GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: H. Wabnig .... .-- .- -... -. .. --. on 20 Jun 2007 14:07 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:41:15 -0700, Pentcho Valev <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote: (scroll down, please) > >Craig Markwardt wrote: >> sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> >> > On 15 Jun, 16:11, Craig Markwardt >> > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: >> > > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> > > > On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt >> > > > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: >> > > > > sean <jaymose...(a)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? > >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 tjroberts(a)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 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.
From: Androcles on 20 Jun 2007 16:32 "Craig Markwardt" <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:m21wg6v93g.fsf(a)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" http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Ignorant fuckhead.
From: Tom Roberts on 20 Jun 2007 17:57 Don Stockbauer wrote: > 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
From: lead free on 20 Jun 2007 18:04 On Jun 20, 11:57 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Don Stockbauer wrote: > > 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. 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
From: Jeckyl on 20 Jun 2007 18:39
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1182349110.600005.291270(a)n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 20, 10:51 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)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? |