Riedt vs Einstein
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 9 Nov 2009 05:32 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote in message news:71SJm.59356$MG6.16826(a)newsfe13.ams2... > > "Peter Riedt" <riedt1(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:5ef893c9-cfaa-49f1-8634-f134a0b5ad8a(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:d601676e-7098-47c8-aa4f-b2c0fdb6a613(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Riedt vs Einstein >> >> >> >> > Riedt's Principle of Inconstancy of Light: The speed of light in free >> > space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source. >> >> And we know that is wrong experimentally >> >> > Inertial, I have provided the experimental proof and if you disagree > please > tell me why. > > Peter Riedt > ===================================== > Don't be silly, Peter. Killfile the ignorant troll. Androcles is afraid of me because I can see through his trickery .. so he runs and hides when I post. Its quite funny.
From: BURT on 9 Nov 2009 10:16 On Nov 9, 2:32 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote in message > > news:71SJm.59356$MG6.16826(a)newsfe13.ams2... > > > > > > > > > "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:5ef893c9-cfaa-49f1-8634-f134a0b5ad8a(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com.... > > On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > >>news:d601676e-7098-47c8-aa4f-b2c0fdb6a613(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > Riedt vs Einstein > > >> > Riedt's Principle of Inconstancy of Light: The speed of light in free > >> > space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source. > > >> And we know that is wrong experimentally > > > Inertial, I have provided the experimental proof and if you disagree > > please > > tell me why. > > > Peter Riedt > > ===================================== > > Don't be silly, Peter. Killfile the ignorant troll. > > Androcles is afraid of me because I can see through his trickery .. Nonsense inertia. Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Riedt on 9 Nov 2009 11:34 On Nov 8, 11:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote: > "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:d601676e-7098-47c8-aa4f-b2c0fdb6a613(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Riedt vs Einstein > > Einstein's first postulate of Special Relativity (Principle of > Relativity): The laws of Physics are the same in all inertial systems. > No preferred inertial system exists. > ============================================ > No it isn't that at all. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm > > A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the > University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say > "inertial". > Here is the result of their experiment: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG Androcles, Einstein was a great mind. According to his friend and collaborator Max Born (Einsteins Theory of Relativity, Methuen 1924) the POR of AE was: There are an infinite number of systems of reference (inertial systems) moving uniformly and rectilinearly with respect to each other, in which all physical laws assume the SIMPLEST form (originally derived for absolute space or the stationary ether). The brackets inside the quotes are Borns. The SIMPLEST form is my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/ cc), not the complex Lorentz transformations of Lorentz, another great mind. Peter Riedt
From: PD on 9 Nov 2009 13:10 On Nov 8, 7:20 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Riedt vs Einstein > > Einstein's first postulate of Special Relativity (Principle of > Relativity): The laws of Physics are the same in all inertial systems. > No preferred inertial system exists. > > Riedts POR: The laws of physics are the same in all systems but > measurement data is not available instantaneously and therefore varies > for observers at different locations and moving with a different > velocity. A basic misunderstanding here, Peter. The laws of physics being the same in all inertial frames does NOT mean that measured quantities are the same in all inertial frames. Velocity is a good example of a quantity that is known to be different in different inertial frames, and this doesn't have anything to do with the first postulate of special relativity. > > A proof of both principles is not required as they are axioms. > > Einstein's second postulate of Special Relativity (Principle of the > Constancy of the Speed of Light): The speed of light in free space has > the same value c in all inertial systems. > > The proof consisted of a metaphor of trains, railway stations and some > assertions. No sir. The gedanken of trains and railway stations is not intended as any kind of proof at all. It is an explanation of what *follows* from that postulate. The postulate is not proven, as it is a postulate. However, all experimental evidence to date says that yes, the speed of light has the same value c in all inertial systems. In science, it's the experimental evidence that serves as the indicator of truth. > > Riedts Principle of Inconstancy of Light: The speed of light in free > space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source. This is inconsistent with a number of DIRECT tests of the anisotropy of the speed of light. Do you know what those direct tests are? > > Proof is provided by the 1887 interferometer experiment of Michelson > & Morley (MMX). They write in the American Journal of Science 203/1887 > describing their MMX interferometer experiment: The distance > travelled (by light to the end of the parallel arm and back) is 2D > (1+vv/cc), and the length of the other path (across the perpendicular > arm and back) is evidently 2D(1+vv/2cc). > Using Michelson's formula 2D(1+vv/cc) we get 22.00000022m for the > total distance of the parallel arm and using 2D(1+vv/2cc) we get > 22.00000011m for the total distance of the perpendicular arm. (D=11m, > v=30000m/sec, c=300000000m/sec). > > Michelson predicted a fringe shift but it could not be observed. To > explain the null result, Lorentz suggested the length of the parallel > arm