EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Greg Neill on 14 Jul 2008 17:11 "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:bQGQOjTwd7eIFw4p(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk > 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 tested Prediction 2 and showed it to be wrong. Einstein chose > to assume that Prediction 1 was still correct. If one is wrong one > should assume they both are because they are both based upon the same > logic. Einstein had the benefit of the knowledge that all experimental checks on the speed of light were indicating independance of the speed of light from the motion of the source, and that all measurements were turning up the same value (within error).
From: NoEinstein on 14 Jul 2008 18:45 On Jul 11, 8:24 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 11, 10:28 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 3:11 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 6:37 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 10, 2:25 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 11, 3:51 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 11:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 5:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 10:35 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Consider the frequency shift > > > > > > > > > > f' = f(1 + gh/c^2) > > > > > > > > > > confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka. Is it in agreement with > > > > > > > > > Einstein's 1911 equation: > > > > > > > > > > c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) > > > > > > > > > > and therefore with the equivalent equation: > > > > > > > > > > c' = c + v > > > > > > > > > > given by Newton's emission theory of light? If it is, is it then in > > > > > > > > > disagreement with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)? > > > > > > > > > No, it's not. You have this goofball notion that the special > > > > > > > > relativity postulate (c'=c) is claimed to apply EVERYWHERE and in ALL > > > > > > > > CIRCUMSTANCES. It applies over distances where tidal forces due to > > > > > > > > gravity are small compared to measurement precision; i.e. in domains > > > > > > > > that are locally inertial. This is why it is called the *special* > > > > > > > > theory of relativity, because it (and its postulates) apply in a > > > > > > > > *special domain*. Attempts to extrapolate them out to general and > > > > > > > > absolute statements leads you mistakenly to the apparent > > > > > > > > contradictions you cite above. Have you been laboring all these years > > > > > > > > under the impression that there is a contradiction when you do not > > > > > > > > know what "special" in "special relativity" means? > > > > > > > > This is irrelevant. Consider Master Tom Roberts' teaching: > > > > > > > >http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2d2a006c7d50... > > > > > > > Pentcho Valev: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A > > > > > > > GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? > > > > > > > Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the > > > > > > > measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume > > > > > > > you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even > > > > > > > for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant > > > > > > > gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)." > > > > > > > > That is, if in a gravitational field an observer at rest (relative to > > > > > > > the light source) measures the speed of light to be: > > > > > > > > c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) > > > > > > > > then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer > > > > > > > will measure: > > > > > > > > c' = c + v > > > > > > > > where v=gh/c is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment > > > > > > > of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception). Is that > > > > > > > OK? > > > > > > > Yes, that's perfectly consistent with what I just told you. > > > > > > Now, you are apparently still flummoxed with putting this next to > > > > > > c'=c, thinking there is a contradiction. > > > > > > There isn't. > > > > > > c'=c applies in *SPECIAL* relativity, where tidal effects of gravity > > > > > > are negligible over the distances concerned. > > > > > > That's why it's called *SPECIAL* relativity, because it applies in > > > > > > special cases. > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Hi PD, > > > > > > Do you think it is possible for General Relativity to exist > > > > > without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) > > > > > inherent in the theory? > > > > > Do you think you are capable of having a meaningful discussion of > > > > general relativity when you are unable to differentiate between > > > > special and general relativity? > > > > > [...]- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > General Relativity is about curved spacetime causing as one > > > side effect, gravity. > > > You miss the point. Gravity _IS_ curvature in general relativity. > > > > Special Relativity is a tiny region of spacetime > > > which we assume flat. > > > No more than a surface is assumed flat if you look really close at > > it. > > > > Eric Baird book theorized that it is > > > possible GR is possible without SR. That's why I asked if > > > it is possible for General Relativity to exist without time > > > dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) inherent > > > in the theory? > > > Baird is an idiot, so "no". And you still don't get it - things like > > time dilation and length contraction are fundamental predictions of > > the theory of _SPECIAL RELATIVITY_ that are not true in general > > relativity. > > Time dilation, length contraction may be fundamental predictions > of Special Relativity but in General Relativity, spacetime is > automatically curved. It is inherent in the metric. And a curved > metric automatically implies that time dilates, length distorts > which caused gravity. In other words, when you curve the > metric, time and length is distorted and this can cause dilation > and distortion as in the time dilation near the singularity in > the black hole as well as spagettization in it which is extreme > behavior of the metric. > > About Baird. I don't know why he suggests General Relativity > could be true yet Special Relativity could not be true. I mean. > Since General Relativity has inherent time dilation and length > distortion (I didn't say contraction) due to the curved metric. > It won't take much effort for nature to endow the universe > with time dilation, length contraction to occur in flat > spacetime. I know SR implies observer dependent time, > length distortion and GR implies actual distortions > as seen from different reference frames (as in gravitational > time dilation near a planet where all ships would notice it as > similiar in contrast to SR observer dependent fashion). > > Agree? > > Danny > > > > > > > > When we deal with macro object like solar > > > system and galaxies. GR rule, this means time dilation > > > and length contraction doesn't apply and only valid in > > > the tiny region of spacetime or the minkowski metric > > > and not in the GR manifold, right. > > > No, it means the situation gets _more_ complicated, not less. Re: > > Shapiro delay, gravitational time dilation, etc. > > > > Danny- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text > > - Show quoted text - Dear Danny: "Understanding Einstein" has, for too long, been the "badge of intellect" of physics buffs. Proclaiming the absurdlike all of the space-time h. s...is so anti-intuitive that normal folks just turn away. You should have done that, too. Now, because of my disproofs, Einstein is rightfully just a badge of stupidity. Follow my thread to see if you have... "Einstein's Disease". NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 14 Jul 2008 18:47 On Jul 11, 8:31 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 10:21 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: > > > > > > > PD wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 10:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > > wrote: > > >> PD wrote: > > >>> You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things > > >>> bonking up against material things -- that is not the only thing > > >>> that counts as a "physical cause". > > > >> LOL > > >> poor PD. > > >> You just proved you don't have physical causes. > > >> you need physical material to produce physical causes. > > > > That's what YOU say. Note that Newton did not offer that for gravity. > > > Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun > > > that delivers the energy from the sun. > > > Newton never said he had the cause of gravity. > > So plasma is not a physical material? > > Why yes it is. Newton knew nothing about it, but yes, plasma is a > physical material. Are you saying that plasma is what's responsible > for gravity? > Now, please note that, at the location of the Earth, the flow of > plasma AWAY from the sun is 10,000,000 times greater than the flow of > plasma TOWARD the sun. So explain again, Spaceman, how that plasma is > responsible for the gravitational pull TOWARD the sun? > > > > > You truly know nothing about space! > > LOL > > > -- > > James M Driscoll Jr > > Spaceman- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: It isn't! Gravity (in the case stated) is caused by the flow of ether toward the Sun! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 14 Jul 2008 18:58 On Jul 11, 11:17 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > John Kennaugh wrote: > > 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 distort time to get the right answer - i.e. the answer > > given by the credible physical explanation of ballistic theory. > > The physical effect for the clock "malfunction" is known. > The clock has malfunctioned for the same reason clocks > have been malfunctioning since they were invented. > The clock is being affected by the g-force changes > causing the "ticker" to not keep the same "rate". > :) > It is a sad repeat of malfunctioning clock history and to > "shadow" this repeat in history, they introduce length contraction. > So the "rubber rulers", mathematically fix the "malfunctioning clocks". > Yet the clocks still have the wrong times on thier faces > when brought back together. > so..... > SR debunking 101: > 1:) The clock malfunctioned. > The end. > > SR is dead, it has ignored a standard of time and to hide this > ignorance, it has accepted a multiple standard for distance > and time to make it all mathematically sound in it's own domain. > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Spaceman: I admire your courage against the "PDs" out there. Gravity is just ether flow. When one travels on a fast plane, or a space shuttle, you will be pushed back by the ether that comes through. The more ether, the slower the clocks will run. There is no such thing as a space-time continuum. By my invalidating M-M (no CONTROL), I disprove Lorentz, space-time, SR and GR. Quite simple, really. NoEinstein :)
From: NoEinstein on 14 Jul 2008 19:02
