|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Jun 17, 7:39 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
[...] Not at all. It can be generalised .. guess what its called then? I'll guess it was not any of A. Einstein's work because his 1923 lecture list failure to generalisation with EM (light) a shortcoming and S. Weinberg explained several avenues ignorged which might have led to a unification. Einsteins mistakes http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html Hilbert and Noether seemed to have a little problem also in finding generality where energy isn't conservered. In general relativity, on the other hand, it has no meaning to speak of a definite localization of energy. One may define a quantity which is divergence free analogous to the energy-momentum density tensor of special relativity, but it is gauge dependent: i.e., it is not covariant under general coordinate transformations. Consequently the fact that it is divergence free does not yield a meaningful law of local energy conservation. Thus one has, as Hilbert saw it, in such theories `improper energy theorems.' http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/art...g/noether.html Sue... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:47:28 -0700, THE_ONE wrote:
There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL CORRECTNESS in Einstein's relativity: Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body ". That's just LET....in which case the aether medium provides the natural reference for light speed. All bodies are 4 dimensional. Bodies spin. If a body is to release a photon, then it will do so with the result being the photon traveling across empty space at the velocity of c. When a body is in motion across space, it is being rotated within Space-Time. The faster it moves across space, the more it extends across Time, and the less it extends across Space. This gives the appearance of there being a spatial length contraction. Also during such an event, the axis of a spinning body also begins to extend more across Time, and less across Space, for it too is being rotated across Space-Time. This then effects the velocity of a photon released from such a spinning body. The change of the photons spatial velocity is proportional to the spatial velocity of the moving body. Ex. in the forward direction, the photons velocity becomes c - v. This is then combined with the velocity of the moving body that released that photon. ( c - v [photon] ) + ( v [moving body] ) = c. Therefore, no matter what the velocity is of a moving body, it will still release a photon in such a manner that the photon will be in motion at a c velocity relative to an open space. http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
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. And scientifically this has to mean that the rotation of earth does effect the speed of light during any known observation like MMx. You are excessively naive. Yes the lab is rotating, yes SOME instruments can discern that rotation (locally), but MOST experiments cannot, and the MMX is in this latter set. Yet SR bases its predictions on the assumption that the rotation of the earth is NOT measureable during the course of the experiment. No. repeating a mistake does not make it right. A competent application of SR to the MMX experiment shows that the rotation is not observable BY THAT APPARATUS, and thus the rotation can indeed be neglected without significantly affecting the results. 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. 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 Tom Roberts |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
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. And scientifically this has to mean that the rotation of earth does effect the speed of light during any known observation like MMx. You are excessively naive. Yes the lab is rotating, yes SOME instruments can discern that rotation (locally), but MOST experiments cannot, and the MMX is in this latter set. Yet SR bases its predictions on the assumption that the rotation of the earth is NOT measureable during the course of the experiment. No. repeating a mistake does not make it right. A competent application of SR to the MMX experiment..... Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." So Roberts Roberts does the "competent application of SR to the MMX experiment" involve the introduction of the light postulate and the idiocies (time dilation, length contraction etc.) based on it? But you do not like the light postulate do you Roberts Roberts: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...32844f0766cea? Tom Roberts: "While the constancy of the speed of light was important in the historical development of SR, I agree it has no logical place as a postulate of SR. Einstein's second postulate can be replaced by any of a number of suitable postulates, of which I like this one best: There is a finite upper bound on the speed of propagation of information." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...4dc146100e32c? 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)." Pentcho Valev |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com... Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment: Irrelevant .. emmisions theory only manages to explain a subset of what SR predicts (and is observed) .. it not a good alternative. [snip Pentcho's weird obsession with Tom, who he thinks is called Robert] |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Jeckyl wrote: "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com... Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment: Irrelevant .. emmisions theory only manages to explain a subset of what SR predicts (and is observed). Is that what your masters teach you? They may be joking. For instance, when Master Tom Roberts says: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...4dc146100e32c? 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)." he is certainly joking. Master Tom Roberts is not so silly and could not say such things seriously. Do you agree? Pentcho Valev |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com... Jeckyl wrote: "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com... Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment: Irrelevant .. emmisions theory only manages to explain a subset of what SR predicts (and is observed). Is that what your masters teach you? They may be joking. [snip completely irrelvant rely] |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On 17 Jun, 00:01, Dono wrote:
On Jun 8, 5:42 am, sean wrote: On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" wrote: "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message roups.com... There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error? http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" is FALSE. Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true. Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary? Michaelson- Morley. In this experiment light is emitted at c relative to the emitting body. Proof is that if light were not emitted at c relative to the emitting body then the observations would have shown that on one path the light would be travelling at a different speed than the other. This isnt observed. So the only scientific and logical conclusion one can make is that MMx shows us that light is emitted at c relative to the source in all directions. Something you as a relativista illogically refuse to accept. Seanwww.gammarayburst.com For proof that sagnac and MM cannot be explained by the creationist style theory of SR see sagnac simulations at...http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb Nonsense, you don't even begin to understand the explanation to the Sagnac experiment. I gave you a couple of links, try reading on it before posting crap.- Hide quoted text - Id say your posts contain the most c**p. In fact your name is appropriate as you dont seem to know, Dono! And your urls are unsubstantiated nonsense conposed by crackpots. So my advice is dont refer to them. Refer to my excellent simulations at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb to see how classical theory only can explain both sagnac and MMx . 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 . 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). Even a pseudoscientist like yourself should be able to see this inherent contradiction in SR. Sean www.gammarayburst.com |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
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 . |
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 |