On 15 Jun, 16:11, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean 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. But Im glad you seem
to agree with me that Ned Wright and Wiki got it wrong. 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. Sagnac and MM show us this.And
in fact as sagnac and MM show us,.. light does not neccesarily travel
at c in the inertial frame. Unless that also is the source frame. So
in fact SR may not officially make predictions about what light does
in a non inertial frame...but its prediction that it always travels at
c in the inertial frame is not consistent with observation.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
For an correct explanation of how sagnac and MMx can be only explained
by classical and not SR see the sagnac simulations at...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb