moving (or not moving) with the apparatus (& likewise the source of light moving or not), altho he probably wasn't aware of any pure Einsteinian SR effects. Unfortunately in the above quoted wordage Hicks isn't i think 100% clear whether his observer is moving with his apparatus. Also, throughout his article Hicks is almost never clear whether his moving mirrors are translating or rotating or both. Interestingly Hicks later says, of the reflected light......... "If an observer is fixed in the aether he sees that in this picture the waves have different wave-lengths, but that they advance with the same velocity V, and the apparatus moves with U. If the observer is fixed to the apparatus he sees that in this picture the apparatus is fixed but that each system of waves advances with a different velocity, yet in all cases such, that as they reach him their frequencies are the same---the longer waves have the greater apparent velocity of propagation". This wordage is Einsteinesque. Without analysing the quote more closely i think that Hicks is employing Lorentz Relativity (is there such a thing), which as we know has many similarities with SR (hencely his wording). One trap for fellows like me is that Hicks' article deals mainly with wave-fronts not pure waves. It is M&M wave-fronts that make M&M fringes. Whereas pure waves belong to the photons (our eyes can see photons, & their color) -- but our eyes cant see M&M wave-fronts, but might see fringes if wave-fronts from two sources cross (i hope that this is correct). I should add that pure waves are themselves wave-fronts too, & can make visible fringes. The distinction in my mind is that pure waves (& pure wave-fronts) travel at the same speed as their photons, but M&M wave-fronts are slower (but can be superluminal in certain cases)(i hope that this is correct).

Cosmo_Ken. History is marvellous, i wish i had more time to read. I like googling, there is so much stuff out there. One thing leads to another. NASA has lots of articles, including lots of interesting interviews (& transcripts) with old-timers giving real stories. U might enjoy reading that science doesn't know the value of G or the masses of planets etc to much better than 1%. But science does know the product Gm for planets to a great level of accuracy, allowing very accurate calculations (despite being in the dark about G & m individually). And u might enjoy reading about how Newtonian gravity fails, leading to mysterious diurnal & other periodic anomalies for the Pioneer trajectory(s).

Quantum321. Being an aetherist i should believe in waves, but i don't. I believe in particles, eg free photons (whatever they are), & larger particles (confined photons). Waves make good models (math) & that's ok. But i believe that wavelike effects are due to spin (all sub-atomic particles spin). Einsteinians don't believe in aether, yet they (mostly) believe that waves are real (not just good for models). Its funny, real waves need something to wave, & i believe in that something, yet i don't believe that waves are real --- but Einsteinians don't believe in that something yet believe that waves are real. It should be the other way around, go figure.

zztop. I recently printed off most of Demjanov's papers but haven't digested them yet. I was impressed with his spinning transverse Doppler experiment. But it suffered from vibration (no surprise, 3000rpm, & 1m radius). And his quasi-English is very difficult to follow. However, his results were 10,000 times or some-such more than predicted by relativity. But he had to do a lot of fudging to try to see past the noise from vibration. I suspect that that is what the withdrawn bizness is all about, but i think i got all of his papers from his present website only say about 2 weeks ago. I suspect that my print might be his latest effort at removing that-there noise. zztop. I think that a rotating mirror does give an M&M Doppler effect. However, i seem to recall that Michelson stopped the rotation to take his readings. And i suspect that so did M&M, not sure about M&G & others. Miller & Miller&Co took their readings on the run, they didn't stop the rotation. An aether-wind might of course give Doppler. Hicks (1905?) analysed the M&M re calibration, ie re the creation of fringes, & he might have mentioned Doppler (i cannot remember, it was so long ago). But i claim that Hicks made a mistake (& so must have Righi). It is sort of related to Doppler. A receding angled (45dg) mirror reflects lightwaves, & i claim that these waves travel at less than c (or less than the usual lightspeed in air etc). It might seem a silly idea, but my reason is that the reflected photons travel at the usual speed (& the usual direction), but the waves manifest at a different angle to the photons (the standard wave-angle is known to Hicks & Huygens & everyone else), & hencely the waves cannot travel at the same speed as the photon. This must affect the calibration (for Miller, but not for M&M), but i haven't worked it throo (that Hicks article is torture). It also means that such waves might travel faster than the photons producing them (i feel a Nobel coming). Anyhow i guess that Huygens got it slightly wrong all those years ago (were there lightwaves & photons in his day???).

Thanks guys (or should i say fellows so as not to be sexist), i appreciate the replies, & am working on my reply (that might surprise). Back soon.

I had a look at the video, & am not impressed. If the observer on the platform was Einstein, & if he had all of the simple info & simple measurements & simple theory needed, then he would see or deduce every detail of what happed as the train passed, & he would deduce that the passenger (she) saw simultaneous flashes (as did he). Thusly, the train (thought) experiment (& thusly Einstein's SR) relies on having an observer that is ignorant of the critical measurements, or is too stupid. This probably makes this thought experiment & the resulting SR theory unique. I am ok with mathematical tricks, & weird models, if they give good answers, but i daresay that skoolkids are not warned of the difference tween models & reality. Here is how i try to make sense of SR. SR is a model not reality (that's ok). Time dilation & length dilation are not reality in SR, just a math trick (that's ok). There is no such thing as absolute time in SR, all time is relative (that's ok). What u see depends on your velocity (ok), & perhaps position (needs more thinking). Re simultaneity, i reckon that this is sometimes (bad choice of word) possible for observers in relative motion, albeit for only an instant, if the event has a centerline (an axis of symmetry), & if both observers are on that line (or plane). For example this-here train experiment (for one instant). Time will tell (pun intended). If Mrs Einstein were the passenger then she could make similar deductions re what her hubby saw, after all, she was the brain in the family.

M&M experiments (or very similar) using i think glass or plexiglass include..... Shamir & Fox in 1969. Report near-null result. Trimmer et al in 1973. Report near-null result. Demjanov in 1969 etc. Reports non-null results.