GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:01:28 -0700, Dono wrote:

On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:

However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed that is
the same in all iFoR (as given by Lorentz transforms) is not
dependant on anything acutally being able to attain that speed.


The lorentz transforms do not induce the constancy of speed of light,
quite the other way around, the form of the Lorentz transforms is a
consequence (among other things) of the POSTULATE of constancy of
light speed.


In light of this, your sentence :

"However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed ....as
GIVEN BY Lorentz transforms"

....is grossly incorrect.If you try to debunk cranks like Wilson, try
at least to learn your SR.

Is this the same Wilson who has shown conclusively that most star
brightness
variation can be attributed directly to c+v effects?

What you morons can't see is that Einstein merely used the conclusions of
LET
as his second postulate then worked the maths backwards. It is a blatant
case
of plagiarisation. It achieved nothing new. It sidetracked physics by
ignoring
truth just as Earth Centrism did for centuries before.

It is now clear that light travels ballistically, at least in deep space.
Around large masses like Earth, there usually exists some kind of local EM
speed control 'medium' which could easily make LET and Einstein's
postulate
appear to be somewhat true under lab conditions.

It is only because of the extreme difficulty involved with measuring OW
light
speed from moving sources that SR has lasted this long.

And nothing to do with the fact that it correctly predicts experimental
results and observation .. including time dilation affecting the decay of
sub-atomic particles etc .. things that ballistic theory does not account
for.

On Jun 23, 4:24 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

oups.com...

Another content free post. Congratulations!

Well .. thanks for the report card. You obviously have nothing worthwhile
saying .. you're just stalking me because you're ****ed off that you were
wrong and your arrogance and lack of understanding was made so apparent. It
wasn't just the misinterpretation of a result (as was pointed out very
clearly to you) .. that would be fine .. its all the (incorrect) mathematic
justification and (incorrect) different ways of looking at it and
(incorrect) plain-nonsense arguments you gave to defend yourself, all the
while attack the person trying to help you. Truly sad. maybe when you grow
up, you'll learn.



Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS
solution to the problem you keep refering to?

"Dono" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 23, 4:24 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

oups.com...

Another content free post. Congratulations!

Well .. thanks for the report card. You obviously have nothing
worthwhile
saying .. you're just stalking me because you're ****ed off that you were
wrong and your arrogance and lack of understanding was made so apparent.
It
wasn't just the misinterpretation of a result (as was pointed out very
clearly to you) .. that would be fine .. its all the (incorrect)
mathematic
justification and (incorrect) different ways of looking at it and
(incorrect) plain-nonsense arguments you gave to defend yourself, all the
while attack the person trying to help you. Truly sad. maybe when you
grow
up, you'll learn.

Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS
solution to the problem you keep refering to?

Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS solution to
the problem?

On Jun 24, 8:02 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jun 23, 4:24 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

groups.com...

Another content free post. Congratulations!

Well .. thanks for the report card. You obviously have nothing
worthwhile
saying .. you're just stalking me because you're ****ed off that you were
wrong and your arrogance and lack of understanding was made so apparent.
It
wasn't just the misinterpretation of a result (as was pointed out very
clearly to you) .. that would be fine .. its all the (incorrect)
mathematic
justification and (incorrect) different ways of looking at it and
(incorrect) plain-nonsense arguments you gave to defend yourself, all the
while attack the person trying to help you. Truly sad. maybe when you
grow
up, you'll learn.

Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS
solution to the problem you keep refering to?

Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS solution to
the problem?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did. In the process I pointed out all the errors in what you call
your "solution"

"Dono" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 24, 8:02 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jun 23, 4:24 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

groups.com...

Another content free post. Congratulations!

Well .. thanks for the report card. You obviously have nothing
worthwhile
saying .. you're just stalking me because you're ****ed off that you
were
wrong and your arrogance and lack of understanding was made so
apparent.
It
wasn't just the misinterpretation of a result (as was pointed out very
clearly to you) .. that would be fine .. its all the (incorrect)
mathematic
justification and (incorrect) different ways of looking at it and
(incorrect) plain-nonsense arguments you gave to defend yourself, all
the
while attack the person trying to help you. Truly sad. maybe when
you
grow
up, you'll learn.

Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS
solution to the problem you keep refering to?

Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS solution
to
the problem?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did. In the process I pointed out all the errors in what you call
your "solution"

There were no errors in my solution .. .the only errors are yours. You
don't understand SR .. that much is blatantly obvious. you simply blindly
plug values into the equations you've just learnt and don't know how to
apply them or what they mean.

see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_di..._time_dilation

Jeckyl wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 24, 8:02 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jun 23, 4:24 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

groups.com...

Another content free post. Congratulations!

Well .. thanks for the report card. You obviously have nothing
worthwhile
saying .. you're just stalking me because you're ****ed off that you
were
wrong and your arrogance and lack of understanding was made so
apparent.
It
wasn't just the misinterpretation of a result (as was pointed out very
clearly to you) .. that would be fine .. its all the (incorrect)
mathematic
justification and (incorrect) different ways of looking at it and
(incorrect) plain-nonsense arguments you gave to defend yourself, all
the
while attack the person trying to help you. Truly sad. maybe when
you
grow
up, you'll learn.

Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS
solution to the problem you keep refering to?

Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS solution
to
the problem?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did. In the process I pointed out all the errors in what you call
your "solution"

There were no errors in my solution .. .the only errors are yours. You
don't understand SR .. that much is blatantly obvious. you simply blindly
plug values into the equations you've just learnt and don't know how to
apply them or what they mean.

Jeckyl, Jeckyl, Jeckyl, Dono, Dono, Dono! Why don't you ask Master Tom
Roberts to resolve your problem? You don't believe Master Tom Roberts
is a reliable hypnotist anymore? Bellicose zombies in Einstein
criminal cult are not programmed to fight one another.

Pentcho Valev

On 21 Jun, 17:47, Tom Roberts wrote:
For a complete description and simulations on how classical theory
does
predict the observed results of both sagnac and MMx. See the sagnac
1-3 simulations at...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb


sean wrote:
On 20 Jun, 14:51, Tom Roberts wrote:
sean wrote:
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.
You arent reading my words. Notice I say source not setup. The two
sources are the same.
Thats different from saying the setups are the same.

Yes, I read that. But having similar sources is NOT sufficient -- the
instruments are sufficiently different that the similarity of their
sources does not matter. The Sagnac interferometer can detect its
rotation, and the Michelson interferometer cannot.
No problem here with this. But please note I never said MMx did detect
the rotation. All I say/said is that the sources motion are the same.
For instance what I mean is this.. Take both the MMx
and the sagnac experiments. Remove the mirrors( or ring fibre) and
detector from sagnac and the mirrors and detector from MMx.
What do you have left? Two sources rotating around a central axis
To me except for a diameter difference the two sources are
essentially doing the same thing. Therefore it seems a rational
conclusion to say that light must propagate away from these
two sources in the same way for both. And theres only two
options. Either both rotating sources have light leaving them
at c in all directions or both have light leaving at variable
speeds in all directions. The problem with SR seems to be that
it says that sometimes the sources act one way *(sagnac) and
sometimes another. I dont know about you but I thought any good
theory has to be universally consistent? Obviously SR isnt
when it comes to rotating sources.
If you have a source rotating around an axis x at an tangental
velocity of v . And the axis x is not moving in the frame of
reference(the source S is rotating around the static axis X)
Then the question is , in SR, or relativity , in this frame of
reference ,... is the light speed c relative to the rotating source or
is the light speed c+-v relative to the rotating source?

This depends in detail on what you mean by "speed" -- at base your
confusions are related to PUNs on that word. In particular, "speed
relative to the source" is meaningless - one can measure and define
speed only relative to a COORDINATE SYSTEM. You can choose a coordinate
system in which the source is at rest, which is the usual thing to do in
this case, but when the source is rotating around an axis then so are
these coordinates, and things get both complicated and ambiguous (you
could choose any of several different rotating coordinates in which the
source is at rest).

This is what Im trying to get you to define one way or another.
Because above you say if the source is rotating then one has to take
into account the rotating coordinates as you say above.As SR
does with sagnac. But why doesnt it make the same decisions with MMx?
Itis
also rotating yet SR calculates it as if it isnt.
And the usual excuse is that the rotation is too small to
effect the MMX observations. But thats not true, because the rotation
is large enouh to effect apath difference in a ring gyro . Dont
forget
sagnac may be a different setup then MMX but they both measure
the same thing... path difference. Therefore if a shorter path
difference
in a ring gyro can effect a fringe shift then a longer path
difference
in a MMx experiment would also be subject to the same measureable
path difference on each arm,... BUt it isnt.
And thats because light always travels at c in the source frame
only. Not in any other frame as SR would mislead us into believing

In SR, any light ray will move in vacuum with speed c relative to any
inertial frame. A direct consequence of this is that in general the
speed will not be c relative to a NON-inertial frame (e.g. a rotating
system).
This is not observed. In MMx where the source is what you call non
inertial
the light is *always* observed to be at c.
Contrary to what you say SR would predict
If the axis of your rotation is at rest in some inertial frame, we can
use that inertial frame and its known (vacuum) speed of light to compute
what would be measured in the rotating system. But to do that one must
select a specific rotating system. For different choices of system and
light path, one can obtain the following values for the 1-way speed of
light:
c for a radial light path *
c*g for a radial light path #
c+v for a counter-rotating circular path *
c-v for a co-rotating circular path *
(c+v)*g for a counter-rotating circular path #
(c-v)*g for a co-rotating circular path #

(circular paths are centered on and normal to the rotation axis,
and they go once around the rotating system)
* "steal" the time coordinate from the inertial frame of the center
(i.e. use clocks at rest in the inertial frame)
# using a clock at rest in the rotating system; g=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
where v is the speed of the clock relative to the inertial frame.

So the last two entries are most natural for a rotating system (I gave
the full list because otherwise your "c+-v" would not be present at
all). Note that by looking at the very same light rays in the inertial
frame one concludes they travel with speed c relative to that frame, so
this is all consistent. Those circular paths go all the way around the
rotating system, so one needs only a single clock to make the
measurement. If you attempted to make a measurement only half the way
around one of these circles, you would find that there are several
different ways to synchronize the two clocks that are required, and the
result varies depending on which you chose -- the ambiguities get MUCH
worse.

The middle entries, c+v and c-v, are ultimately due to measuring the
distance traveled in one frame (the rotating one), but measuring time of
flight in a DIFFERENT frame (the inertial frame). The ratio of
measurements made in different frames is not "speed" in any sense.
That's why I said you used PUNs on "speed".
This still ignores the contradiction at the heart of SR.
I assume you say above that in a rotating source SR calculates
distance
in the rotating frame and time in the inertial. To start with this
is an irrelevent distinction as classical theory has the flight time
the same
in all frames and it still is able to explain both sagnac and MMx
results.
So why relativists feel it neccesary to construct such an elaborate
artifice
when classicals simpler one does just as well.
But secondly you ignore that fact that SR is being inconsistent.
Because in sagnac from what I see it measures the distance travelled
in the inertial frame whereas in MMx it measures the distance
travelled
in the rotating frame.
If you can answer this then Ill show you how SR cannot predict both
sagnac and
MMx without contradicting itself.

You are confused. You seem to be trying to use a "sound bite" approach
to relativity, which is woefully inadequate. One cannot make crisp
conclusions using phrases like "speed relative to the source" -- it's
easy to get contradictions using such nebulous phrases. Fortunately, SR
itself has no such difficulties.

IOW the contradictions you find are an artifact of your poor
understanding of SR, not from SR itself.
No how could it be a contradiction due to my understanding of
SR? Youve just clarified that SR calculates distance in the rotating
and time in the inertial. If thats true then its your statement not
mine
that is inconsistent as we both know thatin sagnac the only way
SR can explain the fringe shift is by measuring the distance
travelled in the *inertial frame*. Not the rotating frame.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com

On 21 Jun, 17:47, Tom Roberts wrote:
For a complete description and simulations on how classical theory
does
predict the observed results of both sagnac and MMx. See the sagnac
1-3 simulations at...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
sean wrote:
On 20 Jun, 14:51, Tom Roberts wrote:
sean wrote:
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.
You arent reading my words. Notice I say source not setup. The two
sources are the same.
Thats different from saying the setups are the same.

Yes, I read that. But having similar sources is NOT sufficient -- the
instruments are sufficiently different that the similarity of their
sources does not matter. The Sagnac interferometer can detect its
rotation, and the Michelson interferometer cannot.
No problem here with this. But please note I never said MMx did detect
the rotation. All I say/said is that the sources motion are the same.
For instance what I mean is this.. Take both the MMx
and the sagnac experiments. Remove the mirrors( or ring fibre) and
detector from sagnac and the mirrors and detector from MMx.
What do you have left? Two sources rotating around a central axis
To me except for a diameter difference the two sources are
essentially doing the same thing. Therefore it seems a rational
conclusion to say that light must propagate away from these
two sources in the same way for both. And theres only two
options. Either both rotating sources have light leaving them
at c in all directions or both have light leaving at variable
speeds in all directions. The problem with SR seems to be that
it says that sometimes the sources act one way *(sagnac) and
sometimes another. I dont know about you but I thought any good
theory has to be universally consistent? Obviously SR isnt
when it comes to rotating sources.
If you have a source rotating around an axis x at an tangental
velocity of v . And the axis x is not moving in the frame of
reference(the source S is rotating around the static axis X)
Then the question is , in SR, or relativity , in this frame of
reference ,... is the light speed c relative to the rotating source or
is the light speed c+-v relative to the rotating source?

This depends in detail on what you mean by "speed" -- at base your
confusions are related to PUNs on that word. In particular, "speed
relative to the source" is meaningless - one can measure and define
speed only relative to a COORDINATE SYSTEM. You can choose a coordinate
system in which the source is at rest, which is the usual thing to do in
this case, but when the source is rotating around an axis then so are
these coordinates, and things get both complicated and ambiguous (you
could choose any of several different rotating coordinates in which the
source is at rest).

This is what Im trying to get you to define one way or another.
Because above you say if the source is rotating then one has to take
into account the rotating coordinates as you say above.As SR
does with sagnac. But why doesnt it make the same decisions with MMx?
Itis
also rotating yet SR calculates it as if it isnt.
And the usual excuse is that the rotation is too small to
effect the MMX observations. But thats not true, because the rotation
is large enouh to effect apath difference in a ring gyro . Dont
forget
sagnac may be a different setup then MMX but they both measure
the same thing... path difference. Therefore if a shorter path
difference
in a ring gyro can effect a fringe shift then a longer path
difference
in a MMx experiment would also be subject to the same measureable
path difference on each arm,... BUt it isnt.
And thats because light always travels at c in the source frame
only. Not in any other frame as SR would mislead us into believing

In SR, any light ray will move in vacuum with speed c relative to any
inertial frame. A direct consequence of this is that in general the
speed will not be c relative to a NON-inertial frame (e.g. a rotating
system).
This is not observed. In MMx where the source is what you call non
inertial
the light is *always* observed to be at c.
Contrary to what you say SR would predict
If the axis of your rotation is at rest in some inertial frame, we can
use that inertial frame and its known (vacuum) speed of light to compute
what would be measured in the rotating system. But to do that one must
select a specific rotating system. For different choices of system and
light path, one can obtain the following values for the 1-way speed of
light:
c for a radial light path *
c*g for a radial light path #
c+v for a counter-rotating circular path *
c-v for a co-rotating circular path *
(c+v)*g for a counter-rotating circular path #
(c-v)*g for a co-rotating circular path #

(circular paths are centered on and normal to the rotation axis,
and they go once around the rotating system)
* "steal" the time coordinate from the inertial frame of the center
(i.e. use clocks at rest in the inertial frame)
# using a clock at rest in the rotating system; g=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
where v is the speed of the clock relative to the inertial frame.

