GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Androcles on 5 Jul 2007 11:52 "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1183642614.529515.262140(a)r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... : 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. : SR is stupid. : > Thats the only way in which SR can explain sagnac. : : Er, no. SR explains Sagnac by the invariance of c. Liar. : : > 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. According to the variance of c, Sagnac should show a fringe shift. And it does. The entire point of the FoG is to show a differential velocity. Fringe shift, differential velocity, c variant, incoherent raving lunatic and general fuckhead Blind Poe.
From: Henri Wilson on 5 Jul 2007 19:11 On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:38:50 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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. This is entirely correct. In fact SR explains Sagnac by assuming the existence of an absolute nonrotating FoR. As usual, it reverts to an aether theory when it tries to connect its maths with physics. >> > See the simulations at... >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8 >> > which clearly show that Classical theory can explain bothy sagnac >> > and MMx It is true that the two rays in a Sagnac end up displaced sideways from each other. ..but this might not be enough to explain a fringe shift. I think the real explanation is that photons in each ray 'twist' in opposite directions....and this gives rise to a path length difference at each reflection. To understand what I mean by 'twist' consider a photon as resembling an arrow, the shaft of which is many wavelengths long. If an arrow is fired from a moving car SO THAT IT WILL STRIKE a target 45 degrees to one side, its axis will generally NOT be aligned with its direction of travel. In fact, if the car is traveling fast enough, the arrow will have to be aimed backwards and will move almost sideways towards the target. Think about it. If this model is extended to the photon concept, the individual 'ends' will not strike each mirror at the same point....resulting in strange reflection angles and path length differences for the two beams. 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: Jeckyl on 5 Jul 2007 20:00 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:7atq8398iois8s6pk1d5hfir9m2s9n10ao(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:38:50 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>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. > > This is entirely correct. Entirely false > In fact SR explains Sagnac by assuming the existence of an absolute > nonrotating > FoR. As usual, it reverts to an aether theory when it tries to connect its > maths with physics. There is no aether theory in SR >>> > See the simulations at... >>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8 >>> > which clearly show that Classical theory can explain bothy sagnac >>> > and MMx > > It is true that the two rays in a Sagnac end up displaced sideways from > each > other. ..but this might not be enough to explain a fringe shift. > > I think the real explanation is that photons in each ray 'twist' in > opposite > directions Crackpottery alert [snip]
From: sean on 7 Jul 2007 16:24 On 5 Jul, 14:36, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Wrong here. MMx shows us that in a non inertial rotating frame the speed of light is c. Which means that in any inertial frame that has the rotating MMx experiment in it the light has to be travelling at c+-v. Conversely ,..If light were travelling at c in the `inertial` frame as SR incorrectly postulates then the MMx experiment ,rotating in that inertial frame would have the light travelling different distances on each path. This isnt observed ,.. therefore SR predictions for MMx are incorrect. > > Thats the only way in which SR can explain sagnac. > > Er, no. SR explains Sagnac by the invariance of c. Same thing isnt it? If you say SR has light only at c in the inertial frame . Thats the same as saying SR cannot have light at c in the non inertial rotating source frame in sagnac > > 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. Youve got it completely wrong here. When MMx showed us that light was at c in the `MMx`frame, that in no way predicated that light had to be at at c in all inertial frames. It only predicated that light had to be at c relative to the source in any *source frame*. Be it rotating or not In other words one can model both sagnac and MMx if one has light travelling at c ONLY in the source frame.Light can thus travel at c+-v in any other frame , be it what you call an inertial frame or otherwise,.. and still predict the observed results. THis is called classical emmision theory. Classical emmision theory states that light is only at c in any source frame only. An observor in any other frame will always see light at c+-v. So not only can classical theory model sagnac and MMx you will find yourself unable to provide any observational proof that shows that light is not at c in a source frame. In case this eludes you... This means that there is no observational evidence of light travelling at c in a frame that isnt the source frame. Ie a frame of an observor moving relative to a light source. (Contrary to evidence imagined errroneously by relativistas like yourself.) To see how classical theory CAN accurately model both sagnac and MMx see.. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb You will see that these mathematically correct vector simulations show that classical emmision theory CAN model sagnac (and MMX) Sean www.gammarayburst.com
From: sean on 16 Jul 2007 15:48
On 5 Jul, 14:50, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "sean" <jaymose...(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 So far all the experiments you have cited can be explained by classical. Name one of them and Ill show you. > > 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 Minkowski is a jerk. Dont listen to his nonsense. > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... > > > 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. Then explain why sr predicts that light must be at c+-v in any source frame when this is clearly contradicted by observed results in MMx that show us that light does indeed travel at c in the source frame > [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 Not for sagnac Look at any explanation of sagnac by SR and you will see that SR dictates that light travels at c in the lab and at c+-v in the source frame. But this doesnt fit whats observed in MMx. WHY? Because in MMx , which is the same as the source frame in sagnac we observe that light travels at c in the source frame. Yet SR predicts that light has to travel at c in the lab frame and at c+-v in the source frame when it tries to explain sagnac observations. Sean see how classical theory can explain sagnac and MMx at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb |