GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
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.

Searching both Ned Wright's and Wiki(pedia)'s pages for mentions of
the speed of light in non-inertial frames produces almost nothing. Do
you care to substantiate your claim with direct citations?

... But Im glad you seem
to agree with me that Ned Wright and Wiki got it wrong.

Since the "Ned Wright and Wiki" claims are not evident, I neither
agree nor disagree.

What I *do* say is that since the special theory of relativity does
not make any claims about non-inertial frames whatsoever (nor do any
"proponents" unless you care to provide proper citations), your claim
is irrelevant.

The 1920 SR paper doesn't relate light to to frames
as inertial or non inertial. That is consistant with
a limitation Weinberg observes:



A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html

Ned apparently still doesn't know what a space-time interval is:

The pair of space-time diagrams above show quintuplets
separated at birth. The middle worldline shows the quint who
stays home. The space-time diagram on the left is done from
the point of view of the middle quint. Each dot on a worldline
is a birthday party, so the middle quint is 10 years old when
they all rejoin each other, while the other quints are 6 and 8
years old.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

It is correctly described by NRAO:
if you know about complex numbers you will notice
that the space part enters as if it were imaginary

R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2

where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the essence
of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry - that space
enters in with the imaginary factor i relative to time.
http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/cour...edoflight.html



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.

Huh? That is non-sensical on its face. Consider a star rotating once
per second[*]. In the rotating frame of the star -- which is a
non-inertial frame, because it is rotating -- the star is fixed. Does
light emitted from the surface of the star continue to rotate with the
star? Clearly not, since by the time the light reaches a distance of
1 A.U., it would have a rotational speed 3000 times c as seen from an
inertial frame. This would violate all we know about light, stars and
conservation of energy.

No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c,
regardless of the emitter frame.

Inclusion of the word inertial or non-inertial seems to
be the cause of the confusion. Your use of *all* frames seems
to clear it up for the reasons given by Weinberg.

Sue...


CM

[*] say a neutron star. But it doesn't matter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:41:15 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:

(scroll down, please)



Craig Markwardt wrote:
sean writes:

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.

Searching both Ned Wright's and Wiki(pedia)'s pages for mentions of
the speed of light in non-inertial frames produces almost nothing. Do
you care to substantiate your claim with direct citations?

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen
der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can
find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of
Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's
derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational
potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

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

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .]
cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can
only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with
position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity
suggests that he did mean so."

Pentcho Valev


A QUESTION FOR PENTCHO VALEV:

What is the GPS Satellite clock frequency?

[ ] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)

[ ] 10.22999999545 MHz (relativistically corrected)

Mettete una crocetta
example:
[x] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)


WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER, PENTCHO VALEV?

w.

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in message
...


: No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c,
: regardless of the emitter frame.

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Ignorant ****head.

On Jun 20, 3:47 am, sean wrote:
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.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Go be stupid somewhere else.

[snip stupidity]

Don Stockbauer wrote:
Too bad relativity is such a small subset of all human knowledge.

Actually, it subsumes an ENORMOUS fraction of our knowledge of the
physical world. Indeed, every physical theory we have is based upon
relativity. I remind you that knowledge of the physical world comes ONLY
via theories.


Tom Roberts

On Jun 20, 11:57 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Don Stockbauer wrote:
Too bad relativity is such a small subset of all human knowledge.

Actually, it subsumes an ENORMOUS fraction of our knowledge of the
physical world. Indeed, every physical theory we have is based upon
relativity. I remind you that knowledge of the physical world comes ONLY
via theories.

right

we invent ether theory, then do radios, tv etc

then relativity appears in order to say that tha
inventors were all wrong


Tom Roberts

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 20, 10:51 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
sean wrote:
to see how classical theory only can explain both sagnac and MMx .

Sure, certain classical theories can explain them both. So what? There
are MANY other experiments that such theories cannot explain; SR on the
other hand explains them all (within its domain).

Just what is SR's "domain of applicability" ?

As someone once said: you might consider readiing some
physics instead of showing the whole world how little you know


See the FAQ for over a hundred experiments that confirm
SR; most of them are completely inconsistent with any
classical theory (i.e. pre-SR).


[FAQs not visited because they may not apply to anything.]

So you won't even look at them. Why? .. are you afraid of what you'll
discover if you do?

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in message
...


: No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c,
: regardless of the emitter frame.

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ignorant ****head.

Yes... you are. The topic was the speed of light .. not the speed that
other objects move away from light (ie separation velocity). That does NOT
change the speed of light as measured in (ie relative to) a given reference
frame.

Sue... wrote:
Just what is SR's "domain of applicability" ?

All physical phenomena in regions for which the effects of gravitation
are either negligible or are canceled [#] to better than the resolutions
of the appropriate measurements.

[#] Gravity itself cannot be canceled, but its effects
on (say) a laser can be canceled by putting the laser
on a table. Effects on the light of course remain....

Of course for most things some additional theory beyond SR is required
to explain or model the phenomena (e.g. for light one needs a theory of
electromagnetism); but all such theories of modern physics have SR as a
cornerstone, so this is still within the domain of SR.


Tom Roberts

Craig Markwardt wrote:
sean writes:
[about SR in non-=inertial frames]
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.

Searching both Ned Wright's and Wiki(pedia)'s pages for mentions of
the speed of light in non-inertial frames produces almost nothing. Do
you care to substantiate your claim with direct citations?

This is quite basic and has been known for over a century. Accelerated
frames are treated in all intermediate textbooks on relativity. For
example, here's an old post to this newsgroup from 1998: "The Speed of
light in an Accelerated System":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2?dmode=source


What I *do* say is that since the special theory of relativity does
not make any claims about non-inertial frames whatsoever (nor do any
"proponents" unless you care to provide proper citations), your claim
is irrelevant.

SR can be applied to non-inertial frames just as accurately as to
inertial frames. This is more complicated, and elementary books avoid it
due to the complexity, but there is no problem -- it's just math.

Well, there's one additional postulate known as the "clock
hypothesis" -- that clocks are unaffected by acceleration
(as long as the clock is not damaged). This is known to be
valid for at least some clocks up to accelerations of 10^18 g.


No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c,
regardless of the emitter frame.

Only for inertial frames.


Tom Roberts