GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity [...]

The error is in Valev's gross misunderstanding of relativity, not in
relativity itself. And it is almost certainly not his only error.

Einstein learned something important between 1905 (SR) and 1915 (GR),
and the rest of the physics community has also learned it. Valev REFUSES
to learn it: SR is an APPROXIMATION to GR, and that postulate holds only
in SR; in GR the constancy of the vacuum speed of light is limited to
local measurements. shrug


Tom Roberts

OK Roberts Roberts I agree Einstein criminal cult has learned
something but then let us analyse this something:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
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).
Tom Roberts

Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev agree with you Roberts Roberts and
additionally claim that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
For the accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime, the application
of the equivalence principle converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v, where
v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer.

Roberts Roberts, do you accept the elaboration on your excellent
analysis made by Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev? If you do not
accept the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v offered by Albert
Einstein and Pentcho Valev, please Roberts Roberts give the correct
equations that describe how the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential, and also how the speed of light varies with
the relative speed of the light source and the accelerated observer in
Minkowski spacetime.

Roberts Roberts if you accept the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v
offered by Albert Einstein and me, you would be able to elaborate by
proving the following:

Tom Roberts: Since non-locally the speed of light varies in accordance
with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), locally it varies in accordance with
the equation c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source
and the observer.

Then you will join our group and the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c
+v will be called equations of Albert Einstein, Pentcho Valev and Tom
Roberts. Of course, you may decide to stick to your previous discovery
which can be expressed in this way:

Tom Roberts: Non-locally the speed of light does vary but NOT in
accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which is WRONG.
Accordingly, locally the speed of light is constant.

Pentcho Valev

"sean" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

oups.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.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev

Replying to yourself again? .. poor little pentcho

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

ups.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?
Sean
see this url for a simulaion showing how classical theory can
explain sagnac and MMx...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb

sean writes:
....
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.

SR doesn't make any predictions about non-inertial frames. On the
other hand, a frame co-rotating with an earth laboratory is nearly
inertial at any one instant in time.

CM

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:57:40 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:
There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity [...]

The error is in Valev's gross misunderstanding of relativity, not in
relativity itself. And it is almost certainly not his only error.

Einstein learned something important between 1905 (SR) and 1915 (GR),
and the rest of the physics community has also learned it. Valev REFUSES
to learn it: SR is an APPROXIMATION to GR, and that postulate holds only
in SR; in GR the constancy of the vacuum speed of light is limited to
local measurements. shrug

The only thing Einstein learnt was a devious way to formulate LET in reverse
and make it appear to be his own ingenious theory....


Tom Roberts



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

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

ups.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

On 12 Jun, 01:00, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"sean" wrote in message

ups.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?
Sean

On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
For a scientificaly correct explanation of how sagnac and MMx are
consistent with classical theory and inconsistent with sR, dont go to
the incorrect and unsubstantiated explanations at Ned wrights page or
wikipedia, go to...

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
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`.
And regarding "where" I get this prediction.. Go to neds or wiki
pages with their SR simulations of sagnac. Here they say that
light travels at variable speeds in the rotating source frame.
If you dont believe me LOOK AT their simulations.
Its done with the source rotating in the so called `inertial` frame
(therefore the source is a non inertial rotating frame like MMx)
and the light speed at c in the inertial frame.
If you thought about it you would realise that Ned and wiki
are saying SR predicts that light must travel at variable
speeds in non inertial frames. Its there in their simulations.

Id like to also point out that in fact Ned and wiki are so
ignorant of the facts that even their so called `inertial` lab
frame isnt inertial. Because in fact the lab itself is rotating
around the earths axis. We know this, not least because we
can measure this rotation .

SR doesn't make any predictions about non-inertial frames.

On the
other hand, a frame co-rotating with an earth laboratory is nearly
inertial at any one instant in time.

CM
It isnt inertial though . Nearly isnt good enough. Especially when
ring gyros can detect this rotation. If we can detect the rotation
of MMx then its a big enough rotation to mean that the frame isnt
inertial. It would only be inertial if we couldnt detect rotation.
So MMx isnt inertial and it cannot be used as proof of SR. In
fact if SR predicts that light always travels at c in all inertial
frames then MMx conflicts with this prediction. Because if light
were at c in a frame other than the MMx source then a translation
of that light speed to the non inertial rotating MMx frame would mean
that light would have to be travelling at variable speeds in all
directions in the MMx frame, (according to SR)
But this isnt observed in MMx .Its observed to travel at constant
speeds an at c in all directions in the non inertial frame, not
any inertial frame that SR predicts should be the case.
Therefore MMx observations are not consistent with SR predictions.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
for a complete and accurate explanation of how MMx and Sagnac can
be explained by classical `aether` theory go to...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb

sean wrote:
On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
a frame co-rotating with an earth laboratory is nearly
inertial at any one instant in time.
It isnt inertial though . Nearly isnt good enough.

Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science, and the effects of the rotation of
the earth, its orbital rotation, etc. can all be COMPUTED. When one does
so, one finds the effect is much smaller than the resolution of the
apparatus (reminder: this is the MMX, not a ring gyro).


Especially when
ring gyros can detect this rotation.

They are a DIFFERENT physical system, and they react to rotation MUCH
differently.

The MMX interferometer is topologically equivalent to a ring gyro, with
an enclosed area of zero. As the Sagnac effect is proportional to the
enclosed area, the MMX apparatus is not sensitive to rotation.


So MMx isnt inertial and it cannot be used as proof of SR.

Nobody expects it to be "proof", except people who don't understand what
science actually is. The MMX is inertial enough (see above) to be a
valid test of SR.


In
fact if SR predicts that light always travels at c in all inertial
frames then MMx conflicts with this prediction.

Not SIGNIFICANTLY. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science, and one must
always understand the resolution of the experiment.


You seem to be trying to do physics via sound bites. That is hopeless,
you must STUDY, and use REAL physics books, not youtube. The real ting
is VASTLY more interesting than what the idiots around here try to discuss.


Tom Roberts