GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Pentcho Valev
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
Y
-y
salim....@gmail.com
> 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...
Sue...
[...]
> 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...
Jeckyl
news:1181198111.0...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.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/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary?
Or are you just posting so you can reply to yourself again?
Eduardo Fuctardo
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181198111.0...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
"I, Pedro Valve Knobber, be a stupid caps-lock google-poster"'
Tom Roberts
> 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. 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. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
OK Roberts Roberts I agree Einstein criminal cult has learned
something but then let us analyse this something:
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 tjro...@lucent.com
Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev agree with you Roberts Roberts and
additionally claim that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
For the accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime, the application
of the equivalence principle converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v, where
v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer.
Roberts Roberts, do you accept the elaboration on your excellent
analysis made by Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev? If you do not
accept the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v offered by Albert
Einstein and Pentcho Valev, please Roberts Roberts give the correct
equations that describe how the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential, and also how the speed of light varies with
the relative speed of the light source and the accelerated observer in
Minkowski spacetime.
Pentcho Valev
Jeckyl
> Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev agree with you Roberts Roberts and
> additionally claim that the speed of light varies with the
> gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
> For the accelerated observer in Minkowski spacetime, the application
> of the equivalence principle converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c+v, where
> v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer.
You keep saying that, and despite request to do so, have not shown that that
is actually the case.. can you show your derivation of this?
> Roberts Roberts, do you accept the elaboration on your excellent
> analysis made by Albert Einstein and Pentcho Valev? If you do not
> accept the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v offered by Albert
> Einstein and Pentcho Valev, please Roberts Roberts give the correct
> equations that describe how the speed of light varies with the
> gravitational potential, and also how the speed of light varies with
> the relative speed of the light source and the accelerated observer in
> Minkowski spacetime.
Which accelerated observed and moving light source are we talking about
here?
Why do you want Tom to show this .. don't you have the equations yourself?
And what's this stupid Roberts Roberts nonsense .. you know it simply makes
you appear even more ridiculous, don't you?
sean
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1181198111.0...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.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.
>
>
> Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary?
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
Pentcho Valev
Roberts Roberts if you accept the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v
offered by Albert Einstein and me, you would be able to elaborate by
proving the following:
Tom Roberts: Since non-locally the speed of light varies in accordance
with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), locally it varies in accordance with
the equation c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source
and the observer.
Then you will join our group and the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c
+v will be called equations of Albert Einstein, Pentcho Valev and Tom
Roberts. Of course, you may decide to stick to your previous discovery
which can be expressed in this way:
Tom Roberts: Non-locally the speed of light does vary but NOT in
accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which is WRONG.
Accordingly, locally the speed of light is constant.
Pentcho Valev
Jeckyl
news:1181306564....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1181198111.0...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.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.
Jeckyl
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Pentcho Valev
Replying to yourself again? .. poor little pentcho
Art Deco
Always a primary kooksign.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
Darth Deco, Sith Lord of alt.astronomy
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite
rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and
ice cold beer."
-- Brad Guth, bigoted racist
"You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco."
--Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something"
sean
> "sean" <jaymose...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - 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
Craig Markwardt
sean <jaymo...@hotmail.com> 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
Henri Wilson
wrote:
The only thing Einstein learnt was a devious way to formulate LET in reverse
and make it appear to be his own ingenious theory....
>Tom Roberts
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Jeckyl
Its a vert close approximation to one .. dummy. The results of MM is
sean
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very close has another meaning .. its called fudging it or fiddling
the data. You wouldnt accept an alternative theory if it said its
predictions werent exactly but pretty close to correct would you?
Sean
sean
<craigm...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
> sean <jaymose...@hotmail.com> writes:
For a scientificaly correct explanation of how sagnac and MMx are
consistent with classical theory and inconsistent with sR, dont go to
the incorrect and unsubstantiated explanations at Ned wrights page or
wikipedia, go to...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
Here I use substantiated observations. from MMX and sagnac. Not
made up imaginary observations as the others do.
> > 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.
I never said SR didnt predict it to be c in all inertial frames.
I said `non inertial frames`.
And regarding "where" I get this prediction.. Go to neds or wiki
pages with their SR simulations of sagnac. Here they say that
light travels at variable speeds in the rotating source frame.
If you dont believe me LOOK AT their simulations.
Its done with the source rotating in the so called `inertial` frame
(therefore the source is a non inertial rotating frame like MMx)
and the light speed at c in the inertial frame.
If you thought about it you would realise that Ned and wiki
are saying SR predicts that light must travel at variable
speeds in non inertial frames. Its there in their simulations.
Id like to also point out that in fact Ned and wiki are so
ignorant of the facts that even their so called `inertial` lab
frame isnt inertial. Because in fact the lab itself is rotating
around the earths axis. We know this, not least because we
can measure this rotation .
> 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
It isnt inertial though . Nearly isnt good enough. Especially when
ring gyros can detect this rotation. If we can detect the rotation
of MMx then its a big enough rotation to mean that the frame isnt
inertial. It would only be inertial if we couldnt detect rotation.
So MMx isnt inertial and it cannot be used as proof of SR. In
fact if SR predicts that light always travels at c in all inertial
frames then MMx conflicts with this prediction. Because if light
were at c in a frame other than the MMx source then a translation
of that light speed to the non inertial rotating MMx frame would mean
that light would have to be travelling at variable speeds in all
directions in the MMx frame, (according to SR)
But this isnt observed in MMx .Its observed to travel at constant
speeds an at c in all directions in the non inertial frame, not
any inertial frame that SR predicts should be the case.
Therefore MMx observations are not consistent with SR predictions.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
for a complete and accurate explanation of how MMx and Sagnac can
be explained by classical `aether` theory go to...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
Dono
I looked at your website, I read your claims. They are both wrong.
The Sagnac experiment , while executed in a clearly non-inertial frame
(because it is rotating) agrees with the predictions of SR/GR. For
calculations using either formalism, look here:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
and here:
So, your claims are wrong.
Jeckyl
Yes .. it is
Jeckyl
We are limited in our experimental apparatus .. it is impractical (if not
impossible) to get the apparatus into a frame of reference that is perfectly
free of all gravitational potential so the SR can be tested directly.
But a laboratory is close enough for the experiment. GR tells us the local
speed of light will be c anyway, and for the duration of the experiment any
change in velocity of the apparatus is negligible.
The problem is not fudging correct data .. its interpreting an imperfect
experiment within allowed margins of error. Science does that all the time
.. and MM supports SR (which says there should be a null results and the
results are null within the margin of error of the experiment).
sean
> "sean" <jaymose...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
>
> - Show quoted text -
assuming
that the experiment does not rotate during observation or as you try
to argue.
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. And scientifically
this has to mean that the rotation of earth does effect the speed of
light during any known observation like MMx.
Yet SR bases its predictions on the assumption that the rotation
of the earth is NOT measureable during the course of the experiment.
Seeing as ring gyros contradict this asssumption,.. then
scientifically
SR`s predictions are not valid as they are based on assumptions that
are in fact contradicted by observation.
So for your SR argument to be succesfull you have to prove that the
earths rotation is not measureable during observation. And as any
scientist would have to admit... Earths rotation IS measureble during
observation.. Thus nullifying SR.
So. Ill accept your SR argument if you supply
ring gyro measurements that show that earth does not rotate .
Seeing as galileo shot down this argument centuries ago...
Id say ,... you cannnot supply proof that earths rotation
is not measureable.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
Jeckyl
I don't recall saying that.
But it is a relatively small effect .. the margins for error take that into
accont
[snip whole lots of waffle about measuring rotation of the earth that really
doesn't make a difference]
SR predicts what happens in an ideal situation .. the laboratory is not
ideal. However it is a good enough approximation and any discrepancies can
be taken into account in the error bounds.
MM in no way invalidates or contradicts SR .. the 'null' result is
completely consistent with SR.
Craig Markwardt
sean <jaymo...@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt
> <craigm...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
> > sean <jaymose...@hotmail.com> writes:
...
> Here I use substantiated observations. from MMX and sagnac. Not
> made up imaginary observations as the others do.
> > > 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.
> I never said SR didnt predict it to be c in all inertial frames.
> I said `non inertial frames`.
Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions
about non-inertial frames, your claim is erroneous, and thus the
conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant.
CM
sean
wright pages they clearly make the claim that light does not travel
at c in the non inertial frame in the SR model. But Im glad you seem
to agree with me that Ned Wright and Wiki got it wrong. As we both
know light can and does travel at c always in the non inertial frame
as long as thats also the source frame. Sagnac and MM show us this.And
in fact as sagnac and MM show us,.. light does not neccesarily travel
at c in the inertial frame. Unless that also is the source frame. So
in fact SR may not officially make predictions about what light does
in a non inertial frame...but its prediction that it always travels at
c in the inertial frame is not consistent with observation.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
For an correct explanation of how sagnac and MMx can be only explained
by classical and not SR see the sagnac simulations at...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
sean
> "sean" <jaymose...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
For a correct description of how sagnac can be explained by classical
theory see...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
You said `negligible`.
> But it is a relatively small effect .. the margins for error take that into
> accont
Its `big` enough to effect a fringe shift in sagnac. THerefore it must
be big
enough to effect a fringe shift in MMx . But it isnt measured in MMx.
Why?
Because in fact light is travelling at c in both the sagnac source
frame
and the MMx source frame. And this is what classical theory predicts.
Which is why classical is more succesful than SR. Classical predicts
both Sagnac and MMx whereas SR predicts only one or the other.
For instance if SR predicts that light speed difference on the two
paths are below measurement thresholds in MMx, then it must also then
predict that light speed differences or path differences are not
detectable
in a 24 hour rotating source in a ring gyro.
But this isnt whats observed. In fact a 24 hour cycle rotating source
in a
ring gyro is detectable . Even though SR just predicted its not
detectable.
So SR cannot predict results for one experiment without being unable
to
predict the correct results for the other.
You see the big scam about SR is that it predicts two contradictory
results
for light in non inertial frames. In sagnac it predicts that the light
travels
at variable speeds in the non inertial rotating source frame and that
even
over 24 hour cycles this is a big enough difference to effect a
measureable
fringe shift.
But when it comes to MMX the opposite is true for SR. It says a
rotating source with a 24 hour cycle does not effect a measureable
fringe
shift. You cant have it both ways.
> [snip whole lots of waffle about measuring rotation of the earth that really
> doesn't make a difference]
>
> SR predicts what happens in an ideal situation .. the laboratory is not
> ideal. However it is a good enough approximation and any discrepancies can
> be taken into account in the error bounds.
Wrong. In the lab situation in sagnac a 24 hour rotation of a light
source
is detectable.Why then should the very same 24 hour hour rotation of
the
source in MMx not be detectable? Both sources are in a lab and both
rotate
once every 24 hours. Therefore both should either give no detection
or both give a detection.
> MM in no way invalidates or contradicts SR .. the 'null' result is
> completely consistent with SR.- Hide quoted text -
Not if you consider that SR predicts that light should be variable in
the
MMx source frame. And it is not observed to be variable. Therefore
SR predictions are not consistent with MMX observations
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
Don Stockbauer
> On 15 Jun, 14:45, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > "sean" <jaymose...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1181913907....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> For a correct description of how sagnac can be explained by classical
Boy. That was sure complicated.
sean
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well I put it more simply earlier but here it is again...
SR predicts that light from a source that is rotating must travel at
variable speeds relative to the source . But in the MMx which is an
experiment where light from a rotating source travels and returns
down two paths, the light is observed to be travelling at the same
speed on both paths contrary to what SR predicts.
But what Jeckyl then was trying to argue was that the difference in
speed
on these two paths in MMx was too small too measure because the earths
rotation was too slow too measure .
And to that point I responded that if the earths rotation is too
slow to measure then why is it that we can measure its rotation using
fringe shifts in ring gyros?
In other words Jeckyls and relativistas intention that its too slow
to measure is not backed up by observation.
You can see this illustrated at..
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
Sean
Jeckyl
>> > SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by
>> > assuming
>> > that the experiment does not rotate during observation or as you try
>> > to argue.
>> > You say... `that this rotation is not measureable during
>> > observation`.
>> I don't recall saying that.
> You said `negligible`.
That's right
[snip crap]
>> MM in no way invalidates or contradicts SR .. the 'null' result is
>> completely consistent with SR.- Hide quoted text -
> Not if you consider that SR predicts that light should be variable in
> the
> MMx source frame.
> And it is not observed to be variable. Therefore
> SR predictions are not consistent with MMX observations
> Sean
> www.gammarayburst.com
Yes, they are .. you're simply wrong.
THE_ONE
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 ".
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
sean
> "sean" <jaymose...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1181990937.6...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by
> >> > assuming
> >> > that the experiment does not rotate during observation or as you try
> >> > to argue.
> >> > You say... `that this rotation is not measureable during
> >> > observation`.
> >> I don't recall saying that.
> > You said `negligible`.
>
> That's right
You only pretend its neglible to back up a theory (SR) that cant
explain both sagnac and MMx
> >> MM in no way invalidates or contradicts SR .. the 'null' result is
> >> completely consistent with SR.- Hide quoted text -
> > Not if you consider that SR predicts that light should be variable in
> > the
> > MMx source frame.
> > And it is not observed to be variable. Therefore
> > SR predictions are not consistent with MMX observations
> > Sean
> >www.gammarayburst.com
>
> Yes, they are .. you're simply wrong.
your (incorrect and unsubstantiated) claim Im wrong. Not handwaving
rhetoric.
Sean www.gammarayburst.com
For simulations showing how sagnac and MMx can be explained by
classical theory only, see...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
Dono
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.
Androcles
"Craig Markwardt" <crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:m2r6od5...@phloem.local...
:
it is fuckin' useless.
Jeckyl
news:07ddi.179950$4a....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Not at all. It can be generalised .. guess what its called then?
Sue...
[...]
>
> 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/articles/noether.asg/noether.html
Sue...
Henri Wilson
>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
Tom Roberts
> 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
Pentcho Valev
Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE
EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/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.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/29c32844f0766cea?
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.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c?
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
Jeckyl
> 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]
Pentcho Valev
Jeckyl wrote:
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1182180331.4...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.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.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c?
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
Jeckyl
>
> Jeckyl wrote:
>> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1182180331.4...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.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.
sean
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
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Even a pseudoscientist like yourself should be able to see this
> inherent contradiction in SR.
The Sagnac effect is from general relativity, shit for brains.
sean
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 .
sean
> 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.
Notice I never actually claimed that MMx is the same as sagnac
nor did I claim MMx is a ring gyro. Thats your fantasy.
However make sure you understand this.. that my central point here is
that
although the two experiments are different setups, one thing remains
the same between the two. THey both have sources that rotate
about a central axis. In other words please note... The MMx and sagnac
sources are for all scientific and practical purposes the *same*
THerefore they are both either inertial or both non inertial.
But SR says that sometimes (in sagnac) the source is non inertial
and yet other times SR claims that the source (in MMx) is inertial.!
THis is inconsistent and unscientific. Which is why I say it
shows that SR is invalid as a theory. It is not consistent when
it comes to explaining the speed of light relative to rotating
sources.
Whereas in fact classical theory is consistent. It states that light
is
always and only at c in the source frame whether it rotates or not.
And in any other frame its variable. And please note the
misinformation
supplied by likes of wikipedia and NedWright. They claim that
classical
theory cannot explain sagnac. This is a false claim as noone has ever
tried to CORRECTLY simulate sagnac with light at c in the source
frame.
I have and I can show scientifically that clasical theory can in fact
explain sagnac. Please see my sagnac 1,2 and 3 simulations at...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
If you study ned wrights sagnac explanation youll see that he
has the light at c in the lab frame and variable in the source frame.
