|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
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... |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Too bad relativity is such a small subset of all human knowledge.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 04:55 PM |
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity | physicsajay | Astronomy Misc | 38 | November 8th 06 08:19 PM |
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity | AJAY SHARMA | Policy | 11 | November 7th 06 01:46 AM |
Einstein "Theory of Relativity" | Lester Solnin | Solar | 7 | April 13th 05 08:17 AM |