GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Androcles on 23 Jul 2007 15:51 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1185218755.719419.293350(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... : On 20 Jul, 22:15, "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: : > : > >>> There has never been a direct measurement of OW light speed from a : > >>> moving : > >>> source. : > : > >>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. : > : > George : : This is fantasy George. What in sagnac proves that the speed of light : is or is not the same when it is moving or when it is at rest? : Sean : www.gammarayburst.com : http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb : Dishwater is a well-know idiot who doesn't understand anything but his blind faith. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Jul 2007 17:51 On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:03:38 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Follow-ups set to exclude off-topic groups. > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:bk55a3lv5kqn80p7gpfap35t6sricg6ikb(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:50:07 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> ^^^^^^^ >>>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... > >Yes Henry, you do, because you cannot translate from >one frame to another without a transform and the c+v >result only comes from the Galilean version. George, you tried to confuse the issue by introducing 'a frame that is comoving with the source' and then started to rave on about frame transformations. Now I expects kids liek eric geese might fall for this kind of tactic but I wont. You 'frame' is no different from the source itself. In the inertial (nonrotating) frame, the SR Sagnac explanation specifically requires that the rays move at c+v wrt the source. You can argue no longer. It is an obvious fact. Sagnac proves Einstein wrong. > >> the standard sagnac theory does. > >There is no "sagnac theory" Henry, there is >Sagnac's _experiment_ which you can analyse >with any theory you like. Don't try to wriggle away George. >>>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. > >Sorry Henry, I forgot you don't understand geometry. > >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.
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Jul 2007 17:52 On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:25:55 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 20 Jul, 22:15, "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: >> >> >>> There has never been a direct measurement of OW light speed from a >> >>> moving >> >>> source. >> >> >>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. >> >> George > >This is fantasy George. What in sagnac proves that the speed of light >is or is not the same when it is moving or when it is at rest? George will never accept the truth no matter how obvious it is... >Sean >www.gammarayburst.com >http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb 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: Henri Wilson on 23 Jul 2007 17:55 On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:24:19 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jul 22, 6:44 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:26:52 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 21, 7:34 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:08:10 -0700, Bob Cain <arc...(a)arcanemethods.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source or even compared >> >> >> OWLS from differently moving sources. >> >> >> >You are a liar. The link provides just such a measurement from a set of moving >> >> >sources at a great enough distance that very small differences in one way light >> >> >speed due to relative motion among them would be magnified into a very >> >> >signifigant and easily measurable time spreading of the event. Didn't happen. >> >> >You refuse to address this measurement specifically because it blows your lie >> >> >out of the water. >> >> >> Variable stars are about the only way to check for c+v efet..and they prove >> >> they happen.... >> >> >> If you're so smart, why don't you explain how all starlight in the universe is >> >> adjusted (by the fairies) to move at precisely c wrt little planet Earth... >> >> >The speed at which sound comes to you in air is a constant, a property >> >of the air, independent of the nature or speed of the source relative >> >to that air. No fairies required. >> >> >The speed at which light comes to you in space is a constant, a >> >property >> >of space, independent of the nature or speed of the source relative to >> >that space. No fairies required. >> >> >Does the behavior of sound in air seem magical to you? Do you think >> >sound from faster sources should arrive before sound from slower >> >sources? >> >> So Blind Poe > >You have to plagiarize Androcles for idiotic putdowns, you can't even >make up your own idiocy? > >> finally admits to being a fully fledged aetherist. > >What I said is that the speed of light in space is a constant >property of space. Speed relative to WHAT, BP? >That comes from Maxwell's equations and does >not require an aether. Where have you been for the last 100 years? Applying physics. Why don't you learn some BP. > - Randy 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: George Dishman on 23 Jul 2007 18:26
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:6f8aa3pu62v3bjbei4sc10uou7pkao5j5f(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:03:38 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >>Follow-ups set to exclude off-topic groups. >> >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:bk55a3lv5kqn80p7gpfap35t6sricg6ikb(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:50:07 +0100, "George Dishman" > >>>> ^^^^^^^ >>>>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... >> >>Yes Henry, you do, because you cannot translate from >>one frame to another without a transform and the c+v >>result only comes from the Galilean version. > > George, you tried to confuse the issue by introducing 'a frame that is > comoving > with the source' You started rambling on about the speed being "c+v" wrt the source Henry, not me. If you don't know how to express simple concepts in unambiguous terms, the rest of us have to clarify it for you. Learn the basics and you won't need to be corrected. > and then started to rave on about frame transformations. That's what you are doing. Until you learn some physics, it is going to remain a black art to you. > Now I expects kids liek eric geese might fall for this kind of tactic but > I > wont. > You 'frame' is no different from the source itself. You have been told many times what the difference is but you insist on using the term to refer to your aether instead. I warned you it would only confuse you and here you see the proof. > In the inertial (nonrotating) frame, the SR Sagnac explanation > specifically > requires that the rays move at c+v wrt the source. Nope, it is c in both inertial frames. > You can argue no longer. It is an obvious fact. Only if you assume a Galilean transform, you cannot derive that result without it. > Sagnac proves Einstein wrong. Nope, the measured speed of the light ("OWLS" as you call it) from the moving source is c so it proves the postulate directly and the rest follows. >>> the standard sagnac theory does. >> >>There is no "sagnac theory" Henry, there is >>Sagnac's _experiment_ which you can analyse >>with any theory you like. > > Don't try to wriggle away George. Then stop making obvious errors and learn some basic terminology, that way it won't be so easy to make a fool of you. George |