|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Muddypaws wrote: Jeckyl wrote: "Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: Jeckyl wrote: "Tom Roberts" wrote in message et... [The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C). So they remain different theories in this view.] Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a different acronym for the same thing Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this (you don't STUDY enough): No .. he hasn't, although I have asked Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl some zombies are too dangerous for Einstein criminal cult and Master Tom Roberts avoids them. For instance, there is a Sam Wormley who used to refer too often to "speed", "velocity" and the difference between them, thereby exposing unnecessarily one of the greatest confusions introduced by Einstein criminal cult. In the end Master Tom Roberts was forced to give some explanation to Sam Wormley: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...90046b3bff4c1? but that was the last time Master Tom Roberts paid any attention to this particular zombie. Now Sam Wormley means nothing to Master Tom Roberts and I am afraid you are in the same group. The situation of Dono, Gisse and Moortel is somewhat different - Master Tom Roberts may still reply if their questions are not too silly. I am not sure why this "Muddypaws" appeared as the author of the above message but anyway the text is mine. I would like to call zombies' attention to Master Tom Roberts' extremely important text: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d18321ed514ad2 Tom Roberts: "For length contraction, first think of holding a rod with length L in 3-d Euclidean space, and apply Cartesian coordinates {X,Y,Z} to space. With the rod along the X axis, its length PROJECTED onto the X-axis is L, and projected onto the Y- and Z- axes is 0. Now rotate it 45 degrees around the Y axis: its length PROJECTED onto the X axis is now 0.707*L -- do you claim that the rod has "contracted"??? No; you easily recognize that the rod has ROTATED, and that the length of the rod is unaffected by such a rotation. PRECISELY the same thing happens in SR for a moving rod, but for motion along the X axis it is a rotation in the X-T plane, and this is strange to people like yourself not acustomed to thinking of time as a geometrical axis. It is also a hyperbolic rotation, which makes it even stranger (but I'll ignore that).... The way one projects onto the X axis in the X-T plane is to make measurements simultaneously according to the time coordinate of the T axis. Note that if an observer is going to make a measurement of the length of a MOVING rod, she should clearly mark both ends of the rod SIMULTANEOUSLY and then measure the distance between the marks. In SR this is simply a PROJECTION of the "length"[#] of the rod onto her spatial coordinates (here X). So in a very real sense the historical name "length contraction" is unfortunate, and confuses many people; yourself included. "Length projection" would be a MUCH better name, and would avoid much confusion. This _IS_ just a geometrical projection." It is clear that, according to Master Tom Roberts, there is no length contraction - there is only "length projection". Master Tom Roberts is the Albert Einstein of our generation and when he says there is no length contraction, then it is absolutely true there is no length contraction. That is the reason why Master Tom Roberts never resolves any length contraction problems: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...724e78e78dde0? So zombies never ask Master Tom Roberts to explain length contraction. If you do, Master Tom Roberts will hate you and may place you in the "dangerous zombies" group, where he has already placed Jeckyl and Sam Wormley. Pentcho Valev |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com... Muddypaws wrote: Jeckyl wrote: "Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: Jeckyl wrote: "Tom Roberts" wrote in message et... [The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C). So they remain different theories in this view.] Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a different acronym for the same thing Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this (you don't STUDY enough): No .. he hasn't, although I have asked Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl some zombies are too dangerous for Einstein criminal cult and Master Tom Roberts avoids them. For instance, there is a Sam Wormley who used to refer too often to "speed", "velocity" and the difference between them, thereby exposing unnecessarily one of the greatest confusions introduced by Einstein criminal cult. In the end Master Tom Roberts was forced to give some explanation to Sam Wormley: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...90046b3bff4c1? but that was the last time Master Tom Roberts paid any attention to this particular zombie. Now Sam Wormley means nothing to Master Tom Roberts and I am afraid you are in the same group. The situation of Dono, Gisse and Moortel is somewhat different - Master Tom Roberts may still reply if their questions are not too silly. I am not sure why this "Muddypaws" appeared as the author of the above message but anyway the text is mine. I would like to call zombies' attention to Master Tom Roberts' extremely important text: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d18321ed514ad2 Tom Roberts: "For length contraction, first think of holding a rod with length L in 3-d Euclidean space, and apply Cartesian coordinates {X,Y,Z} to space. With the rod along the X axis, its length PROJECTED onto the X-axis is L, and projected onto the Y- and Z- axes is 0. Now rotate it 45 degrees around the Y axis: its length PROJECTED onto the X axis is now 0.707*L -- do you claim that the rod has "contracted"??? No; you easily recognize that the rod has ROTATED, and that the length of the rod is unaffected by such a rotation. PRECISELY the same thing happens in SR for a moving rod, but for motion along the X axis it is a rotation in the X-T plane, and this is strange to people like yourself not acustomed to thinking of time as a geometrical axis. It is also a hyperbolic rotation, which makes it even stranger (but I'll ignore that).... The way one projects onto the X axis in the X-T plane is to make measurements simultaneously according to the time coordinate of the T axis. Note that if an observer is going to make a measurement of the length of a MOVING rod, she should clearly mark both ends of the rod SIMULTANEOUSLY and then measure the distance between the marks. In SR this is simply a PROJECTION of the "length"[#] of the rod onto her spatial coordinates (here X). So in a very real sense the historical name "length contraction" is unfortunate, and confuses many people; yourself included. "Length projection" would be a MUCH better name, and would avoid much confusion. This _IS_ just a geometrical projection." It is clear that, according to Master Tom Roberts, there is no length contraction - there is only "length projection". Master Tom Roberts is the Albert Einstein of our generation and when he says there is no length contraction, then it is absolutely true there is no length contraction. That is the reason why Master Tom Roberts never resolves any length contraction problems: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...724e78e78dde0? So zombies never ask Master Tom Roberts to explain length contraction. If you do, Master Tom Roberts will hate you and may place you in the "dangerous zombies" group, where he has already placed Jeckyl and Sam Wormley. That sounds exactly like my understanding of "length contraction" .. informally that the proper length is unvaried, but the object rotates in space-time. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Muddypaws" wrote in message
ps.com... Jeckyl wrote: "Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 28, 4:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: Jeckyl wrote: "Tom Roberts" wrote in message et... [The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C). So they remain different theories in this view.] Can you please explain the differences between LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) and LR (Lorentz Theory) and SR I cannot find anything externally to these newsgroup about LET being different to LT. Some here say it is, and others that it is just a different acronym for the same thing Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Master Tom Roberts has already explained this (you don't STUDY enough): No .. he hasn't, although I have asked Jeckyl Jeckyl Jeckyl Changing nicks are you pentcho? [snip more nonsense] |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On 27 Jun, 18:04, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message t... sean wrote: 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. Then you have nothing -- the mirrors and detector are essential parts of both experiments. 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. But the two experiments measure different aspects of the light. And theres only two options. [...] It is almost never correct to argue via exhaustive enumeration. There is a third possibility: the measurements of the two experiments differ because the configurations of the two apparatuses are different. shrug Sean never did understand that concept. Tom, I haven't been following the thread but in case you haven't realised, Sean has an unusual understanding of the phrase "source dependent". This animation shows what his model would mean for two photons emitted from Earth and Mars, both aimed at Sirius. Relative to the source, they move in a straight line at speed c, tracking the orbital motion of their respective source planets: http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_Planets.html You might find that helps you understand his YouTube videos which I'm sure he will mention. I havent seen this latest version of yours george , but if its like your other version from a few months ago then your pic has light travelling away from the moving source in straight lines relative to the source. And contrary to the false assumption you try to pretend here that light in fact isnt observed to travel at c in straight lines from any source ,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away from a source at c . MMx refutes SR and supports classical. And If you thought about it my understanding of classical emmision theory is the only one. Think about it. Doesnt classical theory stipulate that light propagates away from any source in straight lines at c relative to the source?? Surely you cant deny this well accepted tenet. If this is true then if the source moves relative to another object/observor then light would *have to* appear to be dragged by the source from the independent observors pov. Otherwise,...in any frame other than the sources frame ,..If light left the source and then moved away in a path INDEPENDENT of the sources motion,.. then in the source frame, the light wouldnt be moving away from the source at c in straight lines wouldnt it? So what you call my `unusual` understanding of classical is in fact the only possible understanding of a clasical model. If you dont agree then show me where any model of classical emmision theory stipulates that light travels away from a source at variable speeds and in curved paths as you would incorrectly have us believe classical theory predicts. The fact is that you have no proof that your above illustration of classical is incorrect. If you think you have,.. then cite the observations that prove that light does not travel away from any source at c in straight lines. You cant as this proof you imagine does not exist. Sean www.gammarayburst.com For sagnac explained by classical theory see... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"sean" wrote in message
