GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Jeckyl on 3 Jul 2007 19:30 "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote in message news:Wcwii.45741$aS5.34883(a)fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1183483148.050975.326320(a)c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > : On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > : > Jeckyl wrote: > : > > "sean" <jaymose...(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. > : > : Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, > : no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. > > Any liar can say it, but can you prove it? > Tell us, incoherent raving lunatic, how SR predicted MMX years > before SR was written. Are you really that stupid .. you REALLY don't understand what 'predict' means? And you are going to just ignore all the results that were predicted BEFORE experimental evidence confirmed them decades later. If that is the best argument you have against SR, then you're a lost cause.
From: Jeckyl on 3 Jul 2007 19:30 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1183486803.804309.89790(a)57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 3, 10:19 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > 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. >> >> Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, >> no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. > > The Voigt transform and infinite others also support MMX. There is more than one experiment that supports SR .. other theories fail at one or more of them >> > However >> > if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley >> > experiment refutes special relativity >> >> What the hell does that mean? There is no version of >> SR without those effects. There is no version of SR which >> is refuted by M-M. > > Under the Lorentz transform, the combination of time dilation and the > principle of relativity results in relative simultaneity. In doing > so, it would not allow any consistent interference patterns. > Therefore, the interferometer uner MMX should not have worked. Since > MMX works, therefore relative simultaneity must be wrong. Nonsense. > Therefore, > the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity must > also be wrong. More nonsense > Therefore, the Loretnz transform must be wrong as > well. You're a fool > Finally, SR being merely an interpretation to the mathematics > of the Lorentz transform must be wrong too. Well . .a lovely chain of thought from an incorrect premise. Slow down and think next time >> Can you describe this theory that you think is SR and >> is refuted by M-M? What are its postulates? What does >> it say about transformation of velocities? > > The velocity transform of the Voigt transform is exactly the same as > the Lorentz transform. You can also find other transforms that also > gives the same velocity transform. <shrug> But they fail in other ways.. SR works and gives correct results.
From: Henri Wilson on 3 Jul 2007 19:46 On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:19:08 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Jeckyl wrote: >> > "sean" <jaymose...(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. > >Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, >no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. The reason the MMX is consistent with SR is that SR resorts to the BaTh principle that light moves at c wrt its source and everything in the source frame. Hence light moves at c throughout the MMX apparatus irrespective of whatever you do to it. SR has the amazing ability to flit from LET to BaTh depending on the need. >> However >> if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley >> experiment refutes special relativity > >What the hell does that mean? There is no version of >SR without those effects. There is no version of SR which >is refuted by M-M. > >Can you describe this theory that you think is SR and >is refuted by M-M? What are its postulates? What does >it say about transformation of velocities? > > - Randy www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: sean on 5 Jul 2007 09:27 On 3 Jul, 16:54, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "sean" <jaymose...(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. Neither do you have evidence that light always travels at c when the observor is moving relative to the source. Cite this evidence. It doesnt exist. > > 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. Youve misuderstood both myself and george. george was claiming that the usual classical emmision theory did not have light always at c in straight lines from the source and that it was my `unusual` interpretation of classical that claimed that it alwasy had to be. All I was saying was that he was wrong... Classical emmision theory always stipulates that light must be at c relative to the source. Even you concur above with your quote.. (jeckyl)..."Classical model says the speed of light is not always c .. it is observer /source dependant " Thats what I always argue , but george was trying to say that this was an unusual version of the classical emmision model. Obviously he`s wrong. As Both you and I agree that classical emmision model always is observor /source dependent.(ie at c relative to the source) Sean www.gammarayburst.com
From: sean on 5 Jul 2007 09:32
On 3 Jul, 18:19, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Jeckyl wrote: > > > "sean" <jaymose...(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. > > Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, > no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. > > > However > > if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley > > experiment refutes special relativity > > What the hell does that mean? There is no version of > SR without those effects. There is no version of SR which > is refuted by M-M. Yes there is ..Sagnac. If you look at SR`s explanation of sagnac it states that light does not travel at c in the source frame. Thats the only way in which SR can explain sagnac. Yet this isnt corrobrated by MMx. Because the MMx source according to SR should show fringe shift . Yet it doesnt. Sean www.gammarayburst.com See sagnac explained by classical theory at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb |