GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Androcles on 12 Sep 2007 06:59 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:46E7BB11.1080109(a)hiadeletethis.no... : 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) HAHAHAHA! Prediction according to SR: The rays do not meet.
From: Jeckyl on 12 Sep 2007 07:19 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1189589575.739763.155450(a)o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > 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 asked .. that is all > 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!" Fine .. then why did you bother asking .. he's addressed it Sagnac is perfectly explained and predicted by SR.
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Sep 2007 07:53 On 12 Sept, 13:10, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > 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 Andersen Andersen there are so many sites containing calculations of the Sagnac experiment performed by people much cleverer than you. Why didn't you refer to some of them instead of demonstrating your zombie reasoning? See this for instance: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html Find the mistake Andersen Andersen! Pentcho Valev
From: Jeckyl on 12 Sep 2007 08:17 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1189598024.812605.162630(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Sept, 13:10, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.ander...(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> 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 > > Andersen Andersen there are so many sites containing calculations of > the Sagnac experiment performed by people much cleverer than you. Why > didn't you refer to some of them instead of demonstrating your zombie > reasoning? See this for instance: > > http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html > > Find the mistake Andersen Andersen! If it says the SR doesn't account for Sagnac, then there must be a mistake, because it is an experiment that support and whose result is predicted by SR. But you're just too blind and stupid to understand the facts.
From: sean on 12 Sep 2007 08:47
On 11 Sep, 01:46, HW@....(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. You say this over and over but wheres your proof? Have you tried an accuarate mathematical simulation to back up this claim you make? No. The fact is I have, using vector calculations and posted them as sagnac sims at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb And these show that as long as you calculate in the source frame with the speed as c in the source frame one gets a path difference which is whats observed. You can keep repeating your claim that this doesnt work but if you dont bother double checking by doing your own calculations in the source frame then all your claims are unsubstantiated And erroneous. Not to mention the fact that your own explanation relies on wave particle duality which itself needs magic to explain how the photon switches from particle to wave. Sean www.gammarayburst.com |