contracted proportionally to the speed of the equipment through > space. By applying his formula L' = L*sqrt(1-vv/cc) to the parallel > arm, its total light path distance reduced to 22.00000011m, identical > to the total light path of the perpendicular arm. This solution by > Lorentz, first suggested by Fitzgerald, requires also an adjustment of > time by the formula T' = T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and an adjustment of mass. > > The three Lorentz formulas (the Lorentz transformations) can be > replaced by one formula, the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula c' = c*1/ > sqrt(1-vv/cc) which gives 300000150m/sec for MMX. This is the speed of > light if the speed of the source is 30000m/sec, the value used by > Michelson for v. > > If we now calculate the time for the transit of light across the > perpendicular light path using the formula tper = dper/c = > 22.00000011m/300000000m/sec we get 0.0000000733333337sec which is the > same time using c' for the parallel light path tpar = dpar/c' = > 22.00000022m/300000150m/sec = 0.0000000733333337sec. > However, however, however, there is a difference between the two > times. If taken to 27 decimal places, tpar is > 0.000000073333369999954200000sec and tper is > 0.000000073333370000000000000sec. Is something wrong? Obviously. > However, however, however, if we use different values for v and c, we > may get a better match. Using 299792458m/sec for c and 29805m/sec for > v, we get > 22.000000217450100000000000000m for dpar, > 22.000000108725000000000000000m for dper, > 299792459.5m/sec for c', > AND > 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tpar > AND > 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tper. > > As the times for the two light paths are identical, the null result > has been resolved by increasing the SPEED OF LIGHT on the parallel arm > due to the speed of the source rather than by the Lorentz > transformations which (incorrectly) reduced the LENGTH of the parallel > arm, dilated the TIME relating to the experiment and increased the > MASS of the object in line with its speed. > > Peter Riedt
From: PD on 9 Nov 2009 13:13
On Nov 9, 1:53 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:> "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > >news:d601676e-7098-47c8-aa4f-b2c0fdb6a613(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com.... > > > > Riedt vs Einstein > > > > Riedts Principle of Inconstancy of Light: The speed of light in free > > > space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source. > > > And we know that is wrong experimentally > > Inertial, I have provided the experimental proof and if you disagree > please > tell me why. Peter, you have tried to devise a formula that provides an anisotropy of the speed of light and accounts for a SINGLE experimental result (the MMX). However, the anisotropy of the speed of light is ruled out to great precision by a number of OTHER experiments already, and you appear to be ignorant of any of those experiments. > > Peter Riedt > > > > > > Proof is provided by the 1887 interferometer experiment of Michelson > > > & Morley (MMX). They write in the American Journal of Science 203/1887 > > > describing their MMX interferometer experiment: The distance > > > travelled (by light to the end of the parallel arm and back) is 2D > > > (1+vv/cc), and the length of the other path (across the perpendicular > > > arm and back) is evidently 2D(1+vv/2cc). > > > Using Michelson's formula 2D(1+vv/cc) we get 22.00000022m for the > > > total distance of the parallel arm and using 2D(1+vv/2cc) we get > > > 22.00000011m for the total distance of the perpendicular arm. (D=11m, > > > v=30000m/sec, c=300000000m/sec). > > > > Michelson predicted a fringe shift but it could not be observed. To > > > explain the null result, Lorentz suggested the length of the parallel > > > arm contracted proportionally to the speed of the equipment through > > > space. By applying his formula L' = L*sqrt(1-vv/cc) to the parallel > > > arm, its total light path distance reduced to 22.00000011m, identical > > > to the total light path of the perpendicular arm. This solution by > > > Lorentz, first suggested by Fitzgerald, requires also an adjustment of > > > time by the formula T' = T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and an adjustment of mass. > > > > The three Lorentz formulas (the Lorentz transformations) can be > > > replaced by one formula, the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula c' = c*1/ > > > sqrt(1-vv/cc) which gives 300000150m/sec for MMX. This is the speed of > > > light if the speed of the source is 30000m/sec, the value used by > > > Michelson for v. > > > > If we now calculate the time for the transit of light across the > > > perpendicular light path using the formula tper = dper/c = > > > 22.00000011m/300000000m/sec we get 0.0000000733333337sec which is the > > > same time using c' for the parallel light path tpar = dpar/c' = > > > 22.00000022m/300000150m/sec = 0.0000000733333337sec. > > > However, however, however, there is a difference between the two > > > times. If taken to 27 decimal places, tpar is > > > 0.000000073333369999954200000sec and tper is > > > 0.000000073333370000000000000sec. Is something wrong? Obviously. > > > However, however, however, if we use different values for v and c, we > > > may get a better match. Using 299792458m/sec for c and 29805m/sec for > > > v, we get > > > 22.000000217450100000000000000m for dpar, > > > 22.000000108725000000000000000m for dper, > > > 299792459.5m/sec for c', > > > AND > > > 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tpar > > > AND > > > 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tper. > > > > As the times for the two light paths are identical, the null result > > > has been resolved by increasing the SPEED OF LIGHT on the parallel arm > > > due to the speed of the source rather than by the Lorentz > > > transformations which (incorrectly) reduced the LENGTH of the parallel > > > arm, dilated the TIME relating to the experiment and increased the > > > MASS of the object in line with its speed. > > > > Peter Riedt > > |