So technically he has light travelling at two different speeds
through the fibre gyro!. Thats physically impossible as
in Neds source frame the source does not move relative to the fibre
ring. How then do you explain the fact that the light travels
at one speed clockwise and another speed anticlockwise?( Even
though the source does not moverelative to the fibre ring.)
> > 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.
Its only irrelevent if you want to fiddle the theory to validate SR.
In fact it is relevent because it shows that light has to be at
c in only ONE frame to accomadate both sagnac and MMx. And that frame
is the source frame. As classical predicts and as SR can not predict.
Dont forget SR predicts that light sometimes is not at c in the source
frame(sagnac) Whereas in fact light is never observed to be variable
in the source frame.
> > 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>
You are confused. Sometimes SR says light has to be variable in the
source frame.
THen when its convenient SR sayslight is always at c
in the source frame! Thats inconsistent pseudoscience.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
Tom Roberts
> 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.
> 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.
It is a contradiction in your PERSONAL MISCONCEPTIONS about SR. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
Sue...
> 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).
Just what is SR's "domain of applicability" ?
>
> 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).
>
[FAQs not visited because they may not apply to anything.]
Sue...
[...]
Pentcho Valev
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).
Absolutely correct Roberts Roberts:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/29c32844f0766cea?
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)."
So Roberts Roberts special relativity would explain experiments
showing that "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed
of the Lorentz transform" but also experiments showing that light in
vacuum does travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform. An
incredible theory isn't it Roberts Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
Jeckyl
I suggest you learn about SR before you make yourself look like a fool when
you criticise it from ignorance.
Jeckyl
> You are confused. Sometimes SR says light has to be variable in the
> source frame.
> THen when its convenient SR sayslight is always at c
> in the source frame! Thats inconsistent pseudoscience.
You are confused .. SR says the speed of light is the same, c, in all
inertial frames of reference.
Sue...
> "sean" <jaymose...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Can you show us which page that is on in this 1920 translation.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
Sue...
Craig Markwardt
sean <jaymo...@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 15 Jun, 16:11, Craig Markwardt
> <craigm...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
> > sean <jaymose...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt
> > > <craigm...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
> > > > sean <jaymose...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > ...
> > > Here I use substantiated observations. from MMX and sagnac. Not
> > > made up imaginary observations as the others do.
> > > > > 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.
> > > I never said SR didnt predict it to be c in all inertial frames.
> > > I said `non inertial frames`.
> >
> > Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions
> > about non-inertial frames, your claim is erroneous, and thus the
> > conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant.
> 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?
> ... But Im glad you seem
> to agree with me that Ned Wright and Wiki got it wrong.
Since the "Ned Wright and Wiki" claims are not evident, I neither
agree nor disagree.
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.
> As we both
> know light can and does travel at c always in the non inertial frame
> as long as thats also the source frame.
Huh? That is non-sensical on its face. Consider a star rotating once
per second [*]. In the rotating frame of the star -- which is a
non-inertial frame, because it is rotating -- the star is fixed. Does
light emitted from the surface of the star continue to rotate with the
star? Clearly not, since by the time the light reaches a distance of
1 A.U., it would have a rotational speed 3000 times c as seen from an
inertial frame. This would violate all we know about light, stars and
conservation of energy.
No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c,
regardless of the emitter frame.
CM
[*] say a neutron star. But it doesn't matter.
Pentcho Valev
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."
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen
der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can
find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of
Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's
derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational
potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."
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 tjro...@lucent.com
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .]
cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can
only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with
position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity
suggests that he did mean so."
Pentcho Valev
Don Stockbauer
Sue...
The 1920 SR paper doesn't relate light to to frames
as inertial or non inertial. That is consistant with
a limitation Weinberg observes:
<<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
Ned apparently still doesn't know what a space-time interval is:
<<The pair of space-time diagrams above show quintuplets
separated at birth. The middle worldline shows the quint who
stays home. The space-time diagram on the left is done from
the point of view of the middle quint. Each dot on a worldline
is a birthday party, so the middle quint is 10 years old when
they all rejoin each other, while the other quints are 6 and 8
years old. >>
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
It is correctly described by NRAO:
<< 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.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html
>
> > As we both
> > know light can and does travel at c always in the non inertial frame
> > as long as thats also the source frame.
>
> Huh? That is non-sensical on its face. Consider a star rotating once
> per second [*]. In the rotating frame of the star -- which is a
> non-inertial frame, because it is rotating -- the star is fixed. Does
> light emitted from the surface of the star continue to rotate with the
> star? Clearly not, since by the time the light reaches a distance of
> 1 A.U., it would have a rotational speed 3000 times c as seen from an
> inertial frame. This would violate all we know about light, stars and
> conservation of energy.
>
> No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c,
> regardless of the emitter frame.
Inclusion of the word inertial or non-inertial seems to
be the cause of the confusion. Your use of *all* frames seems
to clear it up for the reasons given by Weinberg.
Sue...
>
> CM
>
> [*] say a neutron star. But it doesn't matter.- Hide quoted text -
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- H. Wabnig
wrote:
(scroll down, please)
A QUESTION FOR PENTCHO VALEV:
What is the GPS Satellite clock frequency?
[ ] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)
[ ] 10.22999999545 MHz (relativistically corrected)
Mettete una crocetta
example:
[x] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)
WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER, PENTCHO VALEV?
w.
Androcles
: 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"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ignorant fuckhead.
Eric Gisse
> On 20 Jun, 09:39, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 12:17 am, sean <jaymose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > Even a pseudoscientist like yourself should be able to see this
> > > inherent contradiction in SR.
>
> > The Sagnac effect is from general relativity, shit for brains.
>
> Who cares. Same nonsense for both theories. Neither can explain
> anything.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Go be stupid somewhere else.
[snip stupidity]
Tom Roberts
> Too bad relativity is such a small subset of all human knowledge.
Actually, it subsumes an ENORMOUS fraction of our knowledge of the
physical world. Indeed, every physical theory we have is based upon
relativity. I remind you that knowledge of the physical world comes ONLY
via theories.
Tom Roberts
lead free
right
we invent ether theory, then do radios, tv etc
then relativity appears in order to say that tha
inventors were all wrong
>
> Tom Roberts
Jeckyl
news:1182349110.6...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 10:51 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> 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).
>
> Just what is SR's "domain of applicability" ?
As someone once said: you might consider readiing some
physics instead of showing the whole world how little you know
>>
>> 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).
>>
>
> [FAQs not visited because they may not apply to anything.]
So you won't even look at them. Why? .. are you afraid of what you'll
discover if you do?
Jeckyl
news:q9gei.188259$4a.5...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Yes... you are. The topic was the speed of light .. not the speed that
other objects move away from light (ie separation velocity). That does NOT
change the speed of light as measured in (ie relative to) a given reference
frame.
Tom Roberts
> 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.
[#] 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.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
>> 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.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3220d2?dmode=source
> 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.
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.
Tom Roberts
Pegs
> 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
Pentcho Valev
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > sean <jaymo...@hotmail.com> 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.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3220d2?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/~phys16/Textbook/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 tjro...@lucent.com
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
Craig Markwardt
Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> 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."
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
Craig Markwardt
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> writes:
> "Craig Markwardt" <crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:m21wg6v...@phloem.local...
>
>
> : 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/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ClosingSpeed.html
CM
Koobee Wublee
<craigm...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> 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?
Sue...
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/teaching/em/lectures/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...
Sue...
> >> [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
>
> > 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/astro12/speedoflight.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/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
Sue...
> 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/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-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
Sue...
> 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/articles/ekspong/index.html
Sue...
<shrug>
>
> Tom Roberts
sean
> 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).
>
> SR; most of them are completely inconsistent with any
> classical theory (i.e. pre-SR).
>
> > 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
sean
Take Neds page first .He says.."The speed of light is constant
independent
of the velocity of the source or the observer. Apply this to sagnac.
If the source is at v and light in that (inertial) frame is still c
then
obviously light is c+v relative to the source in that frame,
according
to Ned.
And Wiki says that in sagnac because the source/detector moves
during the passage-time the light takes to go from source to source/
detector
then the path difference is longer one way and the results are a
fringe shift.
For wiki to predict a fringe shift the light HAS to travel at c+-v
relative to the source because in the wiki example frame (called
inertial lab frame) light is at c and the source has an extra velocity
v in that same frame.Mathematically that has to be c+-v for the light
relative to the moving source in that inertial frame to make it
consistent with SR.
> > As we both
> > know light can and does travel at c always in the non inertial frame
> > as long as thats also the source frame.
>
> Huh? That is non-sensical on its face. Consider a star rotating once
> per second [*]. In the rotating frame of the star -- which is a
> non-inertial frame, because it is rotating -- the star is fixed. Does
> light emitted from the surface of the star continue to rotate with the
> star? Clearly not, since by the time the light reaches a distance of
> 1 A.U., it would have a rotational speed 3000 times c as seen from an
> inertial frame. This would violate all we know about light, stars and
> conservation of energy.
You are getting something wrong here. If a source emits light
it always is observed to propagate away from the *source* at c.
Regardless
of whether or not the *source rotates* before or after the light is
emitted.
I dont see how you can have light speeding up as it moves away
You have no proof.
> No, local measurements of the speed of light in *all* frames is c,
> regardless of the emitter frame.
You have no proof of this. In fact MMx and sagnac contradict your
claim.
Take for instance MMX. In the source (lab ) frame light is observed to
travel at c.
This can only mean that light is travelling at c+_v in any other frame
that is moving relative to the source frame. Otherwise if light were
travelling at c in a frame other than the MMx frame it would be
observed
to be travelling at c_+- v in the MMx frame, Which it isnt.
So I dont see how you can claim that light that leaves a source
travels at
many speeds at once depending on the observor as there is no
observational
proof . Can you supply any direct evidence of an observor who can
measure the speed of light from a source that is known by other
means to be travelling away from the observor?
I dont think so. Ive never heard of any.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
for simulations showing how classical theory can explain sagnac
see..
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
Tom Roberts
> On 20 Jun, 14:51, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> 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.
> 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).
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).
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".
> 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.
Case in point:
> Take Neds page first .He says.."The speed of light is constant
> independent
> of the velocity of the source or the observer. Apply this to sagnac.
> If the source is at v and light in that (inertial) frame is still c
> then obviously light is c+v relative to the source in that frame,
> according to Ned.
