GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Tom Roberts on 27 Jun 2007 11:39 sean wrote: > 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). > Name these experiments. See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > Ive hown SR > cannot explian both sagnac and MMx You are wrong. SR does indeed explain both MMX and Sagnac. <shrug> > See the simulations at... > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8 > which clearly show that Classical theory can explain bothy sagnac > and MMx Sure, if one makes very specific assumptions about "classical theory" -- specifically that the ether is fully dragged by the earth. That assumption, however, is inconsistent with observations of stellar aberration. My point is that a given theory must explain ALL of the experiments, not just a specific pair you happen to like. The experiments on relativistic kinematics and the speed of light from moving sources are tests that classical theories simply cannot explain at all. The fact that some other theories also explain these two experiments does not diminish the ability of SR to do so. But SR explains a much wider class of experiments than the classical theories, which is of course why we use SR today and not those old theories. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 27 Jun 2007 11:44 sean wrote: > Take both the MMx > and the sagnac experiments. Remove the mirrors( or ring fibre) and > detector from sagnac and the mirrors and detector from MMx. Then you have nothing -- the mirrors and detector are essential parts of both experiments. > What do you have left? Two sources rotating around a central axis > To me except for a diameter difference the two sources are > essentially doing the same thing. Therefore it seems a rational > conclusion to say that light must propagate away from these > two sources in the same way for both. But the two experiments measure different aspects of the light. > And theres only two > options. [...] It is almost never correct to argue via exhaustive enumeration. There is a third possibility: the measurements of the two experiments differ because the configurations of the two apparatuses are different. <shrug> Tom Roberts
From: Jeckyl on 27 Jun 2007 11:49 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:j7afi.5889$bP5.3632(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > [The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C). > So they remain different theories in this view.] Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a different acronym for the same thing
From: George Dishman on 27 Jun 2007 13:04 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:2Cvgi.9025$c06.8582(a)newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > sean wrote: >> Take both the MMx >> and the sagnac experiments. Remove the mirrors( or ring fibre) and >> detector from sagnac and the mirrors and detector from MMx. > > Then you have nothing -- the mirrors and detector are essential parts of > both experiments. > > >> What do you have left? Two sources rotating around a central axis >> To me except for a diameter difference the two sources are >> essentially doing the same thing. Therefore it seems a rational >> conclusion to say that light must propagate away from these >> two sources in the same way for both. > > But the two experiments measure different aspects of the light. > > >> And theres only two >> options. [...] > > It is almost never correct to argue via exhaustive enumeration. There is a > third possibility: the measurements of the two experiments differ because > the configurations of the two apparatuses are different. <shrug> Sean never did understand that concept. Tom, I haven't been following the thread but in case you haven't realised, Sean has an unusual understanding of the phrase "source dependent". This animation shows what his model would mean for two photons emitted from Earth and Mars, both aimed at Sirius. Relative to the source, they move in a straight line at speed c, tracking the orbital motion of their respective source planets: http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_Planets.html You might find that helps you understand his YouTube videos which I'm sure he will mention. HTH George
From: Pentcho Valev on 28 Jun 2007 04:38
Jeckyl wrote: > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:j7afi.5889$bP5.3632(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > > [The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C). > > So they remain different theories in this view.] > > Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) > and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR > > I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being > different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a > different acronym for the same thing Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this (you don't STUDY enough): 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)." As you can see, SR remains unaffected no matter what happens to Einstein's light postulate and Master Tom Roberts continues to teach SR and the salary is good etc. LET and LT have nothing to do with Master Tom Roberts' salary and in this sense they are entirely different from SR. Pentcho Valev |