| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
06 Dec 2007 06:26:46 AM |
| Object: |
EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
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."
Similarly:
THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
theory of light.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
17 Dec 2007 06:27:53 AM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 13:11, John Kennaugh <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
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."
Similarly:
THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
theory of light.
Even I don't see your point. Your title is EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE
RELATIVITY. Both the experiments you quote are compatible with both
theories and therefore refute neither.
Unless you go into detail this statement is misleading. Concerning the
Michelson-Morley experiment, the explanation is here:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."
Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."
As you can see, in the absence of miracles (time dilation, length
contraction etc.), the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with
c'=c+v given by the emission theory and incompatible with Einstein's
second principle c'=c, that is, it REFUTES special relativity. If you
wish to make the experiment compatible with c'=c and incompatible with
c'=c+v, you should postulate miracles (time dilation, length
contraction etc.). First Fitzgerald and Lorentz introduced the
miracles, and only then the compatibility between the MM experiment
and c'=c became thinkable.
As for the Pound-Rebka experiment, the situation is even worse for
Einstein's theory. We have either:
(A) speed of light VARIABLE;
wavelength CONSTANT;
NO gravitational time dilation
or (B) speed of light CONSTANT;
wavelength VARIABLE;
gravitational time dilation
(A) is fatal for Einstein's theory and yet all hypnotists in Einstein
criminal cult claim that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light
is VARIABLE (rather, they used to claim so; now they claim nothing
because their heads are constantly in the sand):
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."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
In fact most experiments are
compatible with both theories. One of the few people with enough
knowledge to actually study the question stated:
"...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity
of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'"
Fox - 1965
It is not only of interest but truly remarkable that that can be said of
a theory proposed 60 years earlier which had no work done on it in the
interim. The VAST quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic
electromagnetic theory - which most relativists have been brought up to
believe can ONLY be explained by relativistic electromagnetic theory -
can equally well be explained by the much simpler Ritz's theory.
I don't see what you achieve by pointing out two such phenomena out of
so many.
Tom Robert's view that there is a vast pool of evidence disproving
emission/ballistic theory shows a total lack of objectivity and balance.
There are a tiny number of experiments which it would appear have not
been explained in terms of emission/ballistic theory - but then I rather
doubt that anyone with the necessary ability has tried. Anyone who did
would be labelled a crackpot and totally ruin his career prospects :o)
--
John Kennaugh
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
17 Dec 2007 12:41:03 PM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
John Kennaugh wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
I know how ballistic theory explains it
But nobody else does.....
YOU do Roberts Roberts. You even claim that
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c1614c38b6219a06?
Tom Roberts: "There's no need for relativistic kinematics in
discussing the Sagnac effect.....at the Planck scale the fundamental
structure of the world is not continuous."
So don't be inconsistent Roberts Roberts. You should go towards the
adoption of the emission theory of light and never look back. Superior
brothers don't like people like you. Einstein criminal cult may kick
you out soon.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
17 Dec 2007 10:36:14 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
John Kennaugh wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
I know how ballistic theory explains it
But nobody else does.....
YOU do Roberts Roberts.
Not true. It's just that you are unable to read. <shrug>
You even claim that
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c1614c38b6219a06?
Tom Roberts: "There's no need for relativistic kinematics in
discussing the Sagnac effect.....at the Planck scale the fundamental
structure of the world is not continuous."
Yes, there is indeed no need for relativistic KINEMATICS in discussing
the Sagnac effect. If you had read this IN THE CONTEXT IT AS WRITTEN you
would understand that. Other aspects of SR apply and explain the Sagnac
effect, and quantitatively agree with the measurements.
Your "....." omits too much, and the words following it have no
relationship to the words preceding it.
So don't be inconsistent Roberts Roberts.
I am not. It is YOU who quote words out of context, intermix different
statements made by others, and don't understand what they say. <shrug>
Grow up.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
18 Dec 2007 02:08:12 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:27I9j.25009$4V6.12035@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
: > On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
: > sci.physics.relativity:
: >> John Kennaugh wrote:
: >>> Jeckyl wrote:
: >>>> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
: >>> No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
: >>> I know how ballistic theory explains it
: >> But nobody else does.....
: >
: > YOU do Roberts Roberts.
:
: Not true. It's just that you are unable to read. <shrug>
As the bigot he is, Humpty Roberts is willfully ignorant and refuses
to study anything that disagrees with his religious-like faith in the
Prophet Einstein.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
18 Dec 2007 04:53:59 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:MMV9j.26328$036.12414@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
As the bigot he is, Humpty Roberts is willfully ignorant and refuses
to study anything that disagrees with his religious-like faith in the
Prophet Einstein.
And you refuse to accept experimental evidence that refutes those
alternatives to Einstein .. you are blinded by your faith, and not at all a
scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
18 Dec 2007 04:20:29 AM |
|
|
On Dec 18, 06:36, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
John Kennaugh wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
I know how ballistic theory explains it
But nobody else does.....
YOU do Roberts Roberts.
Not true. It's just that you are unable to read. <shrug>
You even claim that
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Tom Roberts: "There's no need for relativistic kinematics in
discussing the Sagnac effect.....at the Planck scale the fundamental
structure of the world is not continuous."
Yes, there is indeed no need for relativistic KINEMATICS in discussing
the Sagnac effect. If you had read this IN THE CONTEXT IT AS WRITTEN you
would understand that. Other aspects of SR apply and explain the Sagnac
effect, and quantitatively agree with the measurements.
Your "....." omits too much, and the words following it have no
relationship to the words preceding it.
Then let me show your whole statement:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/40698de7cd7bdfb0?
Tom Roberts, August 25: "IMHO it is the whole concept of "manifold"
that is at most risk of becoming obsolete in future theories. That is,
I strongly suspect that at the Planck scale the fundamental structure
of the world is not continuous."
I think now you understand how dangerous this statement is Roberts
Roberts. It is closely related to Einstein's 1954 confession:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
So your statement is not only dangerous, it is a serious crime
according to Einstein criminal cult and superior brothers will never
forget your criminal behaviour. In fact, only three hypnotists are
allowed to discuss the field concept of light, continuum,
discontinuum, the adoption of the emission theory of light etc. These
are John Norton, John Stachel and Jean Eisenstaedt:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/cv.html#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. As long as Einstein expected a viable theory of light,
electricity and magnetism to be a field theory, these sorts of
objections would render an emission theory of light inadmissible."
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."
http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
18 Dec 2007 09:14:39 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 18, 06:36, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
You even claim that
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Tom Roberts: "There's no need for relativistic kinematics in
discussing the Sagnac effect.....at the Planck scale the fundamental
structure of the world is not continuous."
Your "....." omits too much, and the words following it have no
relationship to the words preceding it.
Then let me show your whole statement:
[...]
I repeat: YOU CANNOT READ. The statement above begins "There's no need
....", but your attempt to quote my "whole statement" does not include
those words. You COMPLETELY missed my point. BOTH TIMES.
Grow up. Learn to read.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
19 Dec 2007 12:12:12 AM |
|
|
On Dec 18, 17:14, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 18, 06:36, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
You even claim that
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre..=
..
Tom Roberts: "There's no need for relativistic kinematics in
discussing the Sagnac effect.....at the Planck scale the fundamental
structure of the world is not continuous."
Your "....." omits too much, and the words following it have no
relationship to the words preceding it.
Then let me show your whole statement:
[...]
I repeat: YOU CANNOT READ. The statement above begins "There's no need
...", but your attempt to quote my "whole statement" does not include
those words. You COMPLETELY missed my point. BOTH TIMES.
Grow up. Learn to read.
Tom Roberts
Your point?!? Criminal Einsteinians have points?!? Don't be ridiculous
Roberts Roberts. Criminal Einsteinians do not have any points; they
just desperately defend their money-spinner. Let me illustrate this:
A point (right or wrong):
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
Criminal Einsteinians' desperate defence:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034d=
c146100e32c
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)."
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc L=E9vy-Leblond "De la relativit=E9 =E0 la chronog=E9om=E9trie ou: =
Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumi=E8re
est une cons=E9quence de la nullit=E9 de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
sup=E9rieure exp=E9rimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais =EAtre consid=E9r=
=E9e
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait m=EAme que de
futures mesures mettent en=E9vidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumi=E8re alors n'irait plus =E0 la "vitesse de la
lumi=E8re", ou, plus pr=E9cis=E9ment, la vitesse de la lumi=E8re, d=E9sormai=
s
variable, ne s'identifierait plus =E0 la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."
Roberts Roberts would you refer to your idiotic defence of special
relativity (special relativity "would be unaffected" even if "light in
vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform") as "point"?!?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
18 Dec 2007 12:53:48 AM |
|
|
On Dec 18, 07:06, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
YOU are arguing about "BaTh", while _I_ am discussing the normal
ballistic theory I mentioned above. The latter avoids all the "magic" in
the former, but is refuted by experiments, including Sagnac.
Roberts Roberts let's get things straight. So far you have claimed
that:
1. The Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the emission
(ballistic) theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light
postulate c'=c.
2. The Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with the emission
(ballistic) theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light
postulate c'=c.
However above you seem to claim that:
3. The Sagnac experiment is INcompatible with the emission (ballistic)
theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light postulate
and for that reason the Sagnac experiment REFUTES the equation c'=c+v
and GLORIFIES Einstein's light postulate c'=c.
Is that true Roberts Roberts? You have already said so but just
confirm it even more explicitly. Then we will have to ask the editors
of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Rotating-Frames-Relativistic-Fundamental/dp/1402018053
"For instance, according to some authors the celebrated Sagnac effect
is a disproval of the theory of relativity applied to rotating frames;
according to others, it is an astonishing experimental evidence of the
relativistic theory."
to explain why they did not invite YOU to defend Einstein's idiocies.
The only problem with the Sagnac experiment Roberts Roberts is that
its analysis is somewhat complicated, difficult to discuss on a forum
like this and so criminals like you can relatively safely say
anything. However be careful: note that brothers much cleverer than
you NEVER mention Sagnac. Try to find a discussion of Sagnac by John
Norton for instance.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
18 Dec 2007 01:15:34 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:231ef3d1-bbb1-4094-8049-ae949614aba6@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Dec 18, 07:06, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
: sci.physics.relativity:
: > YOU are arguing about "BaTh", while _I_ am discussing the normal
: > ballistic theory I mentioned above. The latter avoids all the "magic" in
: > the former, but is refuted by experiments, including Sagnac.
:
: Roberts Roberts let's get things straight. So far you have claimed
: that:
:
: 1. The Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the emission
: (ballistic) theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light
: postulate c'=c.
:
: 2. The Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with the emission
: (ballistic) theory of light (c'=c+v) that contradicts Einstein's light
: postulate c'=c.
:
: However above you seem to claim that:
:
: 3. The Sagnac experiment is INcompatible with the emission (ballistic)
Roberts is correct about crazy Wilson's "BaTh" and his crackpot wavelength
ideas not being anything the rest of us mean by emission fact.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
24 Dec 2007 12:46:58 AM |
|
|
On Dec 24, 1:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
John Kennaugh wrote:
It is interesting to read up on the History.
But that is irrelevant to the physics. And I suspect your source is
heavily biased....
[But _I_ don't care, as I am interested in physics, not
history.]
So now it has been found that it can be considered as being consistent
with SR it is claimed as its saviour disproving all other theories :o)
Please think about what a physical theory is. Sagnac has been consistent
with SR from the beginning, regardless of which people actually knew it
or not.
No Roberts Roberts, Sagnac has ALWAYS been inconsistent with
relativity. I am going to repeat what I have already said but in
Einstein zombie world this is unavoidable:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"It's also worth noting that there is no Doppler shift involved in a
Sagnac device..."
If this is experimentally confirmed, then the Sagnac effect clearly
confirms the ballistic theory and refutes relativity. The Doppler
shift, just like the gravitational redshift, obeys the formula
F =3D S/L
where F is the frequency measured by the receiver, S is the sum of the
speeds of the light and the receiver at the moment of reception and L
is the wavelength. According to the ballistic theory (see above), S=3Dc
in both directions and therefore the prediction is: "no Doppler
shift". Relativity gives S=3Dc-v in the co-rotating direction, S=3Dc+v in
the counter-rotating direction and therefore the prediction is: "two
different Doppler shifts".
You are letting your (biased?) view of history color what you
think is physics.
And, of course, one experiment cannot possibly "disprove all other
[theories]".
We think of the planets going around the sun but I have no doubt it
would be possible with suitable transforms to base "theory" or at least=
a mathematical model on the assumption that everything goes around the
earth.
Sure. There is a long history of this. While complicated it is most
definitely possible.
