GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Sue... on 20 Jun 2007 12:43 On Jun 20, 12:23 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "sean" <jaymose...(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. Can you show us which page that is on in this 1920 translation. http://www.bartleby.com/173/ Sue...
From: Craig Markwardt on 20 Jun 2007 13:17 sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> writes: > On 15 Jun, 16:11, Craig Markwardt > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt > > > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > ... > > > 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`. > > > > Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions > > about non-inertial frames, your claim is erroneous, and thus the > > conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant. > Maybe "the theory" doesnt. But its proponents do. At wiki and Ned > wright pages they clearly make the claim that light does not travel > at c in the non inertial frame in the SR model. Searching both Ned Wright's and Wiki(pedia)'s pages for mentions of the speed of light in non-inertial frames produces almost nothing. Do you care to substantiate your claim with direct citations? > ... But Im glad you seem > to agree with me that Ned Wright and Wiki got it wrong. Since the "Ned Wright and Wiki" claims are not evident, I neither agree nor disagree. What I *do* say is that since the special theory of relativity does not make any claims about non-inertial frames whatsoever (nor do any "proponents" unless you care to provide proper citations), your claim is irrelevant. > As we both > know light can and does travel at c always in the non inertial frame > as long as thats also the source frame. Huh? That is non-sensical on its face. Consider a star rotating once per second [*]. In the rotating frame of the star -- which is a non-inertial frame, because it is rotating -- the star is fixed. Does light emitted from the surface of the star continue to rotate with the star? Clearly not, since by the time the light reaches a distance of 1 A.U., it would have a rotational speed 3000 times c as seen from an inertial frame. This would violate all we know about light, stars and conservation of energy. No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c, regardless of the emitter frame. CM [*] say a neutron star. But it doesn't matter.
From: Pentcho Valev on 20 Jun 2007 13:41 Craig Markwardt wrote: > sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > On 15 Jun, 16:11, Craig Markwardt > > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > > On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt > > > > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > > > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > ... > > > > 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`. > > > > > > Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions > > > about non-inertial frames, your claim is erroneous, and thus the > > > conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant. > > Maybe "the theory" doesnt. But its proponents do. At wiki and Ned > > wright pages they clearly make the claim that light does not travel > > at c in the non inertial frame in the SR model. > > Searching both Ned Wright's and Wiki(pedia)'s pages for mentions of > the speed of light in non-inertial frames produces almost nothing. Do > you care to substantiate your claim with direct citations? http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star. Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured." http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR." Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > Pentcho Valev wrote: > > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? > Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can > also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the > standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated > observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in > Minkowski spacetime). > Tom Roberts tjroberts(a)lucent.com http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so." Pentcho Valev
From: Don Stockbauer on 20 Jun 2007 13:44 Too bad relativity is such a small subset of all human knowledge.
From: Sue... on 20 Jun 2007 14:03
On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Craig Markwardt <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > On 15 Jun, 16:11, Craig Markwardt > > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > > On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt > > > > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > > > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > ... > > > > 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`. > > > > Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions > > > about non-inertial frames, your claim is erroneous, and thus the > > > conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant. > > Maybe "the theory" doesnt. But its proponents do. At wiki and Ned > > wright pages they clearly make the claim that light does not travel > > at c in the non inertial frame in the SR model. > > Searching both Ned Wright's and Wiki(pedia)'s pages for mentions of > the speed of light in non-inertial frames produces almost nothing. Do > you care to substantiate your claim with direct citations? > > > ... But Im glad you seem > > to agree with me that Ned Wright and Wiki got it wrong. > > Since the "Ned Wright and Wiki" claims are not evident, I neither > agree nor disagree. > > What I *do* say is that since the special theory of relativity does > not make any claims about non-inertial frames whatsoever (nor do any > "proponents" unless you care to provide proper citations), your claim > is irrelevant. The 1920 SR paper doesn't relate light to to frames as inertial or non inertial. That is consistant with a limitation Weinberg observes: <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html Ned apparently still doesn't know what a space-time interval is: <<The pair of space-time diagrams above show quintuplets separated at birth. The middle worldline shows the quint who stays home. The space-time diagram on the left is done from the point of view of the middle quint. Each dot on a worldline is a birthday party, so the middle quint is 10 years old when they all rejoin each other, while the other quints are 6 and 8 years old. >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm It is correctly described by NRAO: << if you know about complex numbers you will notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2 where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry - that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative to time. >> http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html > > > As we both > > know light can and does travel at c always in the non inertial frame > > as long as thats also the source frame. > > Huh? That is non-sensical on its face. Consider a star rotating once > per second [*]. In the rotating frame of the star -- which is a > non-inertial frame, because it is rotating -- the star is fixed. Does > light emitted from the surface of the star continue to rotate with the > star? Clearly not, since by the time the light reaches a distance of > 1 A.U., it would have a rotational speed 3000 times c as seen from an > inertial frame. This would violate all we know about light, stars and > conservation of energy. > > No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c, > regardless of the emitter frame. Inclusion of the word inertial or non-inertial seems to be the cause of the confusion. Your use of *all* frames seems to clear it up for the reasons given by Weinberg. Sue... > > CM > > [*] say a neutron star. But it doesn't matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |