GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

On 18 Jun, 16:01, 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.
Notice I never actually claimed that MMx is the same as sagnac
nor did I claim MMx is a ring gyro. Thats your fantasy.
However make sure you understand this.. that my central point here is
that
although the two experiments are different setups, one thing remains
the same between the two. THey both have sources that rotate
about a central axis. In other words please note... The MMx and sagnac
sources are for all scientific and practical purposes the *same*
THerefore they are both either inertial or both non inertial.
But SR says that sometimes (in sagnac) the source is non inertial
and yet other times SR claims that the source (in MMx) is inertial.!
THis is inconsistent and unscientific. Which is why I say it
shows that SR is invalid as a theory. It is not consistent when
it comes to explaining the speed of light relative to rotating
sources.
Whereas in fact classical theory is consistent. It states that light
is
always and only at c in the source frame whether it rotates or not.
And in any other frame its variable. And please note the
misinformation
supplied by likes of wikipedia and NedWright. They claim that
classical
theory cannot explain sagnac. This is a false claim as noone has ever
tried to CORRECTLY simulate sagnac with light at c in the source
frame.
I have and I can show scientifically that clasical theory can in fact
explain sagnac. Please see my sagnac 1,2 and 3 simulations at...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
If you study ned wrights sagnac explanation youll see that he
has the light at c in the lab frame and variable in the source frame.
So technically he has light travelling at two different speeds
through the fibre gyro!. Thats physically impossible as
in Neds source frame the source does not move relative to the fibre
ring. How then do you explain the fact that the light travels
at one speed clockwise and another speed anticlockwise?( Even
though the source does not moverelative to the fibre ring.)
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.
Its only irrelevent if you want to fiddle the theory to validate SR.
In fact it is relevent because it shows that light has to be at
c in only ONE frame to accomadate both sagnac and MMx. And that frame
is the source frame. As classical predicts and as SR can not predict.
Dont forget SR predicts that light sometimes is not at c in the source
frame(sagnac) Whereas in fact light is never observed to be variable
in the source frame.
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
You are confused. Sometimes SR says light has to be variable in the
source frame.
THen when its convenient SR sayslight is always at c
in the source frame! Thats inconsistent pseudoscience.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb

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).

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).


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 .

The instruments are VERY different: Sagnac's has a large enclosed area,
and the MMX has zero enclosed area, and this makes all the difference as
far as rotation is concerned.


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).

This is complete nonsense. You should learn about SR before attempting
to describe what it says. And you should learn about the differences in
these two experiments and their instruments. shrug


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

It is a contradiction in your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS about SR. shrug


Tom Roberts

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" ?


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.]

Sue...
[...]



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 .

The instruments are VERY different: Sagnac's has a large enclosed area,
and the MMX has zero enclosed area, and this makes all the difference as
far as rotation is concerned.

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).

This is complete nonsense. You should learn about SR before attempting
to describe what it says. And you should learn about the differences in
these two experiments and their instruments. shrug

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

It is a contradiction in your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS about SR. shrug

Tom Roberts

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).

Absolutely correct Roberts Roberts:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...32844f0766cea?
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)."

So Roberts Roberts special relativity would explain experiments
showing that "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed
of the Lorentz transform" but also experiments showing that light in
vacuum does travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform. An
incredible theory isn't it Roberts Roberts.

Pentcho Valev

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

I suggest you learn about SR before you make yourself look like a fool when
you criticise it from ignorance.

"sean" wrote in message
oups.com...
You are confused. Sometimes SR says light has to be variable in the
source frame.
THen when its convenient SR sayslight is always at c
in the source frame! Thats inconsistent pseudoscience.

You are confused .. SR says the speed of light is the same, c, in all
inertial frames of reference.

On Jun 20, 12:23 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"sean" wrote in message

oups.com...

You are confused. Sometimes SR says light has to be variable in the
source frame.
THen when its convenient SR sayslight is always at c
in the source frame! Thats inconsistent pseudoscience.

You are confused .. SR says the speed of light is the same, c, in all
inertial frames of reference.

Can you show us which page that is on in this 1920 translation.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/

Sue...

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.

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.

CM
[*] say a neutron star. But it doesn't matter.

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

Too bad relativity is such a small subset of all human knowledge.