Originally posted by Joeblow93132
thed,
I'll try to answer some of your questions, but I don't know everything either. What I do know is that Relativity DOES NOT make sense. There are more then one way to explain a phenomena and Einstein's way was wrong.
"So, first question is, what is light? Is it a particle or wave. Newton realised that shows properties of both."
Thank you for admitting that photons are particles. I guess since the main property of a particle is mass, a photon must have mass. There goes Einsteins theory about photons being PURE energy.
Your main assumption is wrong. The main property of particles is not mass. Frankly, physics is struggling to answer these two basic questions, what is mass? what are particles?
The Universe is truly a lot more complicated than we can realise. Simple assumptions like yours do not explain anything and completely ignore known facts.
Long and short of it is tha nothing with mass travels at light speed. As Xelios points out, a fact that is verified thousands of times daily in particle accelerators and the detection of cosmic rays.
"What does light travel in? If its an Aether that Aether exists every where. This means it must have zero density, otherwise you would feel it dragging on you. Assuming it carries waves it must have infinite elasticity, otherwise light would loose amplitude, quickly. Do you know any infinitely elastic but zero density materials? Actually, its an absurd idea so I'll wait for your answer."
Very foolish question. You assume that all matter must exert a drag on other matter.
See my response to C'est Moi for why this is decidely
not a daft question.
Prior to Maxwell it was assumed that travelled in a medium that had mass. Maxwells equations show no medium is required. But they do not work with pre-Relativistic physics. If we throw out relativity we have to go back to basics. For starters, you have to throw out Maxwells equations as they conflict with Newtonian physics. Which leads to the questions of what are light, electricity and magnetism.
Friction and inertia always exists where there is matter acting on matter.
Does a superconductor exert a drag on the electrons traveling through it? Does the strength of the electron's electric or magnetic fields diminish with time as it travels in the superconductor?? I guess a superconductor must have "zero density and infinite elasticity""!!!(sarcasm).
Do you understand the difference between transmission of a wave and it's interaction with the medium through which it travels?
Granted heat is generated by electrons in a conductor being captured and subsequently escaping their shells. Work is done, energy generated and heat produced. A superconductor is where, at sufficiently low temperatures, electrons form cooper pairs and flow unimpeded. It's a QM effect. It has little to do with the transmission of EM waves.
My point, again missed, is that Relativity comes from kown problems with EM waves and Newtonian physics. Ignore one and you have to re-explain the other.
"How about this electricity and magnetism stuff. We can assume Maxwell is wrong, after all his theory led into Relativity. So what are they? Why does a moving magnetic/electric field create the other?"
Funny you should ask me. Wasn't it Einstein who completely ignored magnetic and electric fields. Answer this : What is Einsteins theory for the attractive and repulsive forces of electric and magnetic fields??Oops, he doesn't have one. He had a crazy theory about curved space but it ONLY applied to gravitational fields.
Guess what, Einstein was not out to explain electricity and magnetism. That had been done. And yes, he only had a theory about gravity. (If we ignore the mass of work in QM theory he conributed to). Your point was?
I'll say it again in case you are probably missing the very important point:
The theory of electromagnetics, the unification of electricity and magnetism led directly to Relativity. It lies at the heart of what the Universe is and fundamental concepts of space and time. Light and Relativity are closely intertwined. Ignore Relativity and we go back to the beginning and have to ask what is electricity, magnetism, light, how light propagates and atoms behave.
Can you? Can you make this work with only Newtonian Physics?
"How about atoms? Mass, energy equivalenc forms a cornerstone of QM so we can throw out every thing we know about atoms, its based on Relativistic concepts. Any ideas? What is matter made of? What is charge?"
Interesting that you should mention E=mc^2. As far as I know, most people don't even have a definition for energy. What is you're definition of energy?
Classic diversionary tatic, answer a question by asking one. I asked first, you answer.
If you don't know what energy is you are hardly in a position to reformulate Physics. My definition is the rate of force acting over time d
F/dt. A force being the acceleration you feel when in the presence of some field, such as electromagnetism and gravity. Fundamentally, it is the rate of work done.
Try contacting a physicist who worked at Los Alamos in the 40's. Ask him/her what they thought about E=mc^2 after they detonated the first atom bomb? You'll be surprised!!
Non sequitor!
Heisenberg, working on the German bomb, got it totally wrong. What does that prove? Nothing. Only that people make mistakes. They had no idea of the efficiency of the bomb. Hint, it was not 100%.
"Hmmm, strange that Physics is so wrong yet it built an Atom bomb, radios, broadcast, silicon chips, predicted the cosmic microwave background, predicted the displacement of stars positions by the Sun, Black Holes, gravitational lenses etc"
I never claimed physics was wrong, I claimed Einstein was wrong. Unlike you, I don't believe that Einstein and physics are one and the same.
Tom [/B]
Funnily, I can see the differences but I can also see how one concept leads to another and provides further evidence or proof of a concept. Can you?
You can not formulate a theory of gravity without understanding the true nature of space, time and how light travels through it, first. To do this you need to first understand light and it's role.
From these beginnings you rapidly get into QM then statistical thermodynamics, Astrophysics, modern chemistry, wave propagation, cosmology and so on. It's funny how so many advances where made once a few fundamental questions where looked at. Something you seem you think can be blithely ignored.
