GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

On Jun 21, 1:44 am, Don Stockbauer wrote:
Too bad relativity is such a small subset of all human knowledge.

Without relativity. The sun won't shine (no E=mc^2). Without
relativity. Our human bodies can't exist because if there are
no spins (which resulted from relativity), all the electrons would
act like bosons and all would collapse to the lowest possible
energy states hence no molecules would form. A world without
relativity will be an empty world... actually emptiness can't even
exist because emptiness is also a thing from there being space
thanks to spacetime being produced by the Big Bang. So
Relativity rules the world. Without relativity, there would be
no Pentcho Valev to disturb the world. No nothing. So once
in a while. Let's have a moment of silence and pay tribute to
relativity and the genius who discovered it. They accelerate
human science to light years beyond newtonian. An extraordinary
task that still left many newtonians behind like most crackpots in
this group.

Pegs

Tom Roberts wrote:
Craig Markwardt wrote:
sean writes:
[about SR in non-=inertial frames]
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?

This is quite basic and has been known for over a century. Accelerated
frames are treated in all intermediate textbooks on relativity. For
example, here's an old post to this newsgroup from 1998: "The Speed of
light in an Accelerated System":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2?dmode=source

Roberts Roberts hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult much cleverer
than you simply apply Einstein's equivalence principle in the
following way:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4

However in Einstein zombie world the destruction of human rationality
is so advanced that introducing a small confusion into the otherwise
correct analysis is fatal and no physicist would ever find it suitable
to ask the simple question: What speed of light does the receiver
under the tower (or the accelerated receiver) measure? Judging from
your words:

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

the receiver will measure a speed of light greater than c but then the
respective equation should be given, and here is the awful problem.
You say Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is wrong but do not
give the correct equation. Give the correct equation Roberts Roberts.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev writes:
Craig Markwardt wrote:
.... deletions ...
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."
.... etc ...

The papers you refer to all discuss long-range light travel
experiments. Which is to say, *how much time* does it take for light
to travel some large distance in the solar system. But that begs the
question, did the light travel more slowly, or did the distance
increase? GR, being a theory of the curvature of space, prefers the
later interpretation. One can "interpret" the behavior as a change in
the distant speed of light. These interpretations do not negate the
actual formulation.

CM

"Androcles" writes:

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in message
...


: No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c,
: regardless of the emitter frame.

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"

Apparently the phrase, "when measured in the stationary system," is
lost on you.

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...singSpeed.html

CM

On Jun 20, 11:20 pm, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
Pentcho Valev writes:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_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."

The papers you refer to all discuss long-range light travel
experiments.

yawn

Which is to say, *how much time* does it take for light
to travel some large distance in the solar system.

Another yawn

But that begs the
question, did the light travel more slowly, or did the distance
increase?

That is a good question. I am fully awake.

GR, being a theory of the curvature of space, prefers the
later interpretation.

Why?

One can "interpret" the behavior as a change in
the distant speed of light.

How?

These interpretations do not negate the
actual formulation.

What?

On Jun 21, 3:20 am, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
Pentcho Valev writes:
Craig Markwardt wrote:
... deletions ...
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/OntologyOUP_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."

... etc ...

The papers you refer to all discuss long-range light travel
experiments. Which is to say, *how much time* does it take for light
to travel some large distance in the solar system. But that begs the
question, did the light travel more slowly, or did the distance
increase? GR, being a theory of the curvature of space, prefers the
later interpretation. One can "interpret" the behavior as a change in
the distant speed of light. These interpretations do not negate the
actual formulation.

CM-

Indeed. An expanding {or contracting] dielectric will
mathematically *appear* to change the speed of light
over a long distance. But when the mass of the
ISM is considered, there is no violation c.

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html

It could be argued that the theory does not clearly
distinguish between "space" and the dielectric matter
that comprises the ISM but the constituants were
likely little known in 1920.

Sue...

On Jun 20, 9:59 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Craig Markwardt wrote:
sean writes:
[about SR in non-=inertial frames]
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?

This is quite basic and has been known for over a century. Accelerated
frames are treated in all intermediate textbooks on relativity. For
example, here's an old post to this newsgroup from 1998: "The Speed of
light in an Accelerated System":http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/dd9168f6ec3...

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.

SR can be applied to non-inertial frames just as accurately as to
inertial frames. This is more complicated, and elementary books avoid it
due to the complexity, but there is no problem -- it's just math.

It is *this* math:

if you know about complex numbers you will notice
that the space part enters as if it were imaginary

R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the essence of the
fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry - that space enters in with
the imaginary factor i relative to time.
http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/...edoflight.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node126.html

....not the improper tranforms that result from the graphical
misrepresentations on Ned Wright's relativity pages.


Well, there's one additional postulate known as the "clock
hypothesis" -- that clocks are unaffected by acceleration
(as long as the clock is not damaged). This is known to be
valid for at least some clocks up to accelerations of 10^18 g.

No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c,
regardless of the emitter frame.

Only for inertial frames.

SR 1920 makes no connection between inertia and light
except by mass energy/equivalence.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html

Do you suppose Einstein found some good drugs between
1905 and 1920 and started making really stupid changes
to his theory and Wienberg is totally off his rocker in writing:

A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html

Sue...


Tom Roberts

On Jun 20, 9:49 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Just what is SR's "domain of applicability" ?

All physical phenomena in regions for which the effects of gravitation
are either negligible or are canceled [#] to better than the resolutions
of the appropriate measurements.

That would be nowhere in this universe as I read Einstein's
Nobel lecture. He substitutes the Einstein-Mach principle
for Newton's inerital ether so any particle that exhibits
a reaction force is doing so, because of gravity.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...n-lecture.html


[#] Gravity itself cannot be canceled, but its effects
on (say) a laser can be canceled by putting the laser
on a table. Effects on the light of course remain....

Of course for most things some additional theory beyond SR is required
to explain or model the phenomena (e.g. for light one needs a theory of
electromagnetism); but all such theories of modern physics have SR as a
cornerstone, so this is still within the domain of SR.

The 1920 paper seems to make a much safer statement:

"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Sue...


Tom Roberts

On Jun 7, 7:57 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity [...]

The error is in Valev's gross misunderstanding of relativity, not in
relativity itself. And it is almost certainly not his only error.

Einstein learned something important between 1905 (SR) and 1915 (GR),
and the rest of the physics community has also learned it.

Tom,
The rest of the physics community has NOT learned it. The reason
they have not is the glut of ~teachers~ that will prop up the
absurdities
in the 1905 paper for the sake of a parlor trick rather than
direct students to the 1920 paper and 1923 lecture which
resolves the conflicts (only by reference in the 1923 lecture)
with time dependant Maxwell's equations.



Valev REFUSES
to learn it: SR is an APPROXIMATION to GR, and that postulate holds only
in SR; in GR the constancy of the vacuum speed of light is limited to
local measurements.

If no one ever describes what the "vacuum" is and adheres to
a faulty model of light propagation the only thing that can
be learned is a parlor trick, far inferior to the Missing dollar
paradox
for entertainment value and usless for unifying gravity with
electrodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html

http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html

Sue...

shrug

Tom Roberts

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).

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.
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.
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
If you know so much about SR then answer this question. I bet you wont
be able to.
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?

If you can answer this then Ill show you how SR cannot predict both
sagnac and
MMx without contradicting itself. If you cant answer this then youll
have shown us that either you dont know anythying about SR or,.. you
have worked out that SR gives several and contradictory predictions to
the same setup.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
For a complete and correct analysis of how SR cannot explain sagnac
and MMX see
the sagnac simulations at...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb