GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

On 12 Sept, 10:03, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:11:42 -0700, sean wrote:

Post 363

On 6 Sep, 17:33, bz wrote:
sean wrote oups.com:

On 30 Aug, 23:55, bz wrote:
sean wrote in news:1188512224.511353.237820
@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
If you bothered analysing your sean planets sim, youd
see that its the only way to have light propagating away
from any source at c.
One of the most fundamental laws of physics is that an object in motion
continues in that motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
You ignore several things here, First of all if emmision theory
predicts that light always is at c relative to a source
That only applies at the moment of emission. If the source changes its
motion after emission, the light does not know or care.
Maybe in your own personal version of emmision theory. But Im saying
that if one can model emmision theory as having light propagate away
from any source always at c relative to any source, then,....
one can explain MMx and sagnac

It explains the MMX but not Sagnac....
Sagnac is very complicated.

Sagnac isn't complicated at all.
It is however bothering to you, since it falsifies emission theory.

The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas
special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or
c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 12 Sept, 10:03, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:11:42 -0700, sean
wrote:

Post 363

On 6 Sep, 17:33, bz wrote:
sean wrote
oups.com:

On 30 Aug, 23:55, bz wrote:
sean wrote in
news:1188512224.511353.237820
@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
If you bothered analysing your sean planets sim, youd
see that its the only way to have light propagating away
from any source at c.
One of the most fundamental laws of physics is that an object in
motion
continues in that motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
You ignore several things here, First of all if emmision theory
predicts that light always is at c relative to a source
That only applies at the moment of emission. If the source changes
its
motion after emission, the light does not know or care.
Maybe in your own personal version of emmision theory. But Im saying
that if one can model emmision theory as having light propagate away
from any source always at c relative to any source, then,....
one can explain MMx and sagnac

It explains the MMX but not Sagnac....
Sagnac is very complicated.

Sagnac isn't complicated at all.
It is however bothering to you, since it falsifies emission theory.

The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas
special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or
c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment?

c' = c

Sagnac is completely explained by and compatible with SR.

On 12 Sept, 10:16, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote:

On 12 Sept, 10:03, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Sagnac isn't complicated at all.
It is however bothering to you, since it falsifies emission theory.

The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas
special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or
c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment?

c' = c

Sagnac is completely explained by and compatible with SR.

Jeckyl Jeckyl I asked your brother zombie Andersen, not you. You are
not able to explain c-v and c+v appearing in the interpretation of the
Sagnac experiment but brother zombie Andersen is:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...7df6b0a4d925a?
Paul Andersen: "(c-v) is nothing but an arithmetic difference between
two speeds, It is NOT the speed of anything relative to anything!"

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas
special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or
c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment?

Pentcho Valev

The Sagnac experiment:
- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this non-rotating frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

Prediction according to SR:
---------------------------
The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c.
The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r^2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c^2)* g^2

The g^2 will obviously be unmeasureable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

Prediction correct, SR confirmed.

Prediction according to the emission theory:
--------------------------------------------
The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c+v.
The speed of the light emitted in the backwards direction is c-v.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*(c+v)
tf = 2*pi*r/c

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*(c-v)
tb = 2*pi*r/c

delta_t = tf - tb = 0

So emission theory predicts delta_t = 0, while enumerable practical
experiments shows delta_t = 4Aw/c^2

Prediction wrong - emission theory falsified.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
:
: The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas
: special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or
: c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment?
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
: The Sagnac experiment:
: - Given an inertial frame which is the reference
: for all speeds mentioned below.
: That is, all speeds are relative to this non-rotating frame.
: - Given a stationary circle with radius r.
: - Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
: - Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of
mirrors).
: - Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
: uses to catch up with the source.
: - Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
: uses to meet the source.
:
: Prediction according to SR:
: ---------------------------
: The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c.
: The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c.
:
: So we have:
: 2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
: tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)
:
: 2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
: tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

HAHAHAHA!


Prediction according to SR:
The rays do not meet.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 12 Sept, 10:16, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote:

On 12 Sept, 10:03, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Sagnac isn't complicated at all.
It is however bothering to you, since it falsifies emission theory.

The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas
special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or
c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment?

c' = c

Sagnac is completely explained by and compatible with SR.

Jeckyl Jeckyl I asked your brother zombie Andersen, not you.

You asked .. that is all

You are not able to explain c-v and c+v appearing in the interpretation of
the
Sagnac experiment but brother zombie Andersen is:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...7df6b0a4d925a?
Paul Andersen: "(c-v) is nothing but an arithmetic difference between
two speeds, It is NOT the speed of anything relative to anything!"

Fine .. then why did you bother asking .. he's addressed it

Sagnac is perfectly explained and predicted by SR.

"Androcles" wrote in message
.uk...

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
:
: The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas
: special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or
: c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment?
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
: The Sagnac experiment:
: - Given an inertial frame which is the reference
: for all speeds mentioned below.
: That is, all speeds are relative to this non-rotating frame.
: - Given a stationary circle with radius r.
: - Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
: - Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of
mirrors).
: - Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
: uses to catch up with the source.
: - Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
: uses to meet the source.
:
: Prediction according to SR:
: ---------------------------
: The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c.
: The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c.
:
: So we have:
: 2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
: tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)
:
: 2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
: tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

HAHAHAHA!


Prediction according to SR:
The rays do not meet.

Nonsense .. go learn some physics instead of posting crap

On 12 Sept, 13:10, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas
special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or
c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment?

Pentcho Valev

The Sagnac experiment:
- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this non-rotating frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

Prediction according to SR:
---------------------------
The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c.
The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r^2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c^2)* g^2

The g^2 will obviously be unmeasureable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

Prediction correct, SR confirmed.

Prediction according to the emission theory:
--------------------------------------------
The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c+v.
The speed of the light emitted in the backwards direction is c-v.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*(c+v)
tf = 2*pi*r/c

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*(c-v)
tb = 2*pi*r/c

delta_t = tf - tb = 0

So emission theory predicts delta_t = 0, while enumerable practical
experiments shows delta_t = 4Aw/c^2

Prediction wrong - emission theory falsified.

Paul

Andersen Andersen there are so many sites containing calculations of
the Sagnac experiment performed by people much cleverer than you. Why
didn't you refer to some of them instead of demonstrating your zombie
reasoning? See this for instance:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html

Find the mistake Andersen Andersen!

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 12 Sept, 13:10, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

The emission theory gives the equations c'=c-v and c'=c+v whereas
special relativity gives c'=c. Which equations: c'=c-v and c'=c+v or
c'=c, are relevant in the interpretation of the Sagnac experiment?

Pentcho Valev

The Sagnac experiment:
- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this non-rotating frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of
mirrors).
- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

Prediction according to SR:
---------------------------
The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c.
The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r^2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c^2)* g^2

The g^2 will obviously be unmeasureable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

Prediction correct, SR confirmed.

Prediction according to the emission theory:
--------------------------------------------
The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c+v.
The speed of the light emitted in the backwards direction is c-v.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*(c+v)
tf = 2*pi*r/c

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*(c-v)
tb = 2*pi*r/c

delta_t = tf - tb = 0

So emission theory predicts delta_t = 0, while enumerable practical
experiments shows delta_t = 4Aw/c^2

Prediction wrong - emission theory falsified.

Paul

Andersen Andersen there are so many sites containing calculations of
the Sagnac experiment performed by people much cleverer than you. Why
didn't you refer to some of them instead of demonstrating your zombie
reasoning? See this for instance:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html

Find the mistake Andersen Andersen!

If it says the SR doesn't account for Sagnac, then there must be a mistake,
because it is an experiment that support and whose result is predicted by
SR.

But you're just too blind and stupid to understand the facts.

On 11 Sep, 01:46, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:11:42 -0700, sean wrote:
Post 363

On 6 Sep, 17:33, bz wrote:
sean wrote oups.com:

On 30 Aug, 23:55, bz wrote:
sean wrote in news:1188512224.511353.237820
@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

If you bothered analysing your sean planets sim, youd
see that its the only way to have light propagating away
from any source at c.

One of the most fundamental laws of physics is that an object in motion
continues in that motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
You ignore several things here, First of all if emmision theory
predicts that light always is at c relative to a source

That only applies at the moment of emission. If the source changes its
motion after emission, the light does not know or care.
Maybe in your own personal version of emmision theory. But Im saying
that if one can model emmision theory as having light propagate away
from any source always at c relative to any source, then,....
one can explain MMx and sagnac

It explains the MMX but not Sagnac....
Sagnac is very complicated.
You say this over and over but wheres your proof? Have you tried an
accuarate mathematical simulation to back up this claim you make?
No.
The fact is I have, using vector calculations and posted them as
sagnac sims at...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
And these show that as long as you calculate in the source
frame with the speed as c in the source frame one gets
a path difference which is whats observed. You
can keep repeating your claim that this doesnt work but if you
dont bother double checking by doing your own calculations in the
source frame then all your claims are unsubstantiated And erroneous.
Not to mention the fact that your own explanation relies on wave
particle duality which itself needs magic to explain how the photon
switches from particle to wave.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com