GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR 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"

is FALSE. Other mistakes, camouflages, plagiarisms etc. can be
regarded as secondary. If the scientific community wants to get rid of
Einstein's relativity (there are signs showing that it does), it
should first replace the false principle of constancy of the speed of
light with the true principle of variability of the speed of light and
draw all the consequences, even if, in the end, this turns out to be
an "awful" transition from Einstein to Newton. In the absence of an
explicit and universally accepted replacement, any anti-Einstein or
beyond-Einstein activities can only consolidate Einstein criminal cult
and prolong the agony.

Pentcho Valev

What about the error that something must have mass to have energy ?

-y

On Jun 7, 8:38 am, Y wrote:
What about the error that something must have mass to have energy ?

-y

you should be thinking about photons : mass=0 and energy=hbar*omega.
Does E=mc2 apply ?
Max Abraham uses this Einstein expression to derive the momentum of
light... which is a controversed formulation...
So if somebody have an idea...

On Jun 7, 3:35 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[...]
draw all the consequences, even if, in the end, this turns out to be
an "awful" transition from Einstein to Newton. In the absence of an
explicit and universally accepted replacement, any anti-Einstein or
beyond-Einstein activities can only consolidate Einstein criminal cult

and prolong the agony.

Pentcho Valev

If the Einstein's relativity if retired, you'll have to find something
else to complain about. Better the devil you know...


Sue...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.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. See
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary?

Or are you just posting so you can reply to yourself again?

On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

oups.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.
Sean
www.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

"sean" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

oups.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.

MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR .. as you should know.

On 10 Jun, 15:56, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"sean" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

groups.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.

MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR .. as you should know.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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?
Sean
see this url for a simulaion showing how classical theory can
explain sagnac and MMx...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb

sean writes:
....
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.

SR doesn't make any predictions about non-inertial frames. On the
other hand, a frame co-rotating with an earth laboratory is nearly
inertial at any one instant in time.

CM

"sean" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 10 Jun, 15:56, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"sean" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

groups.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.

MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR .. as you should
know.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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?

Its a vert close approximation to one .. dummy. The results of MM is
completely compatible with, and supports, SR