GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: THE_ONE on 16 Jun 2007 12:47 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 ". 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
From: sean on 16 Jun 2007 18:38 On 16 Jun, 17:06, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1181990937.676265.134980(a)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 But its not negligible. Ring gyros can measure this rotation. 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. Unscientific argument here. Your supposed to supply proof to back up 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
From: Androcles on 17 Jun 2007 12:15 "Craig Markwardt" <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:m2r6od5k2z.fsf(a)phloem.local... : : sean <jaymoseley(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, it is fuckin' useless. your claim is erroneous, and thus the : conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant. : : CM
From: Jeckyl on 17 Jun 2007 18:39 "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote in message news:07ddi.179950$4a.3642(a)fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > "Craig Markwardt" <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message > news:m2r6od5k2z.fsf(a)phloem.local... > : > : sean <jaymoseley(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, > > it is fuckin' useless. Not at all. It can be generalised .. guess what its called then?
From: Sue... on 17 Jun 2007 19:11
On Jun 17, 7:39 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: [...] > > Not at all. It can be generalised .. guess what its called then? I'll guess it was not any of A. Einstein's work because his 1923 lecture list failure to generalisation with EM (light) a shortcoming and S. Weinberg explained several avenues ignorged which might have led to a unification. Einsteins mistakes http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html Hilbert and Noether seemed to have a little problem also in finding generality where energy isn't conservered. << In general relativity, on the other hand, it has no meaning to speak of a definite localization of energy. One may define a quantity which is divergence free analogous to the energy-momentum density tensor of special relativity, but it is gauge dependent: i.e., it is not covariant under general coordinate transformations. Consequently the fact that it is divergence free does not yield a meaningful law of local energy conservation. Thus one has, as Hilbert saw it, in such theories `improper energy theorems.' >> http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html Sue... - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |