GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Craig Markwardt on 11 Jun 2007 12:47 sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> writes: .... > If its compatible with SR then why does SR predict that light cannot > be constant in a non inertial frame. Yet the MMx, being in a non > inertial frame observes light being constant in all directions? Where does the theory of special relativity "predict" that light cannot be "constant" in a non-inertial frame? Indeed, it is a postulate of SR that the speed of light *is* constant, the same constant c, in all inertial frames. SR doesn't make any predictions about non-inertial frames. On the other hand, a frame co-rotating with an earth laboratory is nearly inertial at any one instant in time. CM
From: Jeckyl on 11 Jun 2007 20:00 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1181565742.578060.117350(a)h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 10 Jun, 15:56, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181306564.752462.62290(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1181198111.074796.272940(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: >> >> > Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: >> >> >> Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error? >> >> >> >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. >> >> >> Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true. >> >> Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >> >> >> Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary? >> > Michaelson- Morley. >> > In this experiment light is emitted at c relative to the emitting >> > body. >> > Proof is that if light were not emitted at c relative to the emitting >> > body then the observations would have shown that on one path the light >> > would be travelling at a different speed than the other. This isnt >> > observed. So the only scientific and logical conclusion one can make >> > is that MMx shows us that light is emitted at c relative to the source >> > in all directions. Something you as a relativista illogically refuse >> > to accept. >> >> MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR .. as you should >> know.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > If its compatible with SR then why does SR predict that light cannot > be constant in a non inertial frame. Yet the MMx, being in a non > inertial frame observes light being constant in all directions? Its a vert close approximation to one .. dummy. The results of MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR
From: sean on 12 Jun 2007 08:38 On 12 Jun, 01:00, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1181565742.578060.117350(a)h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 10 Jun, 15:56, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1181306564.752462.62290(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1181198111.074796.272940(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: > >> >> > Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: > > >> >> Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error? > > >> >> >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. > > >> >> Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true. > >> >> Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > >> >> Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary? > >> > Michaelson- Morley. > >> > In this experiment light is emitted at c relative to the emitting > >> > body. > >> > Proof is that if light were not emitted at c relative to the emitting > >> > body then the observations would have shown that on one path the light > >> > would be travelling at a different speed than the other. This isnt > >> > observed. So the only scientific and logical conclusion one can make > >> > is that MMx shows us that light is emitted at c relative to the source > >> > in all directions. Something you as a relativista illogically refuse > >> > to accept. > > >> MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR .. as you should > >> know.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > If its compatible with SR then why does SR predict that light cannot > > be constant in a non inertial frame. Yet the MMx, being in a non > > inertial frame observes light being constant in all directions? > > Its a vert close approximation to one .. dummy. The results of MM is > completely compatible with, and supports, SR- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Very close has another meaning .. its called fudging it or fiddling the data. You wouldnt accept an alternative theory if it said its predictions werent exactly but pretty close to correct would you? Sean
From: sean on 12 Jun 2007 09:33 On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: For a scientificaly correct explanation of how sagnac and MMx are consistent with classical theory and inconsistent with sR, dont go to the incorrect and unsubstantiated explanations at Ned wrights page or wikipedia, go to... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb Here I use substantiated observations. from MMX and sagnac. Not made up imaginary observations as the others do. > > If its compatible with SR then why does SR predict that light cannot > > be constant in a non inertial frame. Yet the MMx, being in a non > > inertial frame observes light being constant in all directions? > > Where does the theory of special relativity "predict" that light > cannot be "constant" in a non-inertial frame? Indeed, it is a > postulate of SR that the speed of light *is* constant, the same > constant c, in all inertial frames. I never said SR didnt predict it to be c in all inertial frames. I said `non inertial frames`. And regarding "where" I get this prediction.. Go to neds or wiki pages with their SR simulations of sagnac. Here they say that light travels at variable speeds in the rotating source frame. If you dont believe me LOOK AT their simulations. Its done with the source rotating in the so called `inertial` frame (therefore the source is a non inertial rotating frame like MMx) and the light speed at c in the inertial frame. If you thought about it you would realise that Ned and wiki are saying SR predicts that light must travel at variable speeds in non inertial frames. Its there in their simulations. Id like to also point out that in fact Ned and wiki are so ignorant of the facts that even their so called `inertial` lab frame isnt inertial. Because in fact the lab itself is rotating around the earths axis. We know this, not least because we can measure this rotation . > SR doesn't make any predictions about non-inertial frames. > On the > other hand, a frame co-rotating with an earth laboratory is nearly > inertial at any one instant in time. > > CM It isnt inertial though . Nearly isnt good enough. Especially when ring gyros can detect this rotation. If we can detect the rotation of MMx then its a big enough rotation to mean that the frame isnt inertial. It would only be inertial if we couldnt detect rotation. So MMx isnt inertial and it cannot be used as proof of SR. In fact if SR predicts that light always travels at c in all inertial frames then MMx conflicts with this prediction. Because if light were at c in a frame other than the MMx source then a translation of that light speed to the non inertial rotating MMx frame would mean that light would have to be travelling at variable speeds in all directions in the MMx frame, (according to SR) But this isnt observed in MMx .Its observed to travel at constant speeds an at c in all directions in the non inertial frame, not any inertial frame that SR predicts should be the case. Therefore MMx observations are not consistent with SR predictions. Sean www.gammarayburst.com for a complete and accurate explanation of how MMx and Sagnac can be explained by classical `aether` theory go to... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: Tom Roberts on 12 Jun 2007 12:17
sean wrote: > On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: >> a frame co-rotating with an earth laboratory is nearly >> inertial at any one instant in time. > It isnt inertial though . Nearly isnt good enough. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science, and the effects of the rotation of the earth, its orbital rotation, etc. can all be COMPUTED. When one does so, one finds the effect is much smaller than the resolution of the apparatus (reminder: this is the MMX, not a ring gyro). > Especially when > ring gyros can detect this rotation. They are a DIFFERENT physical system, and they react to rotation MUCH differently. The MMX interferometer is topologically equivalent to a ring gyro, with an enclosed area of zero. As the Sagnac effect is proportional to the enclosed area, the MMX apparatus is not sensitive to rotation. > So MMx isnt inertial and it cannot be used as proof of SR. Nobody expects it to be "proof", except people who don't understand what science actually is. The MMX is inertial enough (see above) to be a valid test of SR. > In > fact if SR predicts that light always travels at c in all inertial > frames then MMx conflicts with this prediction. Not SIGNIFICANTLY. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science, and one must always understand the resolution of the experiment. You seem to be trying to do physics via sound bites. That is hopeless, you must STUDY, and use REAL physics books, not youtube. The real ting is VASTLY more interesting than what the idiots around here try to discuss. Tom Roberts |