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

GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 12th 07, 05:57 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Dono
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default 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.

  #22  
Old June 13th 07, 12:03 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Jeckyl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

"sean" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?


We are limited in our experimental apparatus .. it is impractical (if not
impossible) to get the apparatus into a frame of reference that is perfectly
free of all gravitational potential so the SR can be tested directly.

But a laboratory is close enough for the experiment. GR tells us the local
speed of light will be c anyway, and for the duration of the experiment any
change in velocity of the apparatus is negligible.

The problem is not fudging correct data .. its interpreting an imperfect
experiment within allowed margins of error. Science does that all the time
... and MM supports SR (which says there should be a null results and the
results are null within the margin of error of the experiment).


  #23  
Old June 13th 07, 12:04 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Jeckyl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

"sean" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


Yes .. it is


  #24  
Old June 15th 07, 02:25 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
sean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

On 13 Jun, 00:03, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"sean" wrote in message

For a correct interpretation of the MMx and Sagnac experiments see..
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
On 12 Jun, 01:00, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"sean" wrote in message


roups.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?


We are limited in our experimental apparatus .. it is impractical (if not
impossible) to get the apparatus into a frame of reference that is perfectly
free of all gravitational potential so the SR can be tested directly.

But a laboratory is close enough for the experiment. GR tells us the local
speed of light will be c anyway, and for the duration of the experiment any
change in velocity of the apparatus is negligible.

The problem is not fudging correct data .. its interpreting an imperfect
experiment within allowed margins of error. Science does that all the time
.. and MM supports SR (which says there should be a null results and the
results are null within the margin of error of the experiment).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by
assuming
that the experiment does not rotate during observation or as you try
to argue.
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. And scientifically
this has to mean that the rotation of earth does effect the speed of
light during any known observation like MMx.
Yet SR bases its predictions on the assumption that the rotation
of the earth is NOT measureable during the course of the experiment.
Seeing as ring gyros contradict this asssumption,.. then
scientifically
SR`s predictions are not valid as they are based on assumptions that
are in fact contradicted by observation.
So for your SR argument to be succesfull you have to prove that the
earths rotation is not measureable during observation. And as any
scientist would have to admit... Earths rotation IS measureble during
observation.. Thus nullifying SR.
So. Ill accept your SR argument if you supply
ring gyro measurements that show that earth does not rotate .
Seeing as galileo shot down this argument centuries ago...
Id say ,... you cannnot supply proof that earths rotation
is not measureable.

Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb


  #25  
Old June 15th 07, 04:11 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Craig Markwardt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY


sean writes:

On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:

....
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`.


Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions
about non-inertial frames, your claim is erroneous, and thus the
conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant.

CM
  #26  
Old June 16th 07, 10:56 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
sean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

On 15 Jun, 16:11, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:

...
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`.


Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions
about non-inertial frames, your claim is erroneous, and thus the
conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant.

Maybe "the theory" doesnt. But its proponents do. At wiki and Ned
wright pages they clearly make the claim that light does not travel
at c in the non inertial frame in the SR model. But Im glad you seem
to agree with me that Ned Wright and Wiki got it wrong. As we both
know light can and does travel at c always in the non inertial frame
as long as thats also the source frame. Sagnac and MM show us this.And
in fact as sagnac and MM show us,.. light does not neccesarily travel
at c in the inertial frame. Unless that also is the source frame. So
in fact SR may not officially make predictions about what light does
in a non inertial frame...but its prediction that it always travels at
c in the inertial frame is not consistent with observation.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
For an correct explanation of how sagnac and MMx can be only explained
by classical and not SR see the sagnac simulations at...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb


  #27  
Old June 16th 07, 05:47 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
THE_ONE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

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 ".

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


  #28  
Old June 17th 07, 12:01 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Dono
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

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.

  #29  
Old June 17th 07, 05:15 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Androcles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,040
Default GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY


"Craig Markwardt" wrote in message
...
:
: sean writes:
:
: On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt
: wrote:
: sean writes:
: ...
: 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`.
:
: Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions
: about non-inertial frames,

it is ****in' useless.


your claim is erroneous, and thus the
: conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant.
:
: CM


  #30  
Old June 17th 07, 11:39 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Jeckyl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

"Androcles" wrote in message
k...

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in message
...
:
: sean writes:
:
: On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt
: wrote:
: sean writes:
: ...
: 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`.
:
: Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions
: about non-inertial frames,

it is ****in' useless.


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


 




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
EINSTEIN RELATIVITY: THE UNAMBIGUOUS AMBIGUITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 May 22nd 07 08:11 AM
LARSON -IAN Relativity, Einstein Was WRONG [email protected] Astronomy Misc 2 January 30th 07 05:55 PM
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity physicsajay Astronomy Misc 38 November 8th 06 09:19 PM
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity AJAY SHARMA Policy 11 November 7th 06 02:46 AM
Einstein "Theory of Relativity" Lester Solnin Solar 7 April 13th 05 08:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 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.