GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Jeckyl on 21 Jul 2007 09:46 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:94c3a3dh9pmsml4r1gjah81mubesnlc1f2(a)4ax.com... >>> Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source or even >>> compared >>But the earth is a moving source :) > Why don't you talk to geesey, he's about on your level. You don't think the earth is a moving source? Its was certainly moving enough to disprove classical ether theory in MMx.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 21 Jul 2007 11:08 In sci.physics.relativity, Jeckyl <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote on Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:46:11 +1000 <46a20e32$0$2994$61c65585(a)un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>: > "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > news:81c3a3dp1kb5vnr79pithf3kef03fa4pkf(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:15:09 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>>news:0a72a35f3pvsj84q1djbecou3ull85fbso(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:26:47 -0700, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>>>That's a lie you keep repeating. Repetition does not comprise truth. >>>>>Look at >>>>>the measurement and results described here: >>>... >>>> We've been through this before. >>>> >>>> Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source ... >>> >>>More lies Henry, you know perfectly well Sagnac's >>>experiment showed that the speed of light from the >>>source when moving is exactly the same as when it >>>is at rest. >> >> Sagnac proves SR wrong. The light rays are assumed to initially move at >> c+v wrt >> the source. > > No .. it does not .. it says nothing to refute SR at all. > H. Wilson is being slightly sloppy here. The light rays in a Newtonian theory will move at c+v wrt the source *when observed in the lab frame*. In SR, the light rays will merely be frequency shifted. Analysis in the rotational frame is more complicated, and outside the bounds of SR (though one might approximate it in various ways). Clearly, however, the effect works -- it's used today in large ships. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net New Technology? Not There. No Thanks. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: George Dishman on 21 Jul 2007 12:50 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:81c3a3dp1kb5vnr79pithf3kef03fa4pkf(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:15:09 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:0a72a35f3pvsj84q1djbecou3ull85fbso(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:26:47 -0700, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> >>> wrote: >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: > >>>>That's a lie you keep repeating. Repetition does not comprise truth. >>>>Look at >>>>the measurement and results described here: >>... >>> We've been through this before. >>> >>> Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source ... >> >>More lies Henry, you know perfectly well Sagnac's >>experiment showed that the speed of light from the >>source when moving is exactly the same as when it >>is at rest. > > Sagnac proves SR wrong. The light rays are assumed to initially move at > c+v wrt ^^^^^^^ You ASSUME they move at c+v. > the source. > Don't argue about that George, it is obviously true. As you said yourself, you only ASSUME it to be true. The actual result is that the speed of the light is independent of the speed of the source, which Einstein showed requires that flat space be Lorentz invariant, not Galilean invariant, and that in turn means your assumption which is based on Galilean invariance is incorrect. George
From: Dono on 21 Jul 2007 12:52 On Jul 21, 12:06 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:15:09 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > >news:0a72a35f3pvsj84q1djbecou3ull85fbso(a)4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:26:47 -0700, Bob Cain <arc...(a)arcanemethods.com> > >> wrote: > >>>Henri Wilson wrote: > >>>That's a lie you keep repeating. Repetition does not comprise truth. > >>>Look at > >>>the measurement and results described here: > >... > >> We've been through this before. > > >> Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source ... > > >More lies Henry, you know perfectly well Sagnac's > >experiment showed that the speed of light from the > >source when moving is exactly the same as when it > >is at rest. > > Sagnac proves SR wrong. The light rays are assumed to initially move at c+v wrt > the source. This is "closing speed", ralphie. It has been explained to you many, many times why Sagnac does not disprove relativity. There is an excellent article about how crackpots like you misunderstand the Sanac experiment on the mathpages. I gave you the link some time ago, check it out.
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Jul 2007 19:29
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:50:07 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:81c3a3dp1kb5vnr79pithf3kef03fa4pkf(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:15:09 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>>news:0a72a35f3pvsj84q1djbecou3ull85fbso(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:26:47 -0700, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>>>That's a lie you keep repeating. Repetition does not comprise truth. >>>>>Look at >>>>>the measurement and results described here: >>>... >>>> We've been through this before. >>>> >>>> Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source ... >>> >>>More lies Henry, you know perfectly well Sagnac's >>>experiment showed that the speed of light from the >>>source when moving is exactly the same as when it >>>is at rest. >> >> Sagnac proves SR wrong. The light rays are assumed to initially move at >> c+v wrt > ^^^^^^^ >You ASSUME they move at c+v. > >> the source. >> Don't argue about that George, it is obviously true. > >As you said yourself, you only ASSUME it to be true. I don't...the standard sagnac theory does. >The actual result is that the speed of the light is >independent of the speed of the source, which Einstein >showed requires that flat space be Lorentz invariant, >not Galilean invariant, and that in turn means your >assumption which is based on Galilean invariance is >incorrect. Don't use big meaningless words, George. YOUR explanation of Sagnac requires that the rays move at c+v wrt the source. >George > 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. |