How can the MMx math be corrected?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: eric gisse on 30 May 2010 16:36 Surfer wrote: > On Sun, 30 May 2010 02:22:59 -0700, eric gisse > <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>"A proper calibration of the Michelson-Morley apparatus gives a >>light speed anisotropy of at least 300km/s." >> >>Oh, not _just_ because of the giggletastic implication that a 300km/s >>signal was missed by every competently performed experiment designed to >>look for it (Mueller et. al., Brillet & Hall, Hills & Hall), >> > No surprise there. Those experiments weren't competently designed to > detect light speed anisotropy. If you read Cahill you'd know why. I've read enough of Cahill to be firmly reminded that he is an incompetent experimenter. When's Cahill going to re-do Miller's experiment with proper temperature control? Hmm? I suspect never as he has convinced himself that he is right, and you'll never say otherwise.
From: Inertial on 30 May 2010 20:51 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:782858d6-e183-4a49-b720-b2ab959fa0cf(a)p5g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On May 27, 8:42 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:ef781c24-3b18-4906-aea6-facc6417ba87(a)p5g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On May 27, 7:07 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> PaulStowewrote: >> >> > [... Lorentz contraction] BUT! because it physically DOES occur >> >> >> What God whispered in your ear and told you this? >> >> > No God, the physical existence of time dilation... >> >> Yes .. we measure time dilation .. consistent with both LET and SR (as >> they >> predict the same measurements). We actually also measure it consistent >> with >> GR .. LET does not predict what we actually measure in those cases. > > LET, like SR was not intended to address the issue that GR does. But > LR (Lorentzian Relativity) does indeed cover GR. In LR the central > equation is, > > t^2/un = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 And how does that come about? I'm guessing you just made it up. > Where u -> coefficient of compressibility of the medium and n -> the > density of the medium > > and, like all mediums (and like Maxwell modeled), > > c^2 = 1/un So 'relativity' happens for all mediums and waves .. not just light. Funny that we never see that. > Since t^2/un = ds^2 then, > > ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 Bahah .. you think that is GR ? .. you're still talking SR there. You haven't a clue. [snip rest of nonsense]
From: Paul Stowe on 30 May 2010 23:43 On May 30, 5:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:782858d6-e183-4a49-b720-b2ab959fa0cf(a)p5g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > [... Lorentz contraction] BUT! because it physically DOES occur > > >> >> What God whispered in your ear and told you this? > > >> > No God, the physical existence of time dilation... > > >> Yes .. we measure time dilation .. consistent with both LET and SR (as > >> they predict the same measurements). We actually also measure it > >> consistent with GR .. LET does not predict what we actually measure in > >> those cases. > > > LET, like SR was not intended to address the issue that GR does. But > > LR (Lorentzian Relativity) does indeed cover GR. In LR the central > > equation is, > > > dt^2/un = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 > > And how does that come about? I'm guessing you just made it up. Hmmm, you think I made up that a wave propagates the distance ct or that the three equal orthogonal components of vector s is s^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2. OK, I'll take credit :) (I wish...) > > Where u -> coefficient of compressibility of the medium and n -> the > > density of the medium > > > and, like all mediums (and like Maxwell modeled), > > > c^2 = 1/un > > So 'relativity' happens for all mediums and waves .. not just light. Yes, it does... Why don't you go check the references provided? > Funny that we never see that. Not at all the key issue is, what are the limitation on measuring devices for both. > > Since t^2/un = ds^2 then, > > > ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 > > Bahah .. you think that is GR ? .. you're still talking SR there. You > haven't a clue. I really REALLY have to start wondering about your reasoning ability. NO! I did not claim that that equation formed the basis of GR. As Einstein clearly pointed out in his description OF THE BASIS OF GR, "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. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." Now, look again at the expression c^2 = 1/un. If either density or compressibility changes in any way what happens to c??? We know that for all known media this in fact happens all the time. Since the very basis of Lorentzian Relativity is formed upon this basis it is both expected and normal for c to vary from one locale to another with such variations. Please note that Einstein identifies this feature (changes in light speed) as the core feature of GR, as opposed to SR. Gravity effects this, the result, so-called 'curvature'. For LR, this is a essential feature of the model. This leads to NO! differences in the observables of both SR/GR and GLR (Generalized Lorentzian Relativity). Paul Stowe
From: Surfer on 31 May 2010 01:20 On Sun, 30 May 2010 11:39:52 -0700 (PDT), harald <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >On May 30, 5:59�am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Krisher_et_al_199... > > >Thanks for the link. Looking at it quickly, the paper tests SRT for >velocity relative to the CBR "frame". And it seems that the speed as >measured in the ECI frame is constant. If so, ideally the phase >difference should remain constant according to SRT, for the same >reason as with MMX (note that in addition it has the Fresnel/Fizeau >effect which you had not mentioned). > Here is an interesting point mentioned in Cahill's paper, "Combining NASA/JPL..." http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5404 Page 13 <Start extract> Krisher only compared the phase variations with that of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), and noted that the phase relative to the local sidereal time differed from the CMB direction by 6 hrs, but failed to notice that it agreed with the direction discovered by Miller in 1925/26 and published in 1933 [8]. <End extract> [8] Miller D.C. Rev. Mod. Phys., 5, 203-242, 1933.
From: Inertial on 31 May 2010 03:14
"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ef74961f-fd8c-45fd-860d-7a02d75676e8(a)k25g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On May 30, 5:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:782858d6-e183-4a49-b720-b2ab959fa0cf(a)p5g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > [... Lorentz contraction] BUT! because it physically DOES occur >> >> >> >> What God whispered in your ear and told you this? >> >> >> > No God, the physical existence of time dilation... >> >> >> Yes .. we measure time dilation .. consistent with both LET and SR (as >> >> they predict the same measurements). We actually also measure it >> >> consistent with GR .. LET does not predict what we actually measure in >> >> those cases. >> >> > LET, like SR was not intended to address the issue that GR does. But >> > LR (Lorentzian Relativity) does indeed cover GR. In LR the central >> > equation is, >> >> > dt^2/un = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 >> >> And how does that come about? I'm guessing you just made it up. > > Hmmm, you think I made up that a wave propagates the distance ct or > that the three equal orthogonal components of vector s is s^2 = dx^2 + > dy^2 + dz^2. OK, I'll take credit :) (I wish...) All you've done is shown that the distance a wave propogates is proportional to the time. Nothing terribly interesting there >> > Where u -> coefficient of compressibility of the medium and n -> the >> > density of the medium >> >> > and, like all mediums (and like Maxwell modeled), >> >> > c^2 = 1/un >> >> So 'relativity' happens for all mediums and waves .. not just light. > > Yes, it does... Why don't you go check the references provided? Nonsense >> Funny that we never see that. > > Not at all the key issue is, what are the limitation on measuring > devices for both. Nonsense >> > Since t^2/un = ds^2 then, >> >> > ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 >> >> Bahah .. you think that is GR ? .. you're still talking SR there. You >> haven't a clue. > > I really REALLY have to start wondering about your reasoning > ability. You're the one who thinks coming up with that shows L:ET to cover GR. THAT is poor reasoning. > NO! I did not claim that that equation formed the basis of > GR. Yes.. you did > As Einstein clearly pointed out in his description OF THE BASIS > OF GR, You don't understand what Einstein says [snip irrelevant quote] > Now, look again at the expression c^2 = 1/un. If either density or > compressibility changes in any way what happens to c??? So what? > We know that > for all known media this in fact happens all the time. it doesn't change the speed of light in vacuo > Since the very > basis of Lorentzian Relativity is formed upon this basis it is both > expected and normal for c to vary from one locale to another with such > variations. The net speed of light in a medium changes. c does not. > Please note that Einstein identifies this feature > (changes in light speed) as the core feature of GR, Changes of net speed of light in a medium is NOT the basis of GR > as opposed to SR. you have NO idea > Gravity effects this, the result, so-called 'curvature'. For LR, this > is a essential feature of the model. This leads to NO! differences in > the observables of both SR/GR and GLR (Generalized Lorentzian > Relativity). Learn some physics, boy |