GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Randy Poe on 5 Jul 2007 09:36 On Jul 5, 9:32 am, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. SR says that the speed of light in all inertial frames is c. > Thats the only way in which SR can explain sagnac. Er, no. SR explains Sagnac by the invariance of c. > Yet this > isnt corrobrated by MMx. Because the MMx source according to SR should > show fringe shift . According to the invariance of c, MMX should show no fringe shift. The entire point of the experiment was to show a differential velocity. No fringe shift, no differential velocity, c invariant. - Randy
From: sean on 5 Jul 2007 09:38 On 27 Jun, 16:39, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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. > > Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Youve named only experiments that SR suposedly can explain. Thats not answering my question. I said...Name the experiments that classical theory cannot explain.. The fact is that there is no experimental or observational data that a classical emmision theory cannot explain. Which is why you couldnt supply any and pretend I asked you for data that SR cant explain. Which I didnt ask. (Especially seeing as I already know that SR cannot exlain both Sagnac and MMx together.) > > Ive hown SR > > cannot explian both sagnac and MMx > > You are wrong. SR does indeed explain both MMX and Sagnac. <shrug> No it doesnt. Thats a fabrication on your part. Because when SR explains sagnac it claims that when light propagates away from a rotating non inertial source it must do so at c+-v relative to the source. But then SR contradicts itself when it tries to explain MMX. Here Sr claims that when light propagates away from a rotating non inertial source it has to do so at c . Thats exactly the opposite of what SR claims for a non inertial rotating source in sagnac. Thats called inconsistency . Or contradiction . And SR contradicts itself with its explanations of sagnac and MMx. > > 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. You are incorrect. Stellar abberation is only impossible if there were aether drag. And MMx didnt rule out classical theory because no aether drag was observed. What it did was show that there is no aether drag effecting light in the classical model. And it was a mistake to think there may have been a drag involved. Look at the predictions a classical emmision theory makes. Before and after MMX. It predicts and predicted that light is always at c relative to the source. And thats exactly what MMX confirmed. Had a aether drag been observed then light would obviously not have been propagating away from the source at c as classical emmision theory had always and still does predict. The point here then is that as classical emmision theory is not dependent on there having to be a aether drag then therefore no aether drag observed(stellar aberration) does in no way rule out a classical emmision model. To reiterate; If one gives it just a bit of thought one will realize that in fact if classical emmision theories main prediction is that light must be at c always, relative to the source. Then this precludes it from accomadating aether drag. THe big mistake scientists made a hundred years or so ago was to incorrectly surmise that aether drag could coexist with a theory that predicts light at c relative to a source. The two are mutually exclusive. > 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. Considering that SR cannot even explain these two I`d say SR must be invalid by your parameters. But anyways you still have yet to supply any observational or experimental evidence that cannot be explained by a classical model. On 27 Jun, 16:44, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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. You say there is nothing? You still have two rotating sources that are identical dont you? Are you suggesting that a source that rotates around an axis with no mirrors present does`nt exist? This claim of yours doesnt even rate as pseudoscience. > > 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. Wrong. They both measure the same aspect of light. They both measure the path length on each path in each experiment. In other words they both measure the same thing. If you think otherwise then tell me,.. if sagnac measures the path length on each path then are suggesting that MMX doesnt measure the path length on each path? > > 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> And I never said the configurations were the same. In fact Ive repeatedly agreed that they are different. You avoid adressing the point I do make. And that is thatin both experiments the source rotates around a central axis and therefore light must be progating away from the source in both experiments at the same speeds. Yet SR predicts two contradictory results . It says sometimes light is at c relative to a source and sometimes it isnt. Thats bad theory. Good theory always makes predictions that are consistent in all frames. SR cannot do this because it incorrectly predicts that sometimes light isnt at c in the source frame. Yet MMx shows us that light is ALWAYS at c in the source frame Sean www.gammarayburst.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: Jeckyl on 5 Jul 2007 09:31 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1183642059.293730.318000(a)n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On 3 Jul, 16:54, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > 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. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source%20tests >> > 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. George O'Barr? he's an idiot > 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 " Yeup > 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) Yes . .that is what all emission theories I ahve seen say .. light is emitted from a source at c relative to the iFoR of the source. SR says further that it is c for ALL iFoR .. not just the source
From: Jeckyl on 5 Jul 2007 09:50 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1183642363.811699.9470(a)n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > 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: >> > 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. Sagnac isn't a version of SR > 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. Please show how you came up with that idea? > Yet this > isnt corrobrated by MMx. Because the MMx source according to SR should > show fringe shift . No .. SR doesn't predicts a null result .. MMx gets a null result. > Yet it doesnt. And that is what SR predicts
From: Jeckyl on 5 Jul 2007 09:50
"sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1183642730.731655.310160(a)57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > On 27 Jun, 16:39, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> 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. >> >> Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > Youve named only experiments that SR suposedly can explain. That 's what you asked for .. experiments that SR explains and classic theory doesn't > Thats not answering my question. I said...Name the experiments that > classical theory cannot explain. Look thru them and see which ones classic physics without SR and lorentz contractions and minkowski space etc can explain http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#4.%20tests%20of%20time%20dilation http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#5.%20Twin%20paradox http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#6.%20Tests%20of%20kinematics > The fact is that there is no experimental > or observational data that a classical emmision theory cannot explain. There is plenty .. see above > Which > is why you couldnt supply any and pretend I asked you for data that SR > cant explain. I preteneded nothing of the sort > Which I didnt ask. (Especially seeing as I already know that > SR cannot exlain both Sagnac and MMx together.) It explains both. You jsut fail to understand it >> > Ive hown SR >> > cannot explian both sagnac and MMx >> You are wrong. SR does indeed explain both MMX and Sagnac. <shrug> > No it doesnt. Yes .. it does. You are alone (maybe with a handful of crackpots and the ignorant) who say this. Physicist know that realtivity explains MMX nad Sagnac .. its not yet been refuted. [snip outright lies] > And SR contradicts itself > with its explanations of sagnac and MMx. No, it doesn't [snip] > Considering that SR cannot even explain these two\ FALSE > I`d say SR must be invalid by your parameters. No .. you're simply lying > But anyways you still have yet to supply any > observational > or experimental evidence that cannot be explained by a classical > model. See above > Thats bad theory. Good theory always makes predictions that are > consistent in all frames. SR cannot do this because it incorrectly > predicts that sometimes light isnt at c in the source frame. It NEVER EVER predicts light isn't at c in ANY iFoR. > Yet MMx shows us that light is ALWAYS at c in the source frame And that is what SR correctly predicts |