GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Eduardo Fuctardo on 7 Jun 2007 12:42 *PLONK* "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181198111.074796.272940(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... "I, Pedro Valve Knobber, be a stupid caps-lock google-poster"'
From: Tom Roberts on 7 Jun 2007 18:57 Pentcho Valev wrote: > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity [...] The error is in Valev's gross misunderstanding of relativity, not in relativity itself. And it is almost certainly not his only error. Einstein learned something important between 1905 (SR) and 1915 (GR), and the rest of the physics community has also learned it. Valev REFUSES to learn it: SR is an APPROXIMATION to GR, and that postulate holds only in SR; in GR the constancy of the vacuum speed of light is limited to local measurements. <shrug> Tom Roberts
From: Pentcho Valev on 8 Jun 2007 01:50 Tom Roberts wrote: > Pentcho Valev wrote: > > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity [...] > > The error is in Valev's gross misunderstanding of relativity, not in > relativity itself. And it is almost certainly not his only error. > > Einstein learned something important between 1905 (SR) and 1915 (GR), > and the rest of the physics community has also learned it. Valev REFUSES > to learn it: SR is an APPROXIMATION to GR, and that postulate holds only > in SR; in GR the constancy of the vacuum speed of light is limited to > local measurements. <shrug> > > > Tom Roberts OK Roberts Roberts I agree Einstein criminal cult has learned something but then let us analyse this something: Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > Pentcho Valev wrote: > > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? > 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). > Tom Roberts tjroberts(a)lucent.com Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev agree with you Roberts Roberts and additionally claim that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2). For the accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime, the application of the equivalence principle converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Roberts Roberts, do you accept the elaboration on your excellent analysis made by Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev? If you do not accept the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v offered by Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev, please Roberts Roberts give the correct equations that describe how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, and also how the speed of light varies with the relative speed of the light source and the accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime. Pentcho Valev
From: Jeckyl on 8 Jun 2007 07:40 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181281836.938661.134750(a)n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev agree with you Roberts Roberts and > additionally claim that the speed of light varies with the > gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2). > For the accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime, the application > of the equivalence principle converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v, where > v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. You keep saying that, and despite request to do so, have not shown that that is actually the case.. can you show your derivation of this? > Roberts Roberts, do you accept the elaboration on your excellent > analysis made by Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev? If you do not > accept the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v offered by Albert > Einstein and Pentcho Valev, please Roberts Roberts give the correct > equations that describe how the speed of light varies with the > gravitational potential, and also how the speed of light varies with > the relative speed of the light source and the accelerated observer in > Minkowski spacetime. Which accelerated observed and moving light source are we talking about here? Why do you want Tom to show this .. don't you have the equations yourself? And what's this stupid Roberts Roberts nonsense .. you know it simply makes you appear even more ridiculous, don't you?
From: sean on 8 Jun 2007 08:42
On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "Pentcho Valev" <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1181198111.074796.272940(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: > > Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: > > Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error? > > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is > > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" > > > is FALSE. > > Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true. Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary? Michaelson- Morley. In this experiment light is emitted at c relative to the emitting body. Proof is that if light were not emitted at c relative to the emitting body then the observations would have shown that on one path the light would be travelling at a different speed than the other. This isnt observed. So the only scientific and logical conclusion one can make is that MMx shows us that light is emitted at c relative to the source in all directions. Something you as a relativista illogically refuse to accept. Sean www.gammarayburst.com For proof that sagnac and MM cannot be explained by the creationist style theory of SR see sagnac simulations at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb |