GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

On Jun 12, 6:33 am, sean wrote:
On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig 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.
Seanwww.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



I looked at your website, I read your claims. They are both wrong.
The Sagnac experiment , while executed in a clearly non-inertial frame
(because it is rotating) agrees with the predictions of SR/GR. For
calculations using either formalism, look he

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

and he

http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/rese...Review1997.pdf


So, your claims are wrong.