GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Dono on 12 Jun 2007 12:57 On Jun 12, 6:33 am, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Seanwww.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 I looked at your website, I read your claims. They are both wrong. The Sagnac experiment , while executed in a clearly non-inertial frame (because it is rotating) agrees with the predictions of SR/GR. For calculations using either formalism, look here: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm and here: http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/packard/related/Gyros/LaserRingGyro/Steadman/StedmanReview1997.pdf So, your claims are wrong.
From: Jeckyl on 12 Jun 2007 19:03 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1181651929.640107.175830(a)z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > 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? We are limited in our experimental apparatus .. it is impractical (if not impossible) to get the apparatus into a frame of reference that is perfectly free of all gravitational potential so the SR can be tested directly. But a laboratory is close enough for the experiment. GR tells us the local speed of light will be c anyway, and for the duration of the experiment any change in velocity of the apparatus is negligible. The problem is not fudging correct data .. its interpreting an imperfect experiment within allowed margins of error. Science does that all the time ... and MM supports SR (which says there should be a null results and the results are null within the margin of error of the experiment).
From: Jeckyl on 12 Jun 2007 19:04 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1181655201.316374.278930(a)a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > 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. Yes .. it is
From: sean on 15 Jun 2007 09:25 On 13 Jun, 00:03, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message For a correct interpretation of the MMx and Sagnac experiments see.. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb > > 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? > > We are limited in our experimental apparatus .. it is impractical (if not > impossible) to get the apparatus into a frame of reference that is perfectly > free of all gravitational potential so the SR can be tested directly. > > But a laboratory is close enough for the experiment. GR tells us the local > speed of light will be c anyway, and for the duration of the experiment any > change in velocity of the apparatus is negligible. > > The problem is not fudging correct data .. its interpreting an imperfect > experiment within allowed margins of error. Science does that all the time > .. and MM supports SR (which says there should be a null results and the > results are null within the margin of error of the experiment).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by assuming that the experiment does not rotate during observation or as you try to argue. You say... `that this rotation is not measureable during observation`. But this is a false assumption . Because scientific instruments that you cannot deny as being accurate( ring gyros) DO INDEED measure a rotation during the course of the MM experiment. And scientifically this has to mean that the rotation of earth does effect the speed of light during any known observation like MMx. Yet SR bases its predictions on the assumption that the rotation of the earth is NOT measureable during the course of the experiment. Seeing as ring gyros contradict this asssumption,.. then scientifically SR`s predictions are not valid as they are based on assumptions that are in fact contradicted by observation. So for your SR argument to be succesfull you have to prove that the earths rotation is not measureable during observation. And as any scientist would have to admit... Earths rotation IS measureble during observation.. Thus nullifying SR. So. Ill accept your SR argument if you supply ring gyro measurements that show that earth does not rotate . Seeing as galileo shot down this argument centuries ago... Id say ,... you cannnot supply proof that earths rotation is not measureable. Sean www.gammarayburst.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: Jeckyl on 15 Jun 2007 09:45
"sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1181913907.030099.86980(a)c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On 13 Jun, 00:03, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > For a correct interpretation of the MMx and Sagnac experiments see.. > http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb >> > 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? >> >> We are limited in our experimental apparatus .. it is impractical (if not >> impossible) to get the apparatus into a frame of reference that is >> perfectly >> free of all gravitational potential so the SR can be tested directly. >> >> But a laboratory is close enough for the experiment. GR tells us the >> local >> speed of light will be c anyway, and for the duration of the experiment >> any >> change in velocity of the apparatus is negligible. >> >> The problem is not fudging correct data .. its interpreting an imperfect >> experiment within allowed margins of error. Science does that all the >> time >> .. and MM supports SR (which says there should be a null results and the >> results are null within the margin of error of the experiment).- Hide >> quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by > assuming > that the experiment does not rotate during observation or as you try > to argue. > You say... `that this rotation is not measureable during > observation`. I don't recall saying that. But it is a relatively small effect .. the margins for error take that into accont [snip whole lots of waffle about measuring rotation of the earth that really doesn't make a difference] SR predicts what happens in an ideal situation .. the laboratory is not ideal. However it is a good enough approximation and any discrepancies can be taken into account in the error bounds. MM in no way invalidates or contradicts SR .. the 'null' result is completely consistent with SR. |