GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Pentcho Valev on 22 Jun 2007 02:20 Tom Roberts wrote: > sean wrote: > > On 20 Jun, 14:51, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> sean wrote: > >>> 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. > > Yes, I read that. But having similar sources is NOT sufficient -- the > instruments are sufficiently different that the similarity of their > sources does not matter. The Sagnac interferometer can detect its > rotation, and the Michelson interferometer cannot. > > > > 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? > > This depends in detail on what you mean by "speed" -- at base your > confusions are related to PUNs on that word. In particular, "speed > relative to the source" is meaningless - one can measure and define > speed only relative to a COORDINATE SYSTEM. You can choose a coordinate > system in which the source is at rest, which is the usual thing to do in > this case, but when the source is rotating around an axis then so are > these coordinates, and things get both complicated and ambiguous (you > could choose any of several different rotating coordinates in which the > source is at rest). > > In SR, any light ray will move in vacuum with speed c relative to any > inertial frame. No Roberts Roberts you forget. According to the Albert Einstein of our generation, in SR, any light ray will move in vacuum with speed c relative to any inertial frame, but even if it moved with speed different from c, SR would be unaffected: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/29c32844f0766cea? Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." That is an extremely important discovery made by the Albert Einstein of our generation - don't forget it. > A direct consequence of this is that in general the > speed will not be c relative to a NON-inertial frame (e.g. a rotating > system). Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.)! When the top of the tower emits light, the receiver on the ground will measure its speed to be not c (you are absolutely right about that) but, rather, c'=c(1+V/c^2), as the original Einstein discovered in 1911 and as you Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, just qualitatively confirmed. What is even more breathtaking is that Einstein's equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with Pound and Rebka's result f'=f(1+V/c^2). Again: Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.)! Pentcho Valev
From: Jeckyl on 22 Jun 2007 07:34 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1182493232.287172.283810(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > No Roberts Roberts you forget. According to the Albert Einstein of our > generation, in SR, any light ray will move in vacuum with speed c > relative to any inertial frame, but even if it moved with speed > different from c, SR would be unaffected: But the wording of the second postulate would need to be revised with a different name for what 'c' is .. as it would no longer then be the speed of light. However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed that is the same when form all iFoR (as given by Lorentz transforms) is not dependant on anything acutally being able to attain that speed. However, so far there is no evidence that light (EM radiation) does NOT travel at that maximum speed c, nor that photons have mass .. nor is there any reaons to think that that would happen .. so I think we are still quite safe to describe c as the speed of light. I'm sorry if your little mind cannot follow the logic of that.
From: Pentcho Valev on 22 Jun 2007 08:09 Jeckyl wrote: > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1182493232.287172.283810(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > No Roberts Roberts you forget. According to the Albert Einstein of our > > generation, in SR, any light ray will move in vacuum with speed c > > relative to any inertial frame, but even if it moved with speed > > different from c, SR would be unaffected: > > But the wording of the second postulate would need to be revised with a > different name for what 'c' is .. as it would no longer then be the speed of > light. However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed that is > the same when form all iFoR (as given by Lorentz transforms) is not > dependant on anything acutally being able to attain that speed. > > However, so far there is no evidence that light (EM radiation) does NOT > travel at that maximum speed c, nor that photons have mass .. nor is there > any reaons to think that that would happen .. so I think we are still quite > safe to describe c as the speed of light. > > I'm sorry if your little mind cannot follow the logic of that. No it cannot. Too little mind, too great logic. But you should not comment on this. Master Tom Roberts, very ashamed, may have abandoned his discovery and zombies' comments could only increase the feeling of shame. Let us demonstrate the discovery once more and if Master Tom Roberts remains silent, you should also remain silent: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/29c32844f0766cea? Tom Roberts: "While the constancy of the speed of light was important in the historical development of SR, I agree it has no logical place as a postulate of SR. Einstein's second postulate can be replaced by any of a number of suitable postulates, of which I like this one best: There is a finite upper bound on the speed of propagation of information." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c? Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." Pentcho Valev
From: Dono on 22 Jun 2007 19:01 On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed that is > the same in all iFoR (as given by Lorentz transforms) is not > dependant on anything acutally being able to attain that speed. > The lorentz transforms do not induce the constancy of speed of light, quite the other way around, the form of the Lorentz transforms is a consequence (among other things) of the POSTULATE of constancy of light speed. In light of this, your sentence : "However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed ....as GIVEN BY Lorentz transforms" .....is grossly incorrect.If you try to debunk cranks like Wilson, try at least to learn your SR.
From: Koobee Wublee on 22 Jun 2007 19:50
On Jun 22, 4:01 pm, Dono <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed that is > > the same in all iFoR (as given by Lorentz transforms) is not > > dependant on anything acutally being able to attain that speed. > > The lorentz transforms do not induce the constancy of speed of light, > quite the other way around, the form of the Lorentz transforms is a > consequence (among other things) of the POSTULATE of constancy of > light speed. The Voigt transform was derived after Voigt assumed the constancy in the speed of light --- a break from the traditional constant wavelength for sound. The Lorentz transform was derived from the Voigt transform by Larmor after realizing the Voigt transform does not satisfy the principle of relativity. Once the Lorentz transform is obtained, the speed of light must be constant in order for the mathematics to be valid. > In light of this, your sentence : > > "However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed ....as > GIVEN BY Lorentz transforms" > > ....is grossly incorrect.If you try to debunk cranks like Wilson, try > at least to learn your SR. The conversation between Jeckyl and Dono exhibits very strong signs of an argument between two village idiots. <shrug> |