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

EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 10th 08, 01:50 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano wrote: Hi, I recently came across a very interesting *book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.


Salaam alekum!

This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
fact Relativity got rid of the aether.

You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
talking in a prely philosopical way.

I would ask you

WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?

What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
theories?


Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity.
Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light
but you can still save relativity by introducing, ad hoc, miracles -
time dilation, length contraction etc. So in Einstein zombie world a
single experiment can confirm two incompatible theories and
Einsteinians subtract the number of such experiments from the
"enormous" number of experiments that gloriously confirm Divine
Albert's Divine Theory and refute the emission theory. Up until
recently the Pound-Rebka experiment belonged to the latter group but
now Einsteinians suspect that this experiment, like the Michelson-
Morley experiment, confirms the emission theory as well. A
dispassionate and disinterested analysis would show that Pound-Rebka
unambiguously confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes
Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old July 10th 08, 02:16 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 10, 7:50*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:



On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano wrote: Hi, I recently came across a very interesting *book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.


Salaam alekum!


This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
fact Relativity got rid of the aether.


You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
talking in a prely philosopical way.


I would ask you


WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?


What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
theories?


Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity.


Michelson-Morley in no way contradicts special relativity. You might
say it contradicts special relativity if you take out time dilation
and length contraction, but then again, that ain't special relativity,
is it?

Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light


The emission theory of light is consistent with Michelson-Morley, but
the emission theory of light is inconsistent with OTHER experimental
results. It is not proper to consider experiments in isolation when
evaluating the evidence in support of or against a theory.

but you can still save relativity by introducing, ad hoc, miracles -
time dilation, length contraction etc. So in Einstein zombie world a
single experiment can confirm two incompatible theories and
Einsteinians subtract the number of such experiments from the
"enormous" number of experiments that gloriously confirm Divine
Albert's Divine Theory and refute the emission theory. Up until
recently the Pound-Rebka experiment belonged to the latter group but
now Einsteinians suspect that this experiment, like the Michelson-
Morley experiment, confirms the emission theory as well. A
dispassionate and disinterested analysis would show that Pound-Rebka
unambiguously confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes
Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Pentcho Valev


  #3  
Old July 10th 08, 02:44 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Danny Milano
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 10, 8:50*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:





On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano wrote: Hi, I recently came across a very interesting *book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.


Salaam alekum!


This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
fact Relativity got rid of the aether.


You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
talking in a prely philosopical way.


I would ask you


WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?


What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
theories?


Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity.
Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light
but you can still save relativity by introducing, ad hoc, miracles -
time dilation, length contraction etc. So in Einstein zombie world a
single experiment can confirm two incompatible theories and
Einsteinians subtract the number of such experiments from the
"enormous" number of experiments that gloriously confirm Divine
Albert's Divine Theory and refute the emission theory. Up until
recently the Pound-Rebka experiment belonged to the latter group but
now Einsteinians suspect that this experiment, like the Michelson-
Morley experiment, confirms the emission theory as well. A
dispassionate and disinterested analysis would show that Pound-Rebka
unambiguously confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes
Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Whether time indeed dilate or length indeed contract or
whether hidden newtonian principle is at work without
directly altering time and length is a major points for
scrutiny. I just found Eric Baird unique in that one
doesn't commonly encounter an anti-relativist
publishing a book. The full title of his book is
"Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special
Relatity". Baird believes General Relativity or
curved spacetime could be true yet in a small
point of it, flat spacetime doesn't work because
it's curved spacetime all the way to the planck horizon.
Well. At least Baird believes in general relativity. But
then isn't it that General Relativity had been inspired
by Special Relativity. I read in Wheeler "Black hole..."
that Einstein imagined time dilation occured in
different height and he thoght what if the different
time dilation could cause gravity itself. So SR leads
to GR although Eric Baird believes GR could be
cooked up entirely without SR. Hmm... the book
is dense, have to read it if I have more time. See:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Cur...07/ref=ed_oe_p

Better yet. Why don't you write a book yourself.

Danny
  #4  
Old July 10th 08, 02:48 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Danny Milano
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 10, 9:44*pm, Danny Milano wrote:
On Jul 10, 8:50*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:





On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:


On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano wrote: Hi, I recently came across a very interesting *book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.


Salaam alekum!


This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
fact Relativity got rid of the aether.


You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
talking in a prely philosopical way.


I would ask you


WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?


What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
theories?


Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity.
Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light
but you can still save relativity by introducing, ad hoc, miracles -
time dilation, length contraction etc. So in Einstein zombie world a
single experiment can confirm two incompatible theories and
Einsteinians subtract the number of such experiments from the
"enormous" number of experiments that gloriously confirm Divine
Albert's Divine Theory and refute the emission theory. Up until
recently the Pound-Rebka experiment belonged to the latter group but
now Einsteinians suspect that this experiment, like the Michelson-
Morley experiment, confirms the emission theory as well. A
dispassionate and disinterested analysis would show that Pound-Rebka
unambiguously confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes
Divine Albert's Divine Theory.


Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Whether time indeed dilate or length indeed contract or
whether hidden newtonian principle is at work without
directly altering time and length is a major points for
scrutiny. I just found Eric Baird unique in that one
doesn't commonly encounter an anti-relativist
publishing a book. The full title of his book is
"Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special
Relatity". Baird believes General Relativity or
curved spacetime could be true yet in a small
point of it, flat spacetime doesn't work because
it's curved spacetime all the way to the planck horizon.
Well. At least Baird believes in general relativity. But
then isn't it that General Relativity had been inspired
by Special Relativity. I read in Wheeler "Black hole..."
that Einstein imagined time dilation occured in
different height and he thoght what if the different
time dilation could cause gravity itself. So SR leads
to GR although Eric Baird believes GR could be
cooked up entirely without SR. Hmm... the book
is dense, have to read it if I have more time. See:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Cur...ut-relativity/...

Better yet. Why don't you write a book yourself.

Danny- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Duh. I wonder if it is possible for General Relativity to exist
without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity)
inherent in the theory, anyone?

Danny
  #5  
Old July 10th 08, 03:06 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 10, 3:16*pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:50*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:


On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano wrote: Hi, I recently came across a very interesting *book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.


Salaam alekum!


This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
fact Relativity got rid of the aether.


You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
talking in a prely philosopical way.


I would ask you


WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?


What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
theories?


Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity.


Michelson-Morley in no way contradicts special relativity. You might
say it contradicts special relativity if you take out time dilation
and length contraction, but then again, that ain't special relativity,
is it?


If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley
refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the
antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK?

Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light


The emission theory of light is consistent with Michelson-Morley, but
the emission theory of light is inconsistent with OTHER experimental
results. It is not proper to consider experiments in isolation when
evaluating the evidence in support of or against a theory.


In all those cases "the emission theory" can be reduced to a single
equation, c'=c+v, showing how the speed of light varies with v, the
speed of the light source. It can be shown (but the discussion cannot
be held on this forum) that an exact equation cannot be confirmed by
some experiments and refuted by others, unless something is wrong with
the experiments.

Pentcho Valev

  #6  
Old July 10th 08, 03:25 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 10, 9:06*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:16*pm, PD wrote:



On Jul 10, 7:50*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:


On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:


On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano wrote: Hi, I recently came across a very interesting *book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.


Salaam alekum!


This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
fact Relativity got rid of the aether.


You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
talking in a prely philosopical way.


I would ask you


WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?


What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
theories?


Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity.


Michelson-Morley in no way contradicts special relativity. You might
say it contradicts special relativity if you take out time dilation
and length contraction, but then again, that ain't special relativity,
is it?


If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley
refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the
antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK?


No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle
of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly,
SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson-
Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO
postulates mentioned.


Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light


The emission theory of light is consistent with Michelson-Morley, but
the emission theory of light is inconsistent with OTHER experimental
results. It is not proper to consider experiments in isolation when
evaluating the evidence in support of or against a theory.


In all those cases "the emission theory" can be reduced to a single
equation, c'=c+v, showing how the speed of light varies with v, the
speed of the light source.


Yes, and the implications of such a theory have been thoroughly
explored in the literature.

It can be shown (but the discussion cannot
be held on this forum)


Why not?

that an exact equation cannot be confirmed by
some experiments and refuted by others, unless something is wrong with
the experiments.


If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the
theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead. It is the crank
who insists that because the theory is right, there must be something
wrong with the experiments. Now, on occasion, a single experimental
result is shown to be faulty. But that's why experiments are
reproduced and complementary experiments performed. If two or three
*independent* experiments corroborate each others' findings, then
there is a high confidence value in the result of those experiments.
And if those findings are contrary to a model's predictions, then the
model is dead as burnt toast. This is *precisely* what happened to
emission theory over the last several decades.

PD
  #7  
Old July 10th 08, 03:33 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 10, 3:44*pm, Danny Milano wrote:
Whether time indeed dilate or length indeed contract or
whether hidden newtonian principle is at work without
directly altering time and length is a major points for
scrutiny. I just found Eric Baird unique in that one
doesn't commonly encounter an anti-relativist
publishing a book. The full title of his book is
"Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special
Relatity". Baird believes General Relativity or
curved spacetime could be true yet in a small
point of it, flat spacetime doesn't work because
it's curved spacetime all the way to the planck horizon.
Well. At least Baird believes in general relativity. But
then isn't it that General Relativity had been inspired
by Special Relativity. I read in Wheeler "Black hole..."
that Einstein imagined time dilation occured in
different height and he thoght what if the different
time dilation could cause gravity itself. So SR leads
to GR although Eric Baird believes GR could be
cooked up entirely without SR. Hmm... the book
is dense, have to read it if I have more time.


