GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 16 Jul 2007 19:21 On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:48:04 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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... >> >> > 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. You might also point out that it travels at c+v wrt the source as viewed from the lab 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 Unfortunately Mosely's idea isn't sufficient to explain the Sagnac effect. George Dishman and I looked into this thoroughly some time ago. The two rays end up parallel but are displaced sideways. This should not in itself cause a fringe shift because the wave fronts are broad. There IS a path length diffference but it is considerably smaller than the claimed one. I have found a better but fairly complicated explanation which I have yet to analyse in detail. Consider individual photons as resembling arrows. If an arrow is fired from a moving vehicle towards a target 45 degrees to one side, it must be aimed well to one side of the target if it is going to hit it. As the arrow travels, it shaft is not aligned with its velocity vector (in the ground frame). In fact, if the vehicle is traveling quickly enough, teh arrow's shaft will be almost perpendicular to its travel direction. Applying this to Sagnac means that the 'axes' of photons in each beam are 'twisted' in opposite directions. If photons are many wavelengths long, each photon 'end' will strike the (moving) mirrors at slightly different points, resulting in a reflection angle that DOES NOT equal the incident angle as well as a path length difference. 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 16 Jul 2007 19:20 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1184615284.219873.24130(a)o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > 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. Measurements of Particle Lifetimes Rossi and Hoag, Physical Review 57, pg 461 (1940). Rossi and Hall, Physical Review 59, pg 223 (1941). Rasetti, Physical Review 60, pg 198 (1941). Redei, Phys. Rev. 162 no. 5 (1967), p1299. Various measurements of the lifetimes of muons. See also: Bailey et al. Durbin, Loar and Havens, Physical Review 88, pg 179 (1952). - D. Frisch and J. Smith, "Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using Mesons", Am. J. Phys. 31 (1963) 342. Measurements of the lifetimes of pions. An interpretation was given by: Terell, Nuovo Cimento 16 (1960) pg 457. Greenberg et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 no. 21 (1969), p1267. More accurate measurement of pion lifetimes. Ayres et al, Phys. Rev. D3 no. 5 (1971), p1051. Measurements of pion lifetimes, comparison of positive and negative pions, etc. Burrowes et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2 (1959), p117. Measurements of Kaon lifetimes. Haefele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (Proposal); Science Vol. 177 pg 166--170 (1972) (Experiment). They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR predictions to well within their experimental resolution and uncertainties (which total about 25 ns). Vessot et al, "A Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Space-borne Clock", Gel. Rel. Grav., 10, (1979) 181-204; "Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space borne Hydrogen Maser", Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 2081-2084. They flew a hydrogen maser in a Scout rocket up into space and back (not recovered). Gravitational effects are important, as are the velocity effects of SR. C. Alley, "Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses," in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, p363-427. They flew atomic clocks in airplanes which remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which flew to Greenland and back. Bailey et al., "Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit," Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301; Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1-79 (1979). They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly-relativistic twin scenario (v ~ 0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest:Meyer et al., Physical Review 132, pg 2693; Balandin et al. JETP 40, pg 811 (1974); Bardin et al. Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984). Also a test of the clock hypotheses (below). >> > 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. You're the only one here spouting nonsense >> 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 It doesn't > when this is clearly contradicted by observed results in MMx that show > us that light does indeed travel at c in the source frame Observed results in MMx are as preditced by SR. Get used to it. >> > Yet MMx shows us that light is ALWAYS at c in the source frame >> And that is what SR correctly predicts > Not for sagnac Sagnac does not refute SR > 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? its a different experiment, dummy > Because in MMx , which is the same as the source frame in sagnac > we observe that light travels at c in the source frame. Yes > 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. I think you need to look at Sagnac again http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
From: Dono on 16 Jul 2007 19:29 On Jul 16, 12:48 pm, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. No, it doesn't. You still don't understand the explanation of the Sagnac experiment. Dit you take the time to read and understand this very good page: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm It also talks about the cranks that keep saying that Sagnac implies light propagating with c+-v :-)
From: vanep on 19 Jul 2007 17:35 On Jun 6, 11:35 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: > Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" > > is FALSE. Other mistakes, camouflages, plagiarisms etc. can be > regarded as secondary. If the scientific community wants to get rid of > Einstein's relativity (there are signs showing that it does), THE SIGN THAT'S INCREASING IS THE ONE THAT MEASURES Pentcho Valev PSYCHOSIS. Put a cork in it, ostrich, then seek psychiatic help for delusional behavour. it > should first replace the false principle of constancy of the speed of > light with the true principle of variability of the speed of light and > draw all the consequences, even if, in the end, this turns out to be > an "awful" transition from Einstein to Newton. In the absence of an > explicit and universally accepted replacement, any anti-Einstein or > beyond-Einstein activities can only consolidate Einstein criminal cult > and prolong the agony. > > Pentcho Valev
From: Jeckyl on 19 Jul 2007 20:11
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:uiqv93lms45a891mvn55m3rosqoghoq0ml(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:03:52 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:aqgu93tpels4ptjp54ijk57ni9p13dvm08(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:46:38 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>Light moves at c in every iFoR, and >>>>that speed is unaffected by the speed that other objects are moving in >>>>the >>>>iFoR. >>> That is an unproven postulate. It is a hand down from aether theory. >>How is it unproven that light travels at c? >>There have been numerous experiments to measure the speed of light. > There has never been a direct measurement of OW light speed from a moving > source. The speed of light has been measured for moving sources. OW measurement is tricky due to the syncing of clocks required to do it .. you need to make assumptions about what it means for a pair of separated clocks to be in sync. >>Or do you think other objects moving about cna change the speed light >>travels in my frame? > stop raving... Well.. that seems to be what you're suggesting. Its not my fault if you are raving [>>> It meansalmost the whole of astronomy is wrong. >>How? > You will see the answer if you look in a mirror. What? |