GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Jeckyl on 20 Jun 2007 20:47 "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote in message news:q9gei.188259$4a.54403(a)fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > "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. Yes... you are. The topic was the speed of light .. not the speed that other objects move away from light (ie separation velocity). That does NOT change the speed of light as measured in (ie relative to) a given reference frame.
From: Tom Roberts on 20 Jun 2007 20:49 Sue... wrote: > Just what is SR's "domain of applicability" ? All physical phenomena in regions for which the effects of gravitation are either negligible or are canceled [#] to better than the resolutions of the appropriate measurements. [#] Gravity itself cannot be canceled, but its effects on (say) a laser can be canceled by putting the laser on a table. Effects on the light of course remain.... Of course for most things some additional theory beyond SR is required to explain or model the phenomena (e.g. for light one needs a theory of electromagnetism); but all such theories of modern physics have SR as a cornerstone, so this is still within the domain of SR. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 20 Jun 2007 20:59 Craig Markwardt wrote: > sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> [about SR in non-=inertial frames] >> 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? This is quite basic and has been known for over a century. Accelerated frames are treated in all intermediate textbooks on relativity. For example, here's an old post to this newsgroup from 1998: "The Speed of light in an Accelerated System": http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3220d2?dmode=source > What I *do* say is that since the special theory of relativity does > not make any claims about non-inertial frames whatsoever (nor do any > "proponents" unless you care to provide proper citations), your claim > is irrelevant. SR can be applied to non-inertial frames just as accurately as to inertial frames. This is more complicated, and elementary books avoid it due to the complexity, but there is no problem -- it's just math. Well, there's one additional postulate known as the "clock hypothesis" -- that clocks are unaffected by acceleration (as long as the clock is not damaged). This is known to be valid for at least some clocks up to accelerations of 10^18 g. > No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c, > regardless of the emitter frame. Only for inertial frames. Tom Roberts
From: Pegs on 20 Jun 2007 22:33 On Jun 21, 1:44 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Too bad relativity is such a small subset of all human knowledge. Without relativity. The sun won't shine (no E=mc^2). Without relativity. Our human bodies can't exist because if there are no spins (which resulted from relativity), all the electrons would act like bosons and all would collapse to the lowest possible energy states hence no molecules would form. A world without relativity will be an empty world... actually emptiness can't even exist because emptiness is also a thing from there being space thanks to spacetime being produced by the Big Bang. So Relativity rules the world. Without relativity, there would be no Pentcho Valev to disturb the world. No nothing. So once in a while. Let's have a moment of silence and pay tribute to relativity and the genius who discovered it. They accelerate human science to light years beyond newtonian. An extraordinary task that still left many newtonians behind like most crackpots in this group. Pegs
From: Pentcho Valev on 21 Jun 2007 02:00
Tom Roberts wrote: > Craig Markwardt wrote: > > sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >> [about SR in non-=inertial frames] > >> 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? > > This is quite basic and has been known for over a century. Accelerated > frames are treated in all intermediate textbooks on relativity. For > example, here's an old post to this newsgroup from 1998: "The Speed of > light in an Accelerated System": > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3220d2?dmode=source Roberts Roberts hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult much cleverer than you simply apply Einstein's equivalence principle in the following way: http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4 However in Einstein zombie world the destruction of human rationality is so advanced that introducing a small confusion into the otherwise correct analysis is fatal and no physicist would ever find it suitable to ask the simple question: What speed of light does the receiver under the tower (or the accelerated receiver) measure? Judging from your words: 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 the receiver will measure a speed of light greater than c but then the respective equation should be given, and here is the awful problem. You say Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is wrong but do not give the correct equation. Give the correct equation Roberts Roberts. Pentcho Valev |