GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Jeckyl on 12 Sep 2007 08:52 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1189598024.812605.162630(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html > Find the mistake Andersen Andersen! == Let us calculate the time interval when both light and the observer's velocity make an anti clockwise rotation. Since "light" and the "observer" travel in the same direction, an observer at rest finds that "light" must travel a little more than a full circumference in order to reach again the observer who moved while light completes the circle. That observer (at rest) observes that the relative velocity between "light" and the moving observer is (c-V). Since the circumference is 2pR, the time interval "trest" taken by light between two passages in the same neighborhood of the moving observer is: t_rest = ( 2.pi.R_rest ) / c ...3 == There's the mistake ... the above is what SR says, they are proving SR correct, not showing it wrong. And, as they conclude, it "is identical to Sagnac equation"
From: sean on 12 Sep 2007 08:54 On 12 Sep, 08:03, "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. I agree that Henri seems to not be able to understand sagnac very well. But I think your wrong when you say sagnac falsifies emmision theory. If you look at any claim that it does and study the so called proof by relativists on how it falsifies emmision theory. Youll notice that the paths of both beams are incorrectly calculated which in turn give the false impression that there is no path difference for emmision theory vis a vis sagnac. Notice any simulation of emmision theory in the lab frame for sagnac INCORRECTLY shows the light as travelling in straight lines in the lab frame. For emmision theory this is incorrect as it must be straight in the source frame(like MMx) And if you bothered doing a simple calculation youd see that a straight line in a rotating source frame gives a galilean transformation to a curved line in a lab frame where the source rotates. Something relativists fail to take into account when trying to falsely prove taht emmision theory cannot model sagnac see also.. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb Sean
From: Paul B. Andersen on 12 Sep 2007 09:06 Pentcho Valev wrote: > 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! << However, we see above, that the velocity of Earth is responsible for the change of time light takes to go around the Earth. [SIC] >> ... to mention one. Paul
From: sean on 12 Sep 2007 09:09 On 12 Sep, 11:10, "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. Lots of mistakes here but typical of relativists who like to falsify what emmision theory does to make themselves feel better. To start with if your emmision calculation is in the lab frame then youve incorrectly calculated the speed of light in the lab frame. Because light is at c in the source frame and in straight lines in the lab frame (in emmision theory) then you have to correctly calculate by galilean transformation ,seeing as emmision isnt SR. And a galilean trans gives light a variable speed in the lab frame for emmision because the source rotates in the lab frame. Not just either c+-v. You incorrectly assume light travels in straight lines in the lab frame for emmisssion when in fact it should be only at c and in straight lines in the *source frame*. If you bothered actually doing correct galilean trans for emmision youd see that a straight line at c radiating out from a rotating source will translate to a variable speed line curving out in any other frame. Sean www.gammarayburst.com
From: Jeckyl on 12 Sep 2007 09:17
"sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1189602552.318313.45410(a)57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Sep, 11:10, "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. > Lots of mistakes here You wish > but typical of relativists who like to falsify > what emmision theory does No need to .. it just gives incorrect results without 'relativists'ahving to do anythin to falsify it > to make themselves feel better. Sad > To start with if your emmision calculation is in the lab frame then > youve incorrectly calculated the speed of light in the lab frame. Emission theory has the light emitted in both the forward and backward directions at c relative to the source. > Because light is at c in the source frame and in straight lines in the > lab frame (in emmision theory) It is forced to travel around the disc in both frames .. but at the instance of emission ,it it going at c+v and c-v in the labe frame and c relative to the srouce [snip nonsense] |