oups.com... ,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. As SR says So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away from a source at c . Of course it does MMx refutes SR No .. it doesn't and supports classical. It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the MMx results. And If you thought about it my understanding of classical emmision theory is the only one. Think about it. Doesnt classical theory stipulate that light propagates away from any source in straight lines at c relative to the source?? Just like SR predicts Surely you cant deny this well accepted tenet. If this is true then if the source moves relative to another object/observor then light would *have to* appear to be dragged by the source from the independent observors pov. Otherwise,...in any frame other than the sources frame ,..If light left the source and then moved away in a path INDEPENDENT of the sources motion,.. then in the source frame, the light wouldnt be moving away from the source at c in straight lines wouldnt it? It does in SR. So what you call my `unusual` understanding of classical is in fact the only possible understanding of a clasical model. Classical model says the speed of light is not always c .. it is observer / source dependant If you dont agree then show me where any model of classical emmision theory stipulates that light travels away from a source at variable speeds The point is .. different observers will see it as having different speeds to c in classical models. We dont' have evidence of light travelling at less or more than c. and in curved paths as you would incorrectly have us believe classical theory predicts. The fact is that you have no proof that your above illustration of classical is incorrect. If you think you have,.. then cite the observations that prove that light does not travel away from any source at c in straight lines. That is not the point of contention .. it is the speed observers moving relative to the source will measure the light as travelling at. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Jeckyl wrote:
"sean" wrote in message oups.com... ,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. As SR says So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away from a source at c . Of course it does MMx refutes SR No .. it doesn't and supports classical. It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the MMx results. Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson- Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. However if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes special relativity and proves the validity of the emission theory. But you do not know whether the miracles are too idiotic because Master Tom Roberts explains nothing? Then I am telling you they ARE too idiotic and Master Tom Roberts will confirm this sooner or later: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...724e78e78dde0? Pentcho Valev |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote: "sean" wrote in message roups.com... ,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. As SR says So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away from a source at c . Of course it does MMx refutes SR No .. it doesn't and supports classical. It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the MMx results. Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson- Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. However if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes special relativity What the hell does that mean? There is no version of SR without those effects. There is no version of SR which is refuted by M-M. Can you describe this theory that you think is SR and is refuted by M-M? What are its postulates? What does it say about transformation of velocities? - Randy |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Randy Poe wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: Jeckyl wrote: "sean" wrote in message roups.com... ,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. As SR says So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away from a source at c . Of course it does MMx refutes SR No .. it doesn't and supports classical. It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the MMx results. Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson- Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. However if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes special relativity What the hell does that mean? There is no version of SR without those effects. Of course. Conclusion: SR is too idiotic. Pentcho Valev |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com... : On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: : Jeckyl wrote: : "sean" wrote in message : roups.com... : ,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light : does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. : : As SR says : : So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation : Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away : from a source at c . : : Of course it does : : MMx refutes SR : : No .. it doesn't : : and supports classical. : : It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the : MMx results. : : Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson- : Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the : presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. : : Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, : no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. Any liar can say it, but can you prove it? Tell us, incoherent raving lunatic, how SR predicted MMX years before SR was written. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Jul 3, 10:19 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson- Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. The Voigt transform and infinite others also support MMX. However if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes special relativity What the hell does that mean? There is no version of SR without those effects. There is no version of SR which is refuted by M-M. Under the Lorentz transform, the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity results in relative simultaneity. In doing so, it would not allow any consistent interference patterns. Therefore, the interferometer uner MMX should not have worked. Since MMX works, therefore relative simultaneity must be wrong. Therefore, the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity must also be wrong. Therefore, the Loretnz transform must be wrong as well. Finally, SR being merely an interpretation to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform must be wrong too. Can you describe this theory that you think is SR and is refuted by M-M? What are its postulates? What does it say about transformation of velocities? The velocity transform of the Voigt transform is exactly the same as the Lorentz transform. You can also find other transforms that also gives the same velocity transform. shrug |
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 |