GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Pentcho Valev on 9 Jun 2007 14:11 Pentcho Valev wrote: > Tom Roberts 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. 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. <shrug> > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > OK Roberts Roberts I agree Einstein criminal cult has learned > something but then let us analyse this something: > > 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 > > Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev agree with you Roberts Roberts and > additionally claim that the speed of light varies with the > gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2). > For the accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime, the application > of the equivalence principle converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v, where > v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. > > Roberts Roberts, do you accept the elaboration on your excellent > analysis made by Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev? If you do not > accept the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v offered by Albert > Einstein and Pentcho Valev, please Roberts Roberts give the correct > equations that describe how the speed of light varies with the > gravitational potential, and also how the speed of light varies with > the relative speed of the light source and the accelerated observer in > Minkowski spacetime. Roberts Roberts if you accept the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v offered by Albert Einstein and me, you would be able to elaborate by proving the following: Tom Roberts: Since non-locally the speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), locally it varies in accordance with the equation c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Then you will join our group and the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c +v will be called equations of Albert Einstein, Pentcho Valev and Tom Roberts. Of course, you may decide to stick to your previous discovery which can be expressed in this way: Tom Roberts: Non-locally the speed of light does vary but NOT in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which is WRONG. Accordingly, locally the speed of light is constant. Pentcho Valev
From: Jeckyl on 10 Jun 2007 10:56 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1181306564.752462.62290(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181198111.074796.272940(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: >> > Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: >> >> Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error? >> >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is >> > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is >> > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" >> >> > is FALSE. >> >> Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true. >> Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >> >> Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary? > Michaelson- Morley. > In this experiment light is emitted at c relative to the emitting > body. > Proof is that if light were not emitted at c relative to the emitting > body then the observations would have shown that on one path the light > would be travelling at a different speed than the other. This isnt > observed. So the only scientific and logical conclusion one can make > is that MMx shows us that light is emitted at c relative to the source > in all directions. Something you as a relativista illogically refuse > to accept. MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR .. as you should know.
From: Jeckyl on 10 Jun 2007 11:33 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181412713.838607.136550(a)c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Pentcho Valev wrote: > Pentcho Valev Replying to yourself again? .. poor little pentcho
From: Art Deco on 10 Jun 2007 19:51 Jeckyl <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:1181412713.838607.136550(a)c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> Pentcho Valev wrote: >> Pentcho Valev > >Replying to yourself again? .. poor little pentcho Always a primary kooksign. -- Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco Darth Deco, Sith Lord of alt.astronomy "Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum." -- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief "Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and ice cold beer." -- Brad Guth, bigoted racist "You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco." --Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something"
From: sean on 11 Jun 2007 08:42
On 10 Jun, 15:56, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1181306564.752462.62290(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181198111.074796.272940(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: > >> > Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: > > >> Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error? > > >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is > >> > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > >> > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" > > >> > is FALSE. > > >> Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true. > >> Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > >> Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary? > > Michaelson- Morley. > > In this experiment light is emitted at c relative to the emitting > > body. > > Proof is that if light were not emitted at c relative to the emitting > > body then the observations would have shown that on one path the light > > would be travelling at a different speed than the other. This isnt > > observed. So the only scientific and logical conclusion one can make > > is that MMx shows us that light is emitted at c relative to the source > > in all directions. Something you as a relativista illogically refuse > > to accept. > > MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR .. as you should know.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - 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? Sean see this url for a simulaion showing how classical theory can explain sagnac and MMx... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb |