GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Paul B. Andersen on 12 Sep 2007 03:03 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:11:42 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Post 363 >> >> On 6 Sep, 17:33, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote innews:1189089230.764471.53320(a)22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: >>> >>>> On 30 Aug, 23:55, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>>>> sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:1188512224.511353.237820 >>>>> @i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com: >>>>>> If you bothered analysing your sean planets sim, youd >>>>>> see that its the only way to have light propagating away >>>>>> from any source at c. >>>>> One of the most fundamental laws of physics is that an object in motion >>>>> continues in that motion unless acted upon by an outside force. >>>> You ignore several things here, First of all if emmision theory >>>> predicts that light always is at c relative to a source >>> That only applies at the moment of emission. If the source changes its >>> motion after emission, the light does not know or care. >> Maybe in your own personal version of emmision theory. But Im saying >> that if one can model emmision theory as having light propagate away >>from any source always at c relative to any source, then,.... >> one can explain MMx and sagnac > > It explains the MMX but not Sagnac.... > Sagnac is very complicated. Sagnac isn't complicated at all. It is however bothering to you, since it falsifies emission theory. Paul
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Sep 2007 04:02 On 12 Sept, 10:03, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > Henri Wilson wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:11:42 -0700, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Post 363 > > >> On 6 Sep, 17:33, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>> sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote innews:1189089230.764471.53320(a)22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > > >>>> On 30 Aug, 23:55, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>>>> sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:1188512224.511353.237820 > >>>>> @i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > >>>>>> If you bothered analysing your sean planets sim, youd > >>>>>> see that its the only way to have light propagating away > >>>>>> from any source at c. > >>>>> One of the most fundamental laws of physics is that an object in motion > >>>>> continues in that motion unless acted upon by an outside force. > >>>> You ignore several things here, First of all if emmision theory > >>>> predicts that light always is at c relative to a source > >>> That only applies at the moment of emission. If the source changes its > >>> motion after emission, the light does not know or care. > >> Maybe in your own personal version of emmision theory. But Im saying > >> that if one can model emmision theory as having light propagate away > >>from any source always at c relative to any source, then,.... > >> one can explain MMx and sagnac > > > It explains the MMX but not Sagnac.... > > Sagnac is very complicated. > > Sagnac isn't complicated at all. > It is however bothering to you, since it falsifies emission theory. The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment? Pentcho Valev
From: Jeckyl on 12 Sep 2007 04:16 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1189584136.318157.43080(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Sept, 10:03, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.ander...(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> Henri Wilson wrote: >> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:11:42 -0700, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Post 363 >> >> >> On 6 Sep, 17:33, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>> sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >>> innews:1189089230.764471.53320(a)22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: >> >> >>>> On 30 Aug, 23:55, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>>> sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >> >>>>> news:1188512224.511353.237820 >> >>>>> @i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com: >> >>>>>> If you bothered analysing your sean planets sim, youd >> >>>>>> see that its the only way to have light propagating away >> >>>>>> from any source at c. >> >>>>> One of the most fundamental laws of physics is that an object in >> >>>>> motion >> >>>>> continues in that motion unless acted upon by an outside force. >> >>>> You ignore several things here, First of all if emmision theory >> >>>> predicts that light always is at c relative to a source >> >>> That only applies at the moment of emission. If the source changes >> >>> its >> >>> motion after emission, the light does not know or care. >> >> Maybe in your own personal version of emmision theory. But Im saying >> >> that if one can model emmision theory as having light propagate away >> >>from any source always at c relative to any source, then,.... >> >> one can explain MMx and sagnac >> >> > It explains the MMX but not Sagnac.... >> > Sagnac is very complicated. >> >> Sagnac isn't complicated at all. >> It is however bothering to you, since it falsifies emission theory. > > The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas > special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or > c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment? c' = c Sagnac is completely explained by and compatible with SR.
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Sep 2007 05:32 On 12 Sept, 10:16, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "Pentcho Valev" <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On 12 Sept, 10:03, "Paul B. Andersen" > > <paul.b.ander...(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > >> Sagnac isn't complicated at all. > >> It is however bothering to you, since it falsifies emission theory. > > The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas > > special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or > > c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment? > c' = c > > Sagnac is completely explained by and compatible with SR. Jeckyl Jeckyl I asked your brother zombie Andersen, not you. You are not able to explain c-v and c+v appearing in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment but brother zombie Andersen is: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/7977df6b0a4d925a? Paul Andersen: "(c-v) is nothing but an arithmetic difference between two speeds, It is NOT the speed of anything relative to anything!" Pentcho Valev
From: Paul B. Andersen on 12 Sep 2007 06:10
Pentcho Valev wrote: > > The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas > special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or > c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment? > > Pentcho Valev The Sagnac experiment: - Given an inertial frame which is the reference for all speeds mentioned below. That is, all speeds are relative to this non-rotating frame. - Given a stationary circle with radius r. - Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle. - Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors). - Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction uses to catch up with the source. - Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction uses to meet the source. Prediction according to SR: --------------------------- The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c. The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c. So we have: 2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v) 2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v) delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2) Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r^2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5 we get: delta_t = (4Aw/c^2)* g^2 The g^2 will obviously be unmeasureable different from 1 for any practical Sagnac experiment. So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance with enumerable practical experiments. Prediction correct, SR confirmed. Prediction according to the emission theory: -------------------------------------------- The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c+v. The speed of the light emitted in the backwards direction is c-v. So we have: 2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*(c+v) tf = 2*pi*r/c 2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*(c-v) tb = 2*pi*r/c delta_t = tf - tb = 0 So emission theory predicts delta_t = 0, while enumerable practical experiments shows delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 Prediction wrong - emission theory falsified. Paul |