GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Craig Markwardt on 21 Jun 2007 02:20 Pentcho Valev <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> writes: > Craig Markwardt wrote: .... deletions ... > > 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." .... etc ... The papers you refer to all discuss long-range light travel experiments. Which is to say, *how much time* does it take for light to travel some large distance in the solar system. But that begs the question, did the light travel more slowly, or did the distance increase? GR, being a theory of the curvature of space, prefers the later interpretation. One can "interpret" the behavior as a change in the distant speed of light. These interpretations do not negate the actual formulation. CM
From: Craig Markwardt on 21 Jun 2007 02:25 "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> writes: > "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" Apparently the phrase, "when measured in the stationary system," is lost on you. http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ClosingSpeed.html CM
From: Koobee Wublee on 21 Jun 2007 02:31 On Jun 20, 11:20 pm, Craig Markwardt <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >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." > > The papers you refer to all discuss long-range light travel > experiments. <yawn> > Which is to say, *how much time* does it take for light > to travel some large distance in the solar system. Another <yawn> > But that begs the > question, did the light travel more slowly, or did the distance > increase? That is a good question. I am fully awake. > GR, being a theory of the curvature of space, prefers the > later interpretation. Why? > One can "interpret" the behavior as a change in > the distant speed of light. How? > These interpretations do not negate the > actual formulation. What?
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2007 02:46 On Jun 21, 3:20 am, Craig Markwardt <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > Craig Markwardt wrote: > ... deletions ... > > > 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." > > ... etc ... > > The papers you refer to all discuss long-range light travel > experiments. Which is to say, *how much time* does it take for light > to travel some large distance in the solar system. But that begs the > question, did the light travel more slowly, or did the distance > increase? GR, being a theory of the curvature of space, prefers the > later interpretation. One can "interpret" the behavior as a change in > the distant speed of light. These interpretations do not negate the > actual formulation. > > CM- Indeed. An expanding {or contracting] dielectric will mathematically *appear* to change the speed of light over a long distance. But when the mass of the ISM is considered, there is no violation c. Propagation in a dielectric medium http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html It could be argued that the theory does not clearly distinguish between "space" and the dielectric matter that comprises the ISM but the constituants were likely little known in 1920. Sue...
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2007 03:06
On Jun 20, 9:59 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Craig Markwardt wrote: > > sean <jaymose...(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/dd9168f6ec3... > > > 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. It is *this* math: << if you know about complex numbers you will notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2 where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry - that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative to time. http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html ....not the improper tranforms that result from the graphical misrepresentations on Ned Wright's relativity pages. > > 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. >> SR 1920 makes no connection between inertia and light except by mass energy/equivalence. http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html Do you suppose Einstein found some good drugs between 1905 and 1920 and started making really stupid changes to his theory and Wienberg is totally off his rocker in writing: <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html Sue... > > Tom Roberts |