This is NOT "according to Ned", this is according to YOU, when you use
invalid inferences. You did not realize that Ned was discussing LOCALLY
INERTIAL FRAMES, so when you apply his statements to a ROTATING frame
you obtain nonsense.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
:
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> writes:
:
: > "Craig Markwardt" <crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in
message
: > news:m21wg6v...@phloem.local...
: >
: >
: > : 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.
Not at all, the stationary system is a frame of reference in which the
speed of light is measured to be other than c, thereby contradicting your
ridiculous assertion, apparent fuckhead.
:
: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ClosingSpeed.html
:
Wherein it says:
"Thanks for the laugh, dork"
Still, if you want to hide behind the skirts of a cretin rather than quote
Einstein as I did that's your prerogative.
Pentcho Valev
No Roberts Roberts you forget. According to the Albert Einstein of our
generation, in SR, any light ray will move in vacuum with speed c
relative to any inertial frame, but even if it moved with speed
different from c, SR would be unaffected:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/29c32844f0766cea?
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)."
That is an extremely important discovery made by the Albert Einstein
of our generation - don't forget it.
> 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).
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking is no longer etc.)! When the top of the tower emits light,
the receiver on the ground will measure its speed to be not c (you are
absolutely right about that) but, rather, c'=c(1+V/c^2), as the
original Einstein discovered in 1911 and as you Roberts Roberts, the
Albert Einstein of our generation, just qualitatively confirmed. What
is even more breathtaking is that Einstein's equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
consistent with Pound and Rebka's result f'=f(1+V/c^2). Again: Bravo
Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is
no longer etc.)!
Pentcho Valev
Henri Wilson
>http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
Sagnac is much more subtle than that.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Jeckyl
news:1182493232.2...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> No Roberts Roberts you forget. According to the Albert Einstein of our
> generation, in SR, any light ray will move in vacuum with speed c
> relative to any inertial frame, but even if it moved with speed
> different from c, SR would be unaffected:
But the wording of the second postulate would need to be revised with a
different name for what 'c' is .. as it would no longer then be the speed of
light. However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed that is
the same when form all iFoR (as given by Lorentz transforms) is not
dependant on anything acutally being able to attain that speed.
However, so far there is no evidence that light (EM radiation) does NOT
travel at that maximum speed c, nor that photons have mass .. nor is there
any reaons to think that that would happen .. so I think we are still quite
safe to describe c as the speed of light.
I'm sorry if your little mind cannot follow the logic of that.
Pentcho Valev
No it cannot. Too little mind, too great logic. But you should not
comment on this. Master Tom Roberts, very ashamed, may have abandoned
his discovery and zombies' comments could only increase the feeling of
shame. Let us demonstrate the discovery once more and if Master Tom
Roberts remains silent, you should also remain silent:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/29c32844f0766cea?
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.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c?
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
Henri Wilson
>"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1182493232.2...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> No Roberts Roberts you forget. According to the Albert Einstein of our
>> generation, in SR, any light ray will move in vacuum with speed c
>> relative to any inertial frame, but even if it moved with speed
>> different from c, SR would be unaffected:
>
>But the wording of the second postulate would need to be revised with a
>different name for what 'c' is .. as it would no longer then be the speed of
>light.
'c' is a universal constant. For an as yet unknown reason, it also happens to
be the speed of light wrt its source.
>However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed that is
>the same when form all iFoR (as given by Lorentz transforms) is not
>dependant on anything acutally being able to attain that speed.
..not very good English...
>However, so far there is no evidence that light (EM radiation) does NOT
>travel at that maximum speed c,
There is plenty. Many variable star curves accurately match predictions based
entirely on different values of c+v, as the source star moves in orbit.
OWLS from differently moving sources cannot be measured in the lab....so
Einstein knew he was safe at least during his lifetime.
>nor that photons have mass .. nor is there
>any reaons to think that that would happen .. so I think we are still quite
>safe to describe c as the speed of light.
>
>I'm sorry if your little mind cannot follow the logic of that.
It's obviously as lot bigger than yours...
Jeckyl
news:6rho73lifkipk9fg6...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:34:41 +1000, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1182493232.2...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> No Roberts Roberts you forget. According to the Albert Einstein of our
>>> generation, in SR, any light ray will move in vacuum with speed c
>>> relative to any inertial frame, but even if it moved with speed
>>> different from c, SR would be unaffected:
>>
>>But the wording of the second postulate would need to be revised with a
>>different name for what 'c' is .. as it would no longer then be the speed
>>of
>>light.
>
> 'c' is a universal constant. For an as yet unknown reason, it also happens
> to
> be the speed of light wrt its source.
>
>>However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed that is
>>the same when form all iFoR (as given by Lorentz transforms) is not
>>dependant on anything acutally being able to attain that speed.
> ..not very good English...
sorry .. let me retype...
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.
>>However, so far there is no evidence that light (EM radiation) does NOT
>>travel at that maximum speed c,
>
> There is plenty. Many variable star curves accurately match predictions
> based
> entirely on different values of c+v, as the source star moves in orbit.
>
> OWLS from differently moving sources cannot be measured in the lab....so
> Einstein knew he was safe at least during his lifetime.
I've certainly never seen anything that confirms a non-c speed of light ..
but plenty that indicate that that is not the case.
>>nor that photons have mass .. nor is there
>>any reaons to think that that would happen .. so I think we are still
>>quite
>>safe to describe c as the speed of light.
>>I'm sorry if your little mind cannot follow the logic of that.
> It's obviously as lot bigger than yours...
Well .. when you fill something full of crap.... it gets bigger
Dono
> 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.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> 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.
The Voigt transform was derived after Voigt assumed the constancy in
the speed of light --- a break from the traditional constant
wavelength for sound. The Lorentz transform was derived from the
Voigt transform by Larmor after realizing the Voigt transform does not
satisfy the principle of relativity. Once the Lorentz transform is
obtained, the speed of light must be constant in order for the
mathematics to be valid.
> 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.
The conversation between Jeckyl and Dono exhibits very strong signs of
an argument between two village idiots. <shrug>
Jeckyl
news:1182553288.7...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> 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,
The lorentz transforms mean that there is a constant maximum speed limit in
all frame of references.
That speed is the c that appears in the transforms.
> 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.
Yes .. Lorentz transforms were orignally derived from the assumption that
the speed of light, c, is constant i all frames of reference. But in this
hypothetical situation, photons actually travelled at less than c (and so
not the same in all iFoR), the would not invalidate the lorentz transforms
as long as c was still the maximum constant limit. It would mean that the
second postulte wouldneed to be re-written so it did not refer to the speed
of light, but used some other term to describe the speed 'c'.
> In light of this, your sentence :
> "However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed ....as
> GIVEN BY Lorentz transforms"
That is corect .. Sr says that there is a finite maximum speed (we call it
c). And the lorentz transforms, which you can dreive from that, also give
you a finite maximum speed. Any theory in which lorentz transforms apply
(SR or LET) give you the same maximum speed c.
> ....is grossly incorrect
No .. it is not
> If you try to debunk cranks like Wilson, try
> at least to learn your SR.
I do.
Such a comment is rich coming from you. Are you going to stalk me now,
because I showed you were completely wrong in your aberration claims
(despite you calling me an idiot, and stoooopid etc). VERY childish. But
that is nothing more than I'd expect from you so far.
Dono
> "Dono" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1182553288.7...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> 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,
>
> The lorentz transforms mean that there is a constant maximum speed limit in
> all frame of references.
>
Nice try to cover up the fumble but this is not what you wrote.
> That speed is the c that appears in the transforms.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes .. Lorentz transforms were orignally derived from the assumption that
> the speed of light, c, is constant i all frames of reference. But in this
> hypothetical situation, photons actually travelled at less than c (and so
> not the same in all iFoR), the would not invalidate the lorentz transforms
> as long as c was still the maximum constant limit. It would mean that the
> second postulte wouldneed to be re-written so it did not refer to the speed
> of light, but used some other term to describe the speed 'c'.
>
> > In light of this, your sentence :
> > "However, that SR says that there is a finite maximum speed ....as
> > GIVEN BY Lorentz transforms"
>
> That is corect .. Sr says that there is a finite maximum speed (we call it
> c). And the lorentz transforms, which you can dreive from that, also give
> you a finite maximum speed.
No, the Lorentz transforms "give you" nothing. Since they were derived
using the postulate of light constancy, they simply CONFIRM it.
> Any theory in which lorentz transforms apply
> (SR or LET) give you the same maximum speed c.
>
You just learned what LET is a few days ago. Either way, neither
theory "gives" you anything when it comes to the speed of light.
Contrary to what you keep claiming, you cannot "derive" the light
speed as the maximum speed from the Lorentz transforms.
> > ....is grossly incorrect
>
> No .. it is not
>
Of course it, is. I didn't expect you to be a man and admit your
error. I admitted to my error, it is not yet clear that you can finish
the calculations I asked you to, so the jury is still out.
Dono
> On Jun 22, 4:01 pm, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> 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.
>
> The Voigt transform was derived after Voigt assumed the constancy in
> the speed of light --- a break from the traditional constant
> wavelength for sound. The Lorentz transform was derived from the
> Voigt transform by Larmor after realizing the Voigt transform does not
> satisfy the principle of relativity. Once the Lorentz transform is
> obtained, the speed of light must be constant in order for the
> mathematics to be valid.
You can't derive the light speed constancy from the Lorentz transforms
since the Lorentz transforms were derived from the light speed
constancy.The light speed constancy is a postulate, so it cannot be
derived. So, as usual, go take a hike.
Koobee Wublee
I never said the constancy in the speed of light can be derived from
the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> The light speed constancy is a postulate, so it cannot be
> derived.
However, under the Lorentz transform, it leaves no room for anyone
other interpretations except the constancy in the speed of light.
<shrug>
> So, as usual, go take a hike.
Done. I have done 54 miles this week. What else do you want of me?
Dono
"Once the Lorentz transform is obtained, the speed of light must be
constant in order for the mathematics to be valid. "
The constancy of light speed is postulated BEFORE the Lorentz
transforms were derived, the postulate is valid based on experimental
confirmation, so it has nothing to do with the Lorentz transforms and
their derivation.
Jeckyl
> On Jun 22, 5:43 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Dono" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1182553288.7...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 22, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> 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,
>>
>> The lorentz transforms mean that there is a constant maximum speed limit
>> in
>> all frame of references.
> Nice try to cover up the fumble but this is not what you wrote.
There was no fumble
>> That is corect .. Sr says that there is a finite maximum speed (we call
>> it
>> c). And the lorentz transforms, which you can dreive from that, also
>> give
>> you a finite maximum speed.
> No, the Lorentz transforms "give you" nothing. Since they were derived
> using the postulate of light constancy, they simply CONFIRM it.
Then you do not understand the Lorentz transforms.
Just like you don't understand SR
>> Any theory in which lorentz transforms apply
>> (SR or LET) give you the same maximum speed c.
>
> You just learned what LET is a few days ago.
Nonsense.
> Either way, neither
> theory "gives" you anything when it comes to the speed of light.
Again, you are showing your ignorance
> Contrary to what you keep claiming, you cannot "derive" the light
> speed as the maximum speed from the Lorentz transforms.
Yes .. you can
>> > ....is grossly incorrect
>> No .. it is not
> Of course it, is. I didn't expect you to be a man and admit your
> error. I admitted to my error, it is not yet clear that you can finish
> the calculations I asked you to, so the jury is still out.
I happily admit errors if I make them .. I have not made one.
You on the other hand are .. no I'll resist the temptation of lowering
myself to your standards again.
Jeckyl
> "Once the Lorentz transform is obtained, the speed of light must be
> constant in order for the mathematics to be valid. "
The Lorentz transform gives that the speed of light must be constant in all
frames of reference.
ie if something travels at c, and you use the Lorentz tranform to find what
the speed is in another iFoR.
You'll note the the Lorentz transform predates SR, SR also derived the same
transform.
> The constancy of light speed is postulated BEFORE the Lorentz
> transforms were derived,
That's a chicken and egg issue.
The postulate is an assertion that the speed of light is a constant speed in
all iFoR.
If Lorentz transforms apply between iFoR, then the speed of light is the
same in both frames of reference..
Why is it a problem if you can derive one from the other.
> the postulate is valid based on experimental
> confirmation,
Yes .. I didn't say otherwise
> so it has nothing to do with the Lorentz transforms and
> their derivation.
What "it" are you talking about? The constant 'c' that we call "speed of
light"? You can derive in constancy in all frame from systems where Lorentz
transforms apply between the frames. it all depends on where you would like
to take your starting point. Historically, Einstein derived the same
Lorentz transforms starting his second postulate. But the Lorentz
transforms had been derived before Einstein made his postulate (why do you
think they are called Lorentz transforms, and not Einstein transforms?)
Tom Roberts
> "Once the Lorentz transform is obtained, the speed of light must be
> constant in order for the mathematics to be valid. "
>
> The constancy of light speed is postulated BEFORE the Lorentz
> transforms were derived, the postulate is valid based on experimental
> confirmation, so it has nothing to do with the Lorentz transforms and
> their derivation.
This depends, at base, on what one means by "theory of physics".
Specifically, which of these determine a given theory of physics:
A) The set of theorems included in the theory
B) The interpretations of the symbols in (A)
C) The specific set of postulates used to derive (A)
You are using a definition that includes (A), (B), and (C). Many
physicists consider (A) and (B) to be sufficient -- that is, the
specific postulates used to define the theory are not important to the
essence of the theory -- certainly they have no effect on any physical
measurements or predictions of the theory (which is all we have to test
it).
For SR, there are many different sets of postulates that yield the same
set of theorems, and therefore the same theory. In particular, one can
replace Einstein's original second postulate with this:
2') There is a finite upper bound on the speed of information
transfer.
Many/most physicists would agree that the resulting theory is still SR.
But now determining that limiting speed becomes an _experimental_ issue,
and it is found to be numerically equal to the speed of light in vacuum
(with an errorbar of a few parts per billion). Now the constancy of the
speed of light is not a fundamental aspect of the theory, which is
appropriate, as SR is not really about light, anyway (it is about
symmetries of spacetime).
[The difference between LET and SR is in both (B) and (C).
So they remain different theories in this view.]
Historically, the same symbol ("c") has been used as both the limiting
speed of the Lorentz transform and as the speed of light in Maxwell's
equations. This is understandable due to the way the former were
originally derived from the latter, but it implies a union between them
that is not really justified: at present experimental measurements of
the photon mass are consistent with zero, but if in the future it was
discovered to have a nonzero mass (presumably smaller than today's upper
bound), Maxwell's equations and QED would need to be modified and/or
their domains reduced; SR and the concept of Lorentz invariance would
remain unchanged.
Tom Roberts
Dono
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another content free post. Congratulations!
Dono
Thank you, Tom
The issue under discussion was that the constancy of lightspeed cannot
be "derived" from the Lorentz transforms (and/or should not be claimed
to be a consequence of the Lorentz transforms) since the postulate
lies at the basis of the derivation of the Lorentz transforms. Jeckyl
is blabbing a lot of nonsense.
Pentcho Valev
Now the world will know forever that "if in the future it was
discovered to have a nonzero mass (presumably smaller than today's
upper bound), Maxwell's equations and QED would need to be modified
and/or their domains reduced; SR and the concept of Lorentz invariance
would remain unchanged". But Master Tom Roberts had forgotten this
discovery (or was trying to forget it) and if I had not exposed it
Master Tom Roberts would never have remembered it. So I think you
should thank ME - if it were not for my contribution, you would still
believe that "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 AFFECTED. No, that was a
wrong belief. The truth is: "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".
Master Tom Roberts discovered that, but my contribution is essential.
Pentcho Valev