GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2007 03:25 On Jun 20, 9:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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. That would be nowhere in this universe as I read Einstein's Nobel lecture. He substitutes the Einstein-Mach principle for Newton's inerital ether so any particle that exhibits a reaction force is doing so, because of gravity. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html > > [#] 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. The 1920 paper seems to make a much safer statement: "The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent" http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html Sue... > > Tom Roberts
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2007 05:07 On Jun 7, 7:57 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> 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. Tom, The rest of the physics community has NOT learned it. The reason they have not is the glut of ~teachers~ that will prop up the absurdities in the 1905 paper for the sake of a parlor trick rather than direct students to the 1920 paper and 1923 lecture which resolves the conflicts (only by reference in the 1923 lecture) with time dependant Maxwell's equations. > 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. If no one ever describes what the "vacuum" is and adheres to a faulty model of light propagation the only thing that can be learned is a parlor trick, far inferior to the Missing dollar paradox for entertainment value and usless for unifying gravity with electrodynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html Sue... <shrug> > > Tom Roberts
From: sean on 21 Jun 2007 07:48 On 20 Jun, 14:51, 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). > > 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). > > > To start with you dont seem to understand that the sagnac source is > > essentially identical to the MMx in that they both rotate around an > > axis . > > The instruments are VERY different: Sagnac's has a large enclosed area, > and the MMX has zero enclosed area, and this makes all the difference as > far as rotation is concerned. You arent reading my words. Notice I say source not setup. The two sources are the same. Thats different from saying the setups are the same. > > Yet SR says that a source that rotates around an axis sometimes > > has light leaving it at variable speeds (when SR tries to explain > > sagnac) and sometimes has light leaving it at constant speeds(when SR > > tries to explain MMx). > > This is complete nonsense. You should learn about SR before attempting > to describe what it says. And you should learn about the differences in > these two experiments and their instruments. <shrug> If you know so much about SR then answer this question. I bet you wont be able to. If you have a source rotating around an axis x at an tangental velocity of v . And the axis x is not moving in the frame of reference(the source S is rotating around the static axis X) Then the question is , in SR, or relativity , in this frame of reference ,... is the light speed c relative to the rotating source or is the light speed c+-v relative to the rotating source? If you can answer this then Ill show you how SR cannot predict both sagnac and MMx without contradicting itself. If you cant answer this then youll have shown us that either you dont know anythying about SR or,.. you have worked out that SR gives several and contradictory predictions to the same setup. Sean www.gammarayburst.com For a complete and correct analysis of how SR cannot explain sagnac and MMX see the sagnac simulations at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: sean on 21 Jun 2007 11:03 On 20 Jun, 18:17, Craig Markwardt <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > sean <jaymose...(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. Take Neds page first .He says.."The speed of light is constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer. Apply this to sagnac. If the source is at v and light in that (inertial) frame is still c then obviously light is c+v relative to the source in that frame, according to Ned. And Wiki says that in sagnac because the source/detector moves during the passage-time the light takes to go from source to source/ detector then the path difference is longer one way and the results are a fringe shift. For wiki to predict a fringe shift the light HAS to travel at c+-v relative to the source because in the wiki example frame (called inertial lab frame) light is at c and the source has an extra velocity v in that same frame.Mathematically that has to be c+-v for the light relative to the moving source in that inertial frame to make it consistent with SR. > > As we both > > know light can and does travel at c always in the non inertial frame > > as long as thats also the source frame. > > Huh? That is non-sensical on its face. Consider a star rotating once > per second [*]. In the rotating frame of the star -- which is a > non-inertial frame, because it is rotating -- the star is fixed. Does > light emitted from the surface of the star continue to rotate with the > star? Clearly not, since by the time the light reaches a distance of > 1 A.U., it would have a rotational speed 3000 times c as seen from an > inertial frame. This would violate all we know about light, stars and > conservation of energy. You are getting something wrong here. If a source emits light it always is observed to propagate away from the *source* at c. Regardless of whether or not the *source rotates* before or after the light is emitted. I dont see how you can have light speeding up as it moves away You have no proof. > No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c, > regardless of the emitter frame. You have no proof of this. In fact MMx and sagnac contradict your claim. Take for instance MMX. In the source (lab ) frame light is observed to travel at c. This can only mean that light is travelling at c+_v in any other frame that is moving relative to the source frame. Otherwise if light were travelling at c in a frame other than the MMx frame it would be observed to be travelling at c_+- v in the MMx frame, Which it isnt. So I dont see how you can claim that light that leaves a source travels at many speeds at once depending on the observor as there is no observational proof . Can you supply any direct evidence of an observor who can measure the speed of light from a source that is known by other means to be travelling away from the observor? I dont think so. Ive never heard of any. Sean www.gammarayburst.com for simulations showing how classical theory can explain sagnac see.. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: Androcles on 21 Jun 2007 15:33
"Craig Markwardt" <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:m2sl8lu8m2.fsf(a)phloem.local... : : "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. Not at all, the stationary system is a frame of reference in which the speed of light is measured to be other than c, thereby contradicting your ridiculous assertion, apparent fuckhead. : : http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ClosingSpeed.html : Wherein it says: "Thanks for the laugh, dork" Still, if you want to hide behind the skirts of a cretin rather than quote Einstein as I did that's your prerogative. |