From: H. Wabnig .... .-- .- -... -. .. --. on
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:41:15 -0700, Pentcho Valev <pvalev(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:

(scroll down, please)


>
>Craig Markwardt wrote:
>> sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On 15 Jun, 16:11, Craig Markwardt
>> > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> > > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes:
>> > > > On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt
>> > > > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> > > > > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes:
>> > > ...
>> > > > Here I use substantiated observations. from MMX and sagnac. Not
>> > > > made up imaginary observations as the others do.
>> > > > > > If its compatible with SR then why does SR predict that light cannot
>> > > > > > be constant in a non inertial frame. Yet the MMx, being in a non
>> > > > > > inertial frame observes light being constant in all directions?
>> > >
>> > > > > Where does the theory of special relativity "predict" that light
>> > > > > cannot be "constant" in a non-inertial frame? Indeed, it is a
>> > > > > postulate of SR that the speed of light *is* constant, the same
>> > > > > constant c, in all inertial frames.
>> > > > I never said SR didnt predict it to be c in all inertial frames.
>> > > > I said `non inertial frames`.
>> > >
>> > > Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions
>> > > about non-inertial frames, your claim is erroneous, and thus the
>> > > conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant.
>> > Maybe "the theory" doesnt. But its proponents do. At wiki and Ned
>> > wright pages they clearly make the claim that light does not travel
>> > at c in the non inertial frame in the SR model.
>>
>> Searching both Ned Wright's and Wiki(pedia)'s pages for mentions of
>> the speed of light in non-inertial frames produces almost nothing. Do
>> you care to substantiate your claim with direct citations?
>
>http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
>We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
>Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
>comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
>of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
>spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
>at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
>everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
>relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
>Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
>preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
>AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
>SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."
>
>http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
>"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
>in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
>as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
>were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
>field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
>front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
>wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
>light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
>Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
>'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen
>der Physik, 35, 1911.
>which predated the full formal development of general relativity by
>about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can
>find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of
>Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's
>derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational
>potential, eqn (3). The result is,
>c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
>where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
>speed of light c0 is measured."
>
>http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
>long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
>1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
>previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
>speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
>field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
>place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
>relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
>vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
>special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
>referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
>light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
>varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
>Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
>mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
>the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
>surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
>Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
>Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
>gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
>in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
>the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
>One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
>where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
>measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
>REDSHIFT FACTOR."
>
>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
>
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
>"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
>which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
>about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
>"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according
>to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
>velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
>fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .]
>cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can
>only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with
>position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
>with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
>the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity
>suggests that he did mean so."
>
>Pentcho Valev


A QUESTION FOR PENTCHO VALEV:

What is the GPS Satellite clock frequency?

[ ] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)

[ ] 10.22999999545 MHz (relativistically corrected)

Mettete una crocetta
example:
[x] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)


WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER, PENTCHO VALEV?

w.
From: Androcles on

"Craig Markwardt" <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:m21wg6v93g.fsf(a)phloem.local...


: No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c,
: regardless of the emitter frame.

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Ignorant fuckhead.





From: Tom Roberts on
Don Stockbauer wrote:
> Too bad relativity is such a small subset of all human knowledge.

Actually, it subsumes an ENORMOUS fraction of our knowledge of the
physical world. Indeed, every physical theory we have is based upon
relativity. I remind you that knowledge of the physical world comes ONLY
via theories.


Tom Roberts
From: lead free on
On Jun 20, 11:57 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > Too bad relativity is such a small subset of all human knowledge.
>
> Actually, it subsumes an ENORMOUS fraction of our knowledge of the
> physical world. Indeed, every physical theory we have is based upon
> relativity. I remind you that knowledge of the physical world comes ONLY
> via theories.

right

we invent ether theory, then do radios, tv etc

then relativity appears in order to say that tha
inventors were all wrong

>
> Tom Roberts


From: Jeckyl on
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1182349110.600005.291270(a)n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 10:51 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> sean wrote:
>> > to see how classical theory only can explain both sagnac and MMx .
>>
>> Sure, certain classical theories can explain them both. So what? There
>> are MANY other experiments that such theories cannot explain; SR on the
>> other hand explains them all (within its domain).
>
> Just what is SR's "domain of applicability" ?

As someone once said: you might consider readiing some
physics instead of showing the whole world how little you know

>>
>> See the FAQ for over a hundred experiments that confirm
>> SR; most of them are completely inconsistent with any
>> classical theory (i.e. pre-SR).
>>
>
> [FAQs not visited because they may not apply to anything.]

So you won't even look at them. Why? .. are you afraid of what you'll
discover if you do?


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz