A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 27th 07, 07:51 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9046912.html
"A longtime skeptic about relativity, Beckmann a few years ago
proposed a rival theory of physics which, he claims, fits the known
facts and explains them much more simply than Einstein's. Before
publishing his theory in a book (Einstein Plus Two, 1987) he sent the
manuscript to Howard Hayden at Storrs, Connecticut. Hayden's initial
reaction was near-disbelief that the velocity of light had not already
been demonstrated to be invariant. But eventually he became convinced
that Beckmann was right. In 1988, he devised an experimental test of
Beckmann's theory. His preliminary results support Beckmann, raising
the question whether there are any experimental observations which
require relativity theory to explain them.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the evidence that light
travels in a wave became overwhelming. Just as sound waves need air to
travel in, so light would need a medium, if it traveled in waves. This
hypothetical medium was called the ether, and a famous experiment by
Michelson and Morley, performed in Cleveland in 1887, was expected to
demonstrate its existence. Since the Earth must be passing through
this ether on its journey around the sun, everyone assumed it would be
possible to detect the ether wind" with a suitable apparatus, just as
it is possible to detect the air from a moving car by putting your
hand out into the breeze. In the 1880s Michelson devised an experiment
sensitive enough, in theory, to produce a measurable effect.
But no matter how many times they tried, Michelson and Morley could
detect no ethereal breeze. (In their experiment, this had been
expected to take the form of a shift in the interference pattern
visible where criss-crossing light rays came together.)
Various explanations for the null result were suggested. Michelson
himself supposed that the ether was "entrained," which is to say
carried along with the Earth. As we shall see, this may have been a
close approximation to the truth. But the entrained-ether theory was
rejected by most scientists. The physicists G. F. FitzGerald and H. A.
Lorentz suggested another possibility: that moving objects contract
slightly in the direction of motion-the contraction being just
sufficient to account for the null result. This was ingenious, but
unsatisfactory. It had the ad-hoc look of an unfalsifiable assumption,
rather like the suggestion that everything in the universe is getting
bigger at the same time.
Then in 1905, in his special theory of relativity, Einstein suggested
a third way of looking at the matter. He proposed a) that the speed of
light is the same in all directions, irrespective of the motion of any
apparatus set up to measure it; and b) that observers traveling with
different velocities would see the same things with different lengths
and durations. This eliminated the need for an ether altogether.
Einstein's famous paper showed that everything could be worked out
mathematically if these peculiar assumptions about the universe were
made.
This was a very odd procedure. Einstein bent" space and time so that a
velocity could be preserved as a constant. But velocity itself is
merely distance divided by time. Discarding space and time as
"absolutes" so that a velocity can be retained as an absolute is as
strange as it would be for a man to go on living undisturbed on the
second floor of his house while the basement and ground floor were
completely remodeled.
Einstein's assumption about the invariant velocity of light emerged
from the turn-of-the-century quandary of physicists trying to account
for the Michelson-Morley result. But if it turns out that there is a
simpler way of explaining what really happened, we should, out of
deference to the simplicity that is preferred by science, discard the
premise that the speed of light is invariant. We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer. It seems that Einstein criminal cult are
trying to introduce the emission theory without abandoning Einstein
officially:

http://www.chapitre.com/CHAPITRE/fr/...pel=CHAPIT RE

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old June 27th 07, 09:08 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9046912.html
"A longtime skeptic about relativity, Beckmann a few years ago
proposed a rival theory of physics which, he claims, fits the known
facts and explains them much more simply than Einstein's. Before
publishing his theory in a book (Einstein Plus Two, 1987) he sent the
manuscript to Howard Hayden at Storrs, Connecticut. Hayden's initial
reaction was near-disbelief that the velocity of light had not already
been demonstrated to be invariant. But eventually he became convinced
that Beckmann was right. In 1988, he devised an experimental test of
Beckmann's theory. His preliminary results support Beckmann, raising
the question whether there are any experimental observations which
require relativity theory to explain them.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the evidence that light
travels in a wave became overwhelming. Just as sound waves need air to
travel in, so light would need a medium, if it traveled in waves. This
hypothetical medium was called the ether, and a famous experiment by
Michelson and Morley, performed in Cleveland in 1887, was expected to
demonstrate its existence. Since the Earth must be passing through
this ether on its journey around the sun, everyone assumed it would be
possible to detect the ether wind" with a suitable apparatus, just as
it is possible to detect the air from a moving car by putting your
hand out into the breeze. In the 1880s Michelson devised an experiment
sensitive enough, in theory, to produce a measurable effect.
But no matter how many times they tried, Michelson and Morley could
detect no ethereal breeze. (In their experiment, this had been
expected to take the form of a shift in the interference pattern
visible where criss-crossing light rays came together.)
Various explanations for the null result were suggested. Michelson
himself supposed that the ether was "entrained," which is to say
carried along with the Earth. As we shall see, this may have been a
close approximation to the truth. But the entrained-ether theory was
rejected by most scientists. The physicists G. F. FitzGerald and H. A.
Lorentz suggested another possibility: that moving objects contract
slightly in the direction of motion-the contraction being just
sufficient to account for the null result. This was ingenious, but
unsatisfactory. It had the ad-hoc look of an unfalsifiable assumption,
rather like the suggestion that everything in the universe is getting
bigger at the same time.
Then in 1905, in his special theory of relativity, Einstein suggested
a third way of looking at the matter. He proposed a) that the speed of
light is the same in all directions, irrespective of the motion of any
apparatus set up to measure it; and b) that observers traveling with
different velocities would see the same things with different lengths
and durations. This eliminated the need for an ether altogether.
Einstein's famous paper showed that everything could be worked out
mathematically if these peculiar assumptions about the universe were
made.
This was a very odd procedure. Einstein bent" space and time so that a
velocity could be preserved as a constant. But velocity itself is
merely distance divided by time. Discarding space and time as
"absolutes" so that a velocity can be retained as an absolute is as
strange as it would be for a man to go on living undisturbed on the
second floor of his house while the basement and ground floor were
completely remodeled.
Einstein's assumption about the invariant velocity of light emerged
from the turn-of-the-century quandary of physicists trying to account
for the Michelson-Morley result. But if it turns out that there is a
simpler way of explaining what really happened, we should, out of
deference to the simplicity that is preferred by science, discard the
premise that the speed of light is invariant. We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer. It seems that Einstein criminal cult are
trying to introduce the emission theory without abandoning Einstein
officially:

http://www.chapitre.com/CHAPITRE/fr/...pel=CHAPIT RE


Thinking Einsteinians (what an oxymoron!) could obtain more evidence
in favour of the emission theory by considering the following textbook
problem:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4

Thinking Einsteinians should ask: What is the speed of light relative
to the receiver? Then thinking Einsteinians should obtain:

The speed of light relative to the receiver is c'=c(1+V/c^2) in the
presence of a gravitational field.

The speed of light relative to the receiver is c'=c+v in the absence
of a gravitational field.

Then the only problem thinking Einsteinians would still see would be
that, in the absence of a gravitational field, the receiver is
ACCELERATED. So thinking Einsteinians may continue to hope that,
although the speed of light is c'=c+v for an accelerated observer, it
will somehow be c'=c for an inertial observer. This will be discussed
but first thinking Einsteinians should confirm the validity of the
equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v.

Pentcho Valev

  #3  
Old June 27th 07, 09:19 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Surfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

Something along those lines is examined in he

On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf

See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"

It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
Galilean transformations between coordinates.

Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.


http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.


Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?

-- Surfer


  #4  
Old June 27th 07, 09:31 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT


Surfer wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

Something along those lines is examined in he

On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf

See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"

It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
Galilean transformations between coordinates.

Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.


http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.


Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?


Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?

Pentcho Valev

  #5  
Old June 27th 07, 01:27 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Androcles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,040
Default CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT


"Surfer" wrote in message
...
: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
: wrote:
:
:
: We should (everything
: else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
: phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
: time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
: classical world view of Isaac Newton."
:
: Something along those lines is examined in he
:
: On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
: Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
: Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
: http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf
:
: See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"
:
: It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
: compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
: Galilean transformations between coordinates.
:
: Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.
:
:
: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
: Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
: for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
: universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
: relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
: AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
:
: The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
: invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
: relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
: source and the observer.
:
:
: Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?
:
We are well past the experiment stage, optical gyroscopes are commonplace
technology.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm








  #6  
Old June 27th 07, 01:57 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Surfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


Surfer wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

Something along those lines is examined in he

On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf

See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"

It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
Galilean transformations between coordinates.

Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.


http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.


Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?


Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?

In what way are they relevant?

Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
to analyse these experiments?

-- Surfer

  #7  
Old June 27th 07, 02:04 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Androcles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,040
Default CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT


"Surfer" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev
: wrote:
:
:
: Surfer wrote:
: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
: wrote:
:
:
: We should (everything
: else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
: phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
: time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
: classical world view of Isaac Newton."
:
: Something along those lines is examined in he
:
: On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
: Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
: Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
: http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf
:
: See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"
:
: It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
: compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
: Galilean transformations between coordinates.
:
: Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.
:
:
: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
: Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
: for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
: universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
: relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH
: AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
:
: The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
: invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
: relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
: source and the observer.
:
:
: Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?
:
: Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?
:
: In what way are they relevant?
:
: Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
: to analyse these experiments?

Yes. Here's one:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm
Here's another:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm









  #8  
Old June 27th 07, 03:16 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT

On 27 jun, 08:04, "Androcles" wrote:
"Surfer" wrote in message

...
: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev : wrote:

:
: : Surfer wrote:

: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev : wrote:

:
:
: We should (everything
: else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
: phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
: time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
: classical world view of Isaac Newton."
:
: Something along those lines is examined in he
:
: On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
: Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
: Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
: http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf
:
: See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"
:
: It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
: compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
: Galilean transformations between coordinates.
:
: Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.
:
:
: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...Norton.pdfJohn
: Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
: for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
: universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
: relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH
: AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
:
: The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
: invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
: relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
: source and the observer.
:
:
: Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?
:
: Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?
:
: In what way are they relevant?
:
: Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
: to analyse these experiments?

Yes. Here's one:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm
Here's another:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm


Hello Androcles. I revised your papers. Have you someone in Pound and
Rebka (P&R) experiment?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

  #9  
Old June 27th 07, 04:40 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT


Surfer wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


Surfer wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

Something along those lines is examined in he

On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf

See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"

It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
Galilean transformations between coordinates.

Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.


http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.


Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?


Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?

In what way are they relevant?

Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
to analyse these experiments?


No. Rather, countless papers have been written declaring that
Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka gloriously confirm Einstein's
relativity. Einstein's world is like Big Brother's world:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

  #10  
Old June 27th 07, 05:06 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Androcles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,040
Default CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT


"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
:
: Surfer wrote:
: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev
: wrote:
:
:
: Surfer wrote:
: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
: wrote:
:
:
: We should (everything
: else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other
wave
: phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space
and
: time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
: classical world view of Isaac Newton."
:
: Something along those lines is examined in he
:
: On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
: Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
: Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
: http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf
:
: See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"
:
: It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
: compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
: Galilean transformations between coordinates.
:
: Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.
:
:
: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
: Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence
: for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
: universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
: relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH
: AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
:
: The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
: invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
: relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
: source and the observer.
:
:
: Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?
:
: Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?
:
: In what way are they relevant?
:
: Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
: to analyse these experiments?
:
: No.


Yes they have! I wrote one. So did Fox in 1965. How hard is it
to "analyse" the Principle of Relativity?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm

[irrelevancy snipped]


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 June 5th 07 12:14 AM
LARSON -IAN Relativity, Einstein Was WRONG [email protected] Astronomy Misc 2 January 30th 07 05:55 PM
Nameless critics on the Internet and critical analysis of Einstein’s E=mc2 AJAY SHARMA Misc 1 November 2nd 06 01:55 PM
To address my critics Greg Dortmond UK Astronomy 15 December 24th 03 01:57 AM
STOP IT Already, Ed! VESTED-INTEREST Critics of VELIKOVSKY Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 October 17th 03 01:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.