GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: sean on 20 Jun 2007 07:48 On 18 Jun, 16:01, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > sean wrote: > > SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by > > assuming > > that the experiment does not rotate during observation > > That's only an elementary application of SR to the experiment. An > accurate application of SR can account for the various rotations, and > show that they ALL affect the fringe shift my much less than the > resolution of the instrument. It's just that elementary textbooks do not > clutter up the analysis with unnecessary details. > > > 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. > > Except the MMX interferometer is NOT a ring gyro. Indeed, it can be > considered to be one, with a zero enclosed area, and so one predicts the > MMX interferometer is insensitive to rotation. See above. Notice I never actually claimed that MMx is the same as sagnac nor did I claim MMx is a ring gyro. Thats your fantasy. However make sure you understand this.. that my central point here is that although the two experiments are different setups, one thing remains the same between the two. THey both have sources that rotate about a central axis. In other words please note... The MMx and sagnac sources are for all scientific and practical purposes the *same* THerefore they are both either inertial or both non inertial. But SR says that sometimes (in sagnac) the source is non inertial and yet other times SR claims that the source (in MMx) is inertial.! THis is inconsistent and unscientific. Which is why I say it shows that SR is invalid as a theory. It is not consistent when it comes to explaining the speed of light relative to rotating sources. Whereas in fact classical theory is consistent. It states that light is always and only at c in the source frame whether it rotates or not. And in any other frame its variable. And please note the misinformation supplied by likes of wikipedia and NedWright. They claim that classical theory cannot explain sagnac. This is a false claim as noone has ever tried to CORRECTLY simulate sagnac with light at c in the source frame. I have and I can show scientifically that clasical theory can in fact explain sagnac. Please see my sagnac 1,2 and 3 simulations at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb If you study ned wrights sagnac explanation youll see that he has the light at c in the lab frame and variable in the source frame. So technically he has light travelling at two different speeds through the fibre gyro!. Thats physically impossible as in Neds source frame the source does not move relative to the fibre ring. How then do you explain the fact that the light travels at one speed clockwise and another speed anticlockwise?( Even though the source does not moverelative to the fibre ring.) > > Seeing as ring gyros contradict this asssumption, > > I repeat: THAT'S IRRELEVANT, as the MMX considered as a ring gyro has > zero enclosed area, and is thus insensitive to rotation. Its only irrelevent if you want to fiddle the theory to validate SR. In fact it is relevent because it shows that light has to be at c in only ONE frame to accomadate both sagnac and MMx. And that frame is the source frame. As classical predicts and as SR can not predict. Dont forget SR predicts that light sometimes is not at c in the source frame(sagnac) Whereas in fact light is never observed to be variable in the source frame. > > Ring gyros can measure this rotation. > > You only pretend its neglible to back up a theory (SR) that cant > > explain both sagnac and MMx > > No. One applies SR to the MMX measurement and COMPUTES that the rotation > is negligible (i.e. its effect is much smaller than the resolution of > the instrument). > > Much of modern experimental physics is involved with the error and > resolution analysis of the instruments. Until your learn and understand > this, you will remain confused. <shrug> You are confused. Sometimes SR says light has to be variable in the source frame. THen when its convenient SR sayslight is always at c in the source frame! Thats inconsistent pseudoscience. Sean www.gammarayburst.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: Tom Roberts on 20 Jun 2007 09:51 sean wrote: > to see how classical theory only can explain both sagnac and MMx . Sure, certain classical theories can explain them both. So what? There are MANY other experiments that such theories cannot explain; SR on the other hand explains them all (within its domain). See the FAQ for over a hundred experiments that confirm SR; most of them are completely inconsistent with any classical theory (i.e. pre-SR). > To start with you dont seem to understand that the sagnac source is > essentially identical to the MMx in that they both rotate around an > axis . The instruments are VERY different: Sagnac's has a large enclosed area, and the MMX has zero enclosed area, and this makes all the difference as far as rotation is concerned. > Yet SR says that a source that rotates around an axis sometimes > has light leaving it at variable speeds (when SR tries to explain > sagnac) and sometimes has light leaving it at constant speeds(when SR > tries to explain MMx). This is complete nonsense. You should learn about SR before attempting to describe what it says. And you should learn about the differences in these two experiments and their instruments. <shrug> > Even a pseudoscientist like yourself should be able to see this > inherent contradiction in SR. It is a contradiction in your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS about SR. <shrug> Tom Roberts
From: Sue... on 20 Jun 2007 10:18 On Jun 20, 10:51 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > sean wrote: > > to see how classical theory only can explain both sagnac and MMx . > > Sure, certain classical theories can explain them both. So what? There > are MANY other experiments that such theories cannot explain; SR on the > other hand explains them all (within its domain). Just what is SR's "domain of applicability" ? > > See the FAQ for over a hundred experiments that confirm > SR; most of them are completely inconsistent with any > classical theory (i.e. pre-SR). > [FAQs not visited because they may not apply to anything.] Sue... [...] > > To start with you dont seem to understand that the sagnac source is > > essentially identical to the MMx in that they both rotate around an > > axis . > > The instruments are VERY different: Sagnac's has a large enclosed area, > and the MMX has zero enclosed area, and this makes all the difference as > far as rotation is concerned. > > > Yet SR says that a source that rotates around an axis sometimes > > has light leaving it at variable speeds (when SR tries to explain > > sagnac) and sometimes has light leaving it at constant speeds(when SR > > tries to explain MMx). > > This is complete nonsense. You should learn about SR before attempting > to describe what it says. And you should learn about the differences in > these two experiments and their instruments. <shrug> > > > Even a pseudoscientist like yourself should be able to see this > > inherent contradiction in SR. > > It is a contradiction in your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS about SR. <shrug> > > Tom Roberts
From: Pentcho Valev on 20 Jun 2007 11:20 Tom Roberts wrote: > sean wrote: > > to see how classical theory only can explain both sagnac and MMx . > > Sure, certain classical theories can explain them both. So what? There > are MANY other experiments that such theories cannot explain; SR on the > other hand explains them all (within its domain). Absolutely correct Roberts Roberts: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/29c32844f0766cea? Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." So Roberts Roberts special relativity would explain experiments showing that "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform" but also experiments showing that light in vacuum does travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform. An incredible theory isn't it Roberts Roberts. Pentcho Valev
From: Jeckyl on 20 Jun 2007 11:23
"sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1182340102.036390.302370(a)o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > You are confused. Sometimes SR says light has to be variable in the > source frame. > THen when its convenient SR sayslight is always at c > in the source frame! Thats inconsistent pseudoscience. You are confused .. SR says the speed of light is the same, c, in all inertial frames of reference. |