On Jul 11, 2:00 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Pentcho: You are so right that nobody cares about disproofs. Einsteiniacs would rather argue the absurd than to recognize the simple truths. NoEinstein > > On Jul 11, 4:59 pm, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > > > > Danny Milano wrote: > > > >Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by > > >Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It > > >is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The > > >following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can > > >someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it > > >wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR > > >is really wrong. > > > Of course its is. > > > 1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that > > light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that the waves > > of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist, SR is based > > upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable, > > and therefore that the MMX showed that every observer has nil speed > > w.r.t the aether. Einstein's second postulate simply describes what an > > observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. Now no one believes > > in the aether that interpretation of the MMX is absurd so the second > > postulate has no valid foundation and SR makes no attempt to address the > > problem that the waves which are the basis of Maxwell's theory do not > > physically exist. > > > 2/ SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that > > physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory. > > Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According > > to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you 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 SR 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. The wavelength is generated at the source and what > > the maths says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)- > > 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 > > apparently 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 by 1 year to avoid a 1 year delay in > > the frequency changing. > > That is REALLY a nice argument. Some day it may even become a decisive > step towards the restoration of human rationality. For the moment > however the crisis in Einstein criminal cult has different causes - > physics departments disappear, students do not want to learn idiocies > anymore, money is not flowing towards idiotic projects designed to > gloriously confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory for 30891st time etc. > Nobody cares about aguments, no matter how convincing they are. > > Pentcho Valev > pva...(a)yahoo.com > > > > > When I point this out to a relativist I am told I am being silly > > and that one has changed from a FoR where the light separates from the > > source at c and always did - to one where it separates from the source > > at c+v and always did but that is simply a description of the > > mathematics not of what is physically happening. A FoR is a mathematical > > abstraction and cannot affect the progress of light. Physically one has > > to assume that when you change speed you change from a universe where > > you were stationary w.r.t the aether and light separates from the source > > at c because the source too is stationary w.r.t the aether to a parallel > > universe where you are again stationary w.r.t the aether but because the > > source is moving w.r.t the aether the light separates from the source at > > c+v and always has done. As you see the whole thing is physically > > absurd. Physics accepted relativity without looking at it carefully > > enough. > > It is a myth that 'getting rid of the aether' was anything to do with > > Einstein. He argued for retaining it. What he described as "an aether > > without the immobility of Lorentz's". He was deliberately vague but he > > was after an aether which every observer would naturally find himself > > stationary w.r.t. as per the second postulate. > > > So to recap. Today in physics the mathematical model is described as a > > 'physics theory'. Physical interpretation is not required so it matters > > not that it is physically absurd. All that now matters is that the > > theory/mathematical model gives accurate predictions in its domain of > > applicability. i.e. it works some of the time and you can define when > > that is. > > > Note that The geocentric theory of the solar system gives accurate > > predictions in its domain of applicability so cannot be considered as a > > 'wrong theory'. There is evidence that what the Lorentz transforms do is > > transform a wrongly based theory so as to get the right answer just as > > bending a sheet of paper with a curve drawn on it can make it look > > straight or by complicating the mathematics the geocentric theory could > > be made to give the same answer as the sun centred model. That would > > explain why SR gives the right answer. > > > Examples: > > _________________________ > > 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. At first > > sight it seems that this experiment would distinguish between the two > > theories but that is not the case as there is one more distortion which > > SR requires. 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 (be it bullet or flash of light) gets there. If > > you want to hit T' you aim at T. > > > What SR says is 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. 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 SR does not. > > > 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 - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » |