GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

On Jun 17, 7:39 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
[...]

Not at all. It can be generalised .. guess what its called then?

I'll guess it was not any of A. Einstein's work because his 1923
lecture list failure to generalisation with EM (light) a shortcoming
and S. Weinberg explained several avenues ignorged which
might have led to a unification.
Einsteins mistakes
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html


Hilbert and Noether seemed to have a little problem also
in finding generality where energy isn't conservered.

In general relativity, on the other hand, it has no meaning
to speak of a definite localization of energy. One may define
a quantity which is divergence free analogous to the
energy-momentum density tensor of special relativity, but it
is gauge dependent: i.e., it is not covariant under general
coordinate transformations. Consequently the fact that it is
divergence free does not yield a meaningful law of local energy
conservation. Thus one has, as Hilbert saw it, in such
theories `improper energy theorems.'
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/art...g/noether.html


Sue...



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:47:28 -0700, THE_ONE wrote:

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

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 ".

That's just LET....in which case the aether medium provides the natural
reference for light speed.

All bodies are 4 dimensional.

Bodies spin.

If a body is to release a photon, then it will do so with the result
being the photon traveling across empty space at the velocity of c.

When a body is in motion across space, it is being rotated within
Space-Time. The faster it moves across space, the more it extends
across Time, and the less it extends across Space. This gives the
appearance of there being a spatial length contraction.

Also during such an event, the axis of a spinning body also begins to
extend more across Time, and less across Space, for it too is being
rotated across Space-Time. This then effects the velocity of a photon
released from such a spinning body. The change of the photons spatial
velocity is proportional to the spatial velocity of the moving body.

Ex. in the forward direction, the photons velocity becomes c - v. This
is then combined with the velocity of the moving body that released
that photon.

( c - v [photon] ) + ( v [moving body] ) = c.

Therefore, no matter what the velocity is of a moving body, it will
still release a photon in such a manner that the photon will be in
motion at a c velocity relative to an open space.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm




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

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

sean wrote:
SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by
assuming
that the experiment does not rotate during observation

That's only an elementary application of SR to the experiment. An
accurate application of SR can account for the various rotations, and
show that they ALL affect the fringe shift my much less than the
resolution of the instrument. It's just that elementary textbooks do not
clutter up the analysis with unnecessary details.


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.

Except the MMX interferometer is NOT a ring gyro. Indeed, it can be
considered to be one, with a zero enclosed area, and so one predicts the
MMX interferometer is insensitive to rotation. See above.



And scientifically
this has to mean that the rotation of earth does effect the speed of
light during any known observation like MMx.

You are excessively naive. Yes the lab is rotating, yes SOME instruments
can discern that rotation (locally), but MOST experiments cannot, and
the MMX is in this latter set.


Yet SR bases its predictions on the assumption that the rotation
of the earth is NOT measureable during the course of the experiment.

No. repeating a mistake does not make it right. A competent application
of SR to the MMX experiment shows that the rotation is not observable BY
THAT APPARATUS, and thus the rotation can indeed be neglected without
significantly affecting the results.


Seeing as ring gyros contradict this asssumption,

I repeat: THAT'S IRRELEVANT, as the MMX considered as a ring gyro has
zero enclosed area, and is thus insensitive to rotation.


Ring gyros can measure this rotation.
You only pretend its neglible to back up a theory (SR) that cant
explain both sagnac and MMx

No. One applies SR to the MMX measurement and COMPUTES that the rotation
is negligible (i.e. its effect is much smaller than the resolution of
the instrument).


Much of modern experimental physics is involved with the error and
resolution analysis of the instruments. Until your learn and understand
this, you will remain confused. shrug


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:
sean wrote:
SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by
assuming
that the experiment does not rotate during observation

That's only an elementary application of SR to the experiment. An
accurate application of SR can account for the various rotations, and
show that they ALL affect the fringe shift my much less than the
resolution of the instrument. It's just that elementary textbooks do not
clutter up the analysis with unnecessary details.


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.

Except the MMX interferometer is NOT a ring gyro. Indeed, it can be
considered to be one, with a zero enclosed area, and so one predicts the
MMX interferometer is insensitive to rotation. See above.



And scientifically
this has to mean that the rotation of earth does effect the speed of
light during any known observation like MMx.

You are excessively naive. Yes the lab is rotating, yes SOME instruments
can discern that rotation (locally), but MOST experiments cannot, and
the MMX is in this latter set.


Yet SR bases its predictions on the assumption that the rotation
of the earth is NOT measureable during the course of the experiment.

No. repeating a mistake does not make it right. A competent application
of SR to the MMX experiment.....

Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE
EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment:

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."

So Roberts Roberts does the "competent application of SR to the MMX
experiment" involve the introduction of the light postulate and the
idiocies (time dilation, length contraction etc.) based on it? But you
do not like the light postulate do you Roberts Roberts:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...32844f0766cea?
Tom Roberts: "While the constancy of the speed of light was important
in the historical development of SR, I agree it has no logical place
as a postulate of SR. Einstein's second postulate can be replaced by
any of a number of suitable postulates, of which I like this one best:
There is a finite upper bound on the speed of propagation of
information."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...4dc146100e32c?
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE
EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment:

Irrelevant .. emmisions theory only manages to explain a subset of what SR
predicts (and is observed) .. it not a good alternative.

[snip Pentcho's weird obsession with Tom, who he thinks is called Robert]

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE
EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment:

Irrelevant .. emmisions theory only manages to explain a subset of what SR
predicts (and is observed).

Is that what your masters teach you? They may be joking. For instance,
when Master Tom Roberts says:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...4dc146100e32c?
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

he is certainly joking. Master Tom Roberts is not so silly and could
not say such things seriously. Do you agree?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE
EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment:

Irrelevant .. emmisions theory only manages to explain a subset of what
SR
predicts (and is observed).

Is that what your masters teach you? They may be joking.
[snip completely irrelvant rely]

On 17 Jun, 00:01, Dono wrote:
On Jun 8, 5:42 am, sean wrote:





On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

roups.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.
Seanwww.gammarayburst.com
For proof that sagnac and MM cannot be explained by the creationist
style theory
of SR see sagnac simulations at...http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb

Nonsense, you don't even begin to understand the explanation to the
Sagnac experiment. I gave you a couple of links, try reading on it
before posting crap.- Hide quoted text -
Id say your posts contain the most c**p. In fact your name is
appropriate as you dont seem to know, Dono! And your urls are
unsubstantiated nonsense conposed by crackpots. So my advice is dont
refer to them. Refer to my excellent simulations at...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
to see how classical theory only can explain both sagnac and MMx .
To start with you dont seem to understand that the sagnac source is
essentially identical to the MMx in that they both rotate around an
axis . Yet SR says that a source that rotates around an axis sometimes
has light leaving it at variable speeds (when SR tries to explain
sagnac) and sometimes has light leaving it at constant speeds(when SR
tries to explain MMx).
Even a pseudoscientist like yourself should be able to see this
inherent contradiction in SR.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com

On Jun 20, 12:17 am, sean wrote:
[...]

Even a pseudoscientist like yourself should be able to see this
inherent contradiction in SR.

The Sagnac effect is from general relativity, **** for brains.

On 20 Jun, 09:39, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:17 am, sean wrote:
[...]

Even a pseudoscientist like yourself should be able to see this
inherent contradiction in SR.

The Sagnac effect is from general relativity, **** for brains.

Who cares. Same nonsense for both theories. Neither can explain
anything. THe description supplied by relativistas like yourself
is inconsistent. You say light travels at c relative to a rotating
source frame when trying to explain sagnac. And then change your mind
and say light travels at variable speeds relative to a rotating source
when you are trying to explain MMX. Make up your mind.
Sean
to see how classical theory only can explain sagnac and MMx see
the three sagnac simulations at..
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
Otherwise for a fiddled fake relativistic explanation that isnt
substantiated by observation see Ned wrights or the wikipedia pages
on relativity .