On 13 Jun, 00:03, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"sean" wrote in message
For a correct interpretation of the MMx and Sagnac experiments see..
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
On 12 Jun, 01:00, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"sean" wrote in message

roups.com...

On 10 Jun, 15:56, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"sean" wrote in message

roups.com...

On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

groups.com...

There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity:
Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light:

Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error?

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which
is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"

is FALSE.

Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true.
Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary?
Michaelson- Morley.
In this experiment light is emitted at c relative to the emitting
body.
Proof is that if light were not emitted at c relative to the
emitting
body then the observations would have shown that on one path the
light
would be travelling at a different speed than the other. This isnt
observed. So the only scientific and logical conclusion one can make
is that MMx shows us that light is emitted at c relative to the
source
in all directions. Something you as a relativista illogically refuse
to accept.

MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR .. as you should
know.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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?

Its a vert close approximation to one .. dummy. The results of MM is
completely compatible with, and supports, SR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very close has another meaning .. its called fudging it or fiddling
the data. You wouldnt accept an alternative theory if it said its
predictions werent exactly but pretty close to correct would you?

We are limited in our experimental apparatus .. it is impractical (if not
impossible) to get the apparatus into a frame of reference that is perfectly
free of all gravitational potential so the SR can be tested directly.

But a laboratory is close enough for the experiment. GR tells us the local
speed of light will be c anyway, and for the duration of the experiment any
change in velocity of the apparatus is negligible.

The problem is not fudging correct data .. its interpreting an imperfect
experiment within allowed margins of error. Science does that all the time
.. and MM supports SR (which says there should be a null results and the
results are null within the margin of error of the experiment).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by
assuming
that the experiment does not rotate during observation or as you try
to argue.
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. And scientifically
this has to mean that the rotation of earth does effect the speed of
light during any known observation like MMx.
Yet SR bases its predictions on the assumption that the rotation
of the earth is NOT measureable during the course of the experiment.
Seeing as ring gyros contradict this asssumption,.. then
scientifically
SR`s predictions are not valid as they are based on assumptions that
are in fact contradicted by observation.
So for your SR argument to be succesfull you have to prove that the
earths rotation is not measureable during observation. And as any
scientist would have to admit... Earths rotation IS measureble during
observation.. Thus nullifying SR.
So. Ill accept your SR argument if you supply
ring gyro measurements that show that earth does not rotate .
Seeing as galileo shot down this argument centuries ago...
Id say ,... you cannnot supply proof that earths rotation
is not measureable.

Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb