GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Jeckyl on 29 Jun 2007 22:06 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1183138906.175993.327430(a)o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > Muddypaws wrote: >> Jeckyl wrote: >> > "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > news:1183114524.281576.204650(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> > > On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> Jeckyl wrote: >> > >> > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(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): >> > >> > No .. he hasn't, although I have asked >> >> Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl some zombies are too dangerous for Einstein >> criminal cult and Master Tom Roberts avoids them. For instance, there >> is a Sam Wormley who used to refer too often to "speed", "velocity" >> and the difference between them, thereby exposing unnecessarily one of >> the greatest confusions introduced by Einstein criminal cult. In the >> end Master Tom Roberts was forced to give some explanation to Sam >> Wormley: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/15690046b3bff4c1? >> >> but that was the last time Master Tom Roberts paid any attention to >> this particular zombie. Now Sam Wormley means nothing to Master Tom >> Roberts and I am afraid you are in the same group. The situation of >> Dono, Gisse and Moortel is somewhat different - Master Tom Roberts may >> still reply if their questions are not too silly. > > I am not sure why this "Muddypaws" appeared as the author of the above > message but anyway the text is mine. I would like to call zombies' > attention to Master Tom Roberts' extremely important text: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/71d18321ed514ad2 > Tom Roberts: "For length contraction, first think of holding a rod > with length L in 3-d Euclidean space, and apply Cartesian coordinates > {X,Y,Z} to space. With the rod along the X axis, its length PROJECTED > onto the X-axis is L, and projected onto the Y- and Z- axes is 0. Now > rotate it 45 degrees around the Y axis: its length PROJECTED onto the > X axis is now 0.707*L -- do you claim that the rod has "contracted"??? > No; you easily recognize that the rod has ROTATED, and that the length > of the rod is unaffected by such a rotation. PRECISELY the same thing > happens in SR for a moving rod, but for motion along the X axis it is > a rotation in the X-T plane, and this is strange to people like > yourself not acustomed to thinking of time as a geometrical axis. It > is also a hyperbolic rotation, which makes it even stranger (but I'll > ignore that).... The way one projects onto the X axis in the X-T plane > is to make measurements simultaneously according to the time > coordinate of the T axis. Note that if an observer is going to make a > measurement of the length of a MOVING rod, she should clearly mark > both ends of the rod SIMULTANEOUSLY and then measure the distance > between the marks. In SR this is simply a PROJECTION of the > "length"[#] of the rod onto her spatial coordinates (here X). So in a > very real sense the historical name "length contraction" is > unfortunate, and confuses many people; yourself included. "Length > projection" would be a MUCH better name, and would avoid much > confusion. This _IS_ just a geometrical projection." > > It is clear that, according to Master Tom Roberts, there is no length > contraction - there is only "length projection". Master Tom Roberts is > the Albert Einstein of our generation and when he says there is no > length contraction, then it is absolutely true there is no length > contraction. That is the reason why Master Tom Roberts never resolves > any length contraction problems: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/f01724e78e78dde0? > > So zombies never ask Master Tom Roberts to explain length contraction. > If you do, Master Tom Roberts will hate you and may place you in the > "dangerous zombies" group, where he has already placed Jeckyl and Sam > Wormley. That sounds exactly like my understanding of "length contraction" .. informally that the proper length is unvaried, but the object rotates in space-time.
From: Jeckyl on 29 Jun 2007 22:07 "Muddypaws" <babypink2807(a)talktalk.net> wrote in message news:1183131228.064201.30250(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > Jeckyl wrote: >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1183114524.281576.204650(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> > On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Jeckyl wrote: >> >> > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(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): >> >> No .. he hasn't, although I have asked > > Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Changing nicks are you pentcho? [snip more nonsense]
From: sean on 3 Jul 2007 11:39 On 27 Jun, 18:04, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(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. I havent seen this latest version of yours george , but if its like your other version from a few months ago then your pic has light travelling away from the moving source in straight lines relative to the source. And contrary to the false assumption you try to pretend here that light in fact isnt observed to travel at c in straight lines from any source ,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away from a source at c . MMx refutes SR and supports classical. And If you thought about it my understanding of classical emmision theory is the only one. Think about it. Doesnt classical theory stipulate that light propagates away from any source in straight lines at c relative to the source?? Surely you cant deny this well accepted tenet. If this is true then if the source moves relative to another object/observor then light would *have to* appear to be dragged by the source from the independent observors pov. Otherwise,...in any frame other than the sources frame ,..If light left the source and then moved away in a path INDEPENDENT of the sources motion,.. then in the source frame, the light wouldnt be moving away from the source at c in straight lines wouldnt it? So what you call my `unusual` understanding of classical is in fact the only possible understanding of a clasical model. If you dont agree then show me where any model of classical emmision theory stipulates that light travels away from a source at variable speeds and in curved paths as you would incorrectly have us believe classical theory predicts. The fact is that you have no proof that your above illustration of classical is incorrect. If you think you have,.. then cite the observations that prove that light does not travel away from any source at c in straight lines. You cant as this proof you imagine does not exist. Sean www.gammarayburst.com For sagnac explained by classical theory see... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: Jeckyl on 3 Jul 2007 11:54 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1183477195.656294.154730(a)o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light > does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. As SR says > So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation > Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away > from a source at c . Of course it does > MMx refutes SR No .. it doesn't > and supports classical. It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the MMx results. > And If you thought about it my understanding of classical > emmision theory is the only one. > Think about it. Doesnt classical theory stipulate > that light propagates away from any source in straight lines > at c relative to the source?? Just like SR predicts > Surely you cant deny this well > accepted tenet. > If this is true then if the source moves relative to another > object/observor then light would *have to* appear to be dragged by > the source from the independent observors pov. > Otherwise,...in any frame other than the sources frame ,..If light > left the source and then moved away in a path INDEPENDENT of the > sources motion,.. then in the source frame, the light wouldnt be > moving away from the source at c in straight lines wouldnt it? It does in SR. > So what you call my `unusual` understanding of classical > is in fact the only possible understanding of a clasical model. Classical model says the speed of light is not always c .. it is observer / source dependant > If you dont agree then show me where any model of classical > emmision theory stipulates that light travels away from a source > at variable speeds The point is .. different observers will see it as having different speeds to c in classical models. We dont' have evidence of light travelling at less or more than c. > and in curved paths as you would incorrectly > have us believe classical theory predicts. > The fact is that you have no proof that your above illustration > of classical is incorrect. If you think you have,.. then cite > the observations that prove that light does not travel away from > any source at c in straight lines. That is not the point of contention .. it is the speed observers moving relative to the source will measure the light as travelling at.
From: Pentcho Valev on 3 Jul 2007 12:59
Jeckyl wrote: > "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1183477195.656294.154730(a)o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light > > does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. > > As SR says > > > So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation > > Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away > > from a source at c . > > Of course it does > > > MMx refutes SR > > No .. it doesn't > > > and supports classical. > > It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the > MMx results. Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson- Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. However if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes special relativity and proves the validity of the emission theory. But you do not know whether the miracles are too idiotic because Master Tom Roberts explains nothing? Then I am telling you they ARE too idiotic and Master Tom Roberts will confirm this sooner or later: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/f01724e78e78dde0? Pentcho Valev |