So the last two entries are most natural for a rotating system (I gave
the full list because otherwise your "c+-v" would not be present at
all). Note that by looking at the very same light rays in the inertial
frame one concludes they travel with speed c relative to that frame, so
this is all consistent. Those circular paths go all the way around the
rotating system, so one needs only a single clock to make the
measurement. If you attempted to make a measurement only half the way
around one of these circles, you would find that there are several
different ways to synchronize the two clocks that are required, and the
result varies depending on which you chose -- the ambiguities get MUCH
worse.

The middle entries, c+v and c-v, are ultimately due to measuring the
distance traveled in one frame (the rotating one), but measuring time of
flight in a DIFFERENT frame (the inertial frame). The ratio of
measurements made in different frames is not "speed" in any sense.
That's why I said you used PUNs on "speed".
This still ignores the contradiction at the heart of SR.
I assume you say above that in a rotating source SR calculates
distance
in the rotating frame and time in the inertial. To start with this
is an irrelevent distinction as classical theory has the flight time
the same
in all frames and it still is able to explain both sagnac and MMx
results.
So why relativists feel it neccesary to construct such an elaborate
artifice
when classicals simpler one does just as well.
But secondly you ignore that fact that SR is being inconsistent.
Because in sagnac from what I see it measures the distance travelled
in the inertial frame whereas in MMx it measures the distance
travelled
in the rotating frame.
If you can answer this then Ill show you how SR cannot predict both
sagnac and
MMx without contradicting itself.

You are confused. You seem to be trying to use a "sound bite" approach
to relativity, which is woefully inadequate. One cannot make crisp
conclusions using phrases like "speed relative to the source" -- it's
easy to get contradictions using such nebulous phrases. Fortunately, SR
itself has no such difficulties.

IOW the contradictions you find are an artifact of your poor
understanding of SR, not from SR itself.
No how could it be a contradiction due to my understanding of
SR? Youve just clarified that SR calculates distance in the rotating
and time in the inertial. If thats true then its your statement not
mine
that is inconsistent as we both know thatin sagnac the only way
SR can explain the fringe shift is by measuring the distance
travelled in the *inertial frame*. Not the rotating frame.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com

On 20 Jun, 14:51, 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).
Name these experiments. this is a false claim by you as there are NO
experiments that classical cannot explain. Whereas as Ive hown SR
cannot explian both sagnac and MMx
See the simulations at...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8
which clearly show that Classical theory can explain bothy sagnac
and MMx

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.
Rubbish. You ignore the fact that regardless of the setups of both
experiments the source in both does exactly teh same thing...It
rotates
about a central axis. Which is one reason why any physics students
should
not read your faq. Its misinformation based on false evidence.The
proof
you rely on at your faq is in fact false evidence
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.
More like your inabilty to supply proof that classical cannot explain
any known experiment or your inabilty to refute why SR predicts
inconsistent speeds of light for the same frame.
(Ie Sr predicts that in an inertial frame sometimes light is at c
(sagnac) and sometimes its variable(MMx). Bad science without proof.
Supply evidence for your arguments Tom. Not hand waving rhetoric)

Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
see..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8
for a full explanation of how SR and the standard model cannot
explain grb`s , sagnac and MMx . And how classical theory is able
to completely explain all known observations.

sean wrote:
On 20 Jun, 14:51, 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).
Name these experiments.

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


Ive hown SR
cannot explian both sagnac and MMx

You are wrong. SR does indeed explain both MMX and Sagnac. shrug


See the simulations at...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8
which clearly show that Classical theory can explain bothy sagnac
and MMx

Sure, if one makes very specific assumptions about "classical theory" --
specifically that the ether is fully dragged by the earth. That
assumption, however, is inconsistent with observations of stellar
aberration.

My point is that a given theory must explain ALL of the experiments, not
just a specific pair you happen to like. The experiments on relativistic
kinematics and the speed of light from moving sources are tests that
classical theories simply cannot explain at all.


The fact that some other theories also explain these two experiments
does not diminish the ability of SR to do so. But SR explains a much
wider class of experiments than the classical theories, which is of
course why we use SR today and not those old theories.


Tom Roberts