General relativity is an INCONSISTENCY, that is, a theory where
assertions are accompanied by their negations. It keeps Einstein's
1905 false light postulate (c'=c) but at the same time has implicitly
introduced its antithesis, the true equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light. An instructive, although somewhat
misleading, description of this malignant theoretical construction (an
inconsistency is much more dangerous than a false theory) is given by
Newton-Smith (W. H. Newton-Smith, The rationality of science,
Routledge, London, 1981, p. 229):

"A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including
this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories,
our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it
will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple
argument shows. Let ‘q’ be an arbitrary sentence of the language and
suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive
the sentence ‘p and not-p’. From this ‘p’ follows. And from ‘p’ it
follows that ‘p or q’ (if ‘p’ is true then ‘p or q’ will be true no
matter whether ‘q’ is true or not). Equally, it follows from ‘p and
not-p’ that ‘not-p’. But ‘not-p’ together with ‘p or q’ entails ‘q’.
Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit
everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that
did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which
contained each sentence of the theory’s language and its negation."

The deduction performed by Newton-Smith is unacceptable to a physicist
since « from ‘p’ it follows that ‘p or q’ » is not a relevant physical
argument (see http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf ). Still the
central idea – that the lowest degree of verisimilitude should be
given to an inconsistency – is correct.

Pentcho Valev

  #8  
Old July 10th 08, 04:35 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 10, 4:25*pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:06*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley
refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the
antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK?


No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle
of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly,
SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson-
Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO
postulates mentioned.


It is still OK. First try to realize that the deduction of time
dilation, length contraction and all idiotic "paradoxes" is in fact
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, then reject accodingly Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate and you obtain what I say above.

If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the
theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead.


Consider the frequency shift

f' = f(1 + gh/c^2)

confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka. Is it in agreement with
Einstein's 1911 equation:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

and therefore with the equivalent equation:

c' = c + v

given by Newton's emission theory of light? If it is, is it then in
disagreement with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)?

Pentcho Valev

  #9  
Old July 10th 08, 04:43 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 10, 10:35*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:25*pm, PD wrote:

On Jul 10, 9:06*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley
refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the
antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK?


No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle
of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly,
SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson-
Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO
postulates mentioned.


It is still OK.


Sorry, no.

First try to realize that the deduction of time
dilation, length contraction and all idiotic "paradoxes" is in fact
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM,


There is absolutely nothing illogical or inconsistent or paradoxical
about time dilation or length contraction. I haven't got the foggiest
idea what you think is illogical or inconsistent or paradoxical.

then reject accodingly Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate and you obtain what I say above.

If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the
theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead.


Consider the frequency shift

f' = f(1 + gh/c^2)

confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka. Is it in agreement with
Einstein's 1911 equation:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

and therefore with the equivalent equation:

c' = c + v

given by Newton's emission theory of light? If it is, is it then in
disagreement with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)?


No, it's not. You have this goofball notion that the special
relativity postulate (c'=c) is claimed to apply EVERYWHERE and in ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES. It applies over distances where tidal forces due to
gravity are small compared to measurement precision; i.e. in domains
that are locally inertial. This is why it is called the *special*
theory of relativity, because it (and its postulates) apply in a
*special domain*. Attempts to extrapolate them out to general and
absolute statements leads you mistakenly to the apparent
contradictions you cite above. Have you been laboring all these years
under the impression that there is a contradiction when you do not
know what "special" in "special relativity" means?

PD


Pentcho Valev


  #10  
Old July 10th 08, 05:14 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 10, 5:43*pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:35*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Consider the frequency shift


f' = f(1 + gh/c^2)


confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka. Is it in agreement with
Einstein's 1911 equation:


c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)


and therefore with the equivalent equation:


c' = c + v


given by Newton's emission theory of light? If it is, is it then in
disagreement with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)?


No, it's not. You have this goofball notion that the special
relativity postulate (c'=c) is claimed to apply EVERYWHERE and in ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES. It applies over distances where tidal forces due to
gravity are small compared to measurement precision; i.e. in domains
that are locally inertial. This is why it is called the *special*
theory of relativity, because it (and its postulates) apply in a
*special domain*. Attempts to extrapolate them out to general and
absolute statements leads you mistakenly to the apparent
contradictions you cite above. Have you been laboring all these years
under the impression that there is a contradiction when you do not
know what "special" in "special relativity" means?


This is irrelevant. Consider Master Tom Roberts' teaching:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...2a006c7d508022
Pentcho Valev: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A
GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the
measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume
you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even
for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant
gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."

That is, if in a gravitational field an observer at rest (relative to
the light source) measures the speed of light to be:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measu

c' = c + v

where v=gh/c is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment
of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception). Is that
OK?

Pentcho Valev

 




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
BAEZ AND SMOLIN WILL DEFORM SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 December 5th 07 01:12 AM
FOREVER SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 September 22nd 07 02:24 PM
SPECIAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT THE LIGHT POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 9 June 25th 07 12:44 PM
RELATIVITY - The Special, the General, and the Causal Theory G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 1 March 9th 07 08:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 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.