The vast number of times relativity and ballistic theory give the
same result - often unexpectedly - does not seem to me to be a
coincidence.
There are not a "vast number" of such "times". Look here and count them: h=
ttp://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
A rather silly site. I don't think any clever Einsteinian would ever
refer to it. Almost no analysis and when there is some, it is clearly
camouflage (why don't you even mention that the Michelson-Morley
experiment, in the absence of miracles such as time dilation and
length contraction, confirms the emission (ballistic) theory and
refutes relativity?):
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to
measure the velocity of the earth relative to the "lumeniferous =E6ther"
which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The
failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the
earth's motion through the =E6ther became significant in promoting the
acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was
appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was
more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other
approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz,
Ritz, and Abraham)."
What you have is the wrong basis for theory transformed in
order to get the right answers.
What God whispered in you ear and told you this?
What YOU have is an inability to distinguish between your personal
fantasies and actual physics.
For that reason I am confident that it
is possible to show that Sagnac is consistent with Ballistic theory.
Nope. To do that you must make "ballistic theory" not be "ballistic". Or
wallow in nonsense like Henri Wilson.
Just think of the machine gun analogy (bullets fired
tangentially inside a frictionless circular pipe) --
it is QUITE CLEAR that there is no difference in time
delay around the circle for the two directions, independent
of the rotation of the machine gun. Any "ballistic theory"
that does not agree with this is not "ballistic". And,
of course, for light such theories are refuted, even
though they work quite well for bullets.
It is by no means QUITE CLEAR Roberts Roberts. If one sticks to the
ballistic theory and assumes that, according to the observer at rest,
the speed of the photons is c-v in the counter-rotating and c+v in the
co-rotating direction all along, the following observation is
relevant. The real path of the photons is a polygon inscribed in the
rotating circular loop. It is easy to see that the sides of the
polygon covered by c-v photons are LONGER than the sides of the
polygon covered by c+v photons. This seems to be an advantage allowing
c-v photons to arrive at the end point earlier than c+v photons. The
problem is purely mathematical but its rigorous solution seems
difficult for the moment.
I
have some ideas I am working on although why it should be left to me an
amateur who claims to be neither a physicist nor a mathematician I
cannot imagine.
Because all the real physicists already know that ballistic theories are
soundly refuted.
You are simply lying Roberts Roberts. I have referred countless times
to what inportant Einsteinians such as John Norton, John Stachel, Jean
Eisenstaedt and Banesh Hoffmann think of the emission (ballistic)
theory. You have been silent all along and now: "all the real
physicists"! Who are "all the real physicists" Roberts Roberts? You
and the zombies Moortel, Jeckyl and Dono?
And we also know that there is essentially no hope that
such theories can explain other related phenomena, such as time
dilation, relativistic kinematics, CPT and Lorentz invariance, etc.
Here I must admit you are absolutely correct Roberts Roberts. Also,
the emission theory will never be able to explain the fact that
Einsteinians can trap a long train inside a short tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DVSRIyDfo_mY&mode=3Drelated&search=3D
and also a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
26 Dec 2007 11:29:03 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Sagnac has been consistent
with SR from the beginning, regardless of which people actually knew it
or not.
No Roberts Roberts, Sagnac has ALWAYS been inconsistent with
relativity.
This is just plain not true. SR correctly and accurately predicts the
fringe shifts observed in Sagnac interferometers and fiber gyroscopes.
I am going to repeat what I have already said
That is ALL YOU EVER DO -- repeat your mistakes over and over and over.
Why don't you STUDY what SR actually says instead? -- then you could get
off your endless cycle and actually do something useful.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"It's also worth noting that there is no Doppler shift involved in a
Sagnac device..."
If this is experimentally confirmed, then the Sagnac effect clearly
confirms the ballistic theory and refutes relativity.
Nonsense. There would indeed be a Doppler shift _IF_ one observed the
light from an inertial frame, due to the motion of the source relative
to that frame. But in a Sagnac DEVICE the detector is co-rotating with
the source, and this EXACTLY cancels the Doppler shift as seen from an
inertial frame. In the DEVICE ITSELF there is no Doppler shift, as
stated above. This is fully compatible with the predictions of SR.
If one sticks to the
ballistic theory and assumes that, according to the observer at rest,
the speed of the photons is c-v in the counter-rotating and c+v in the
co-rotating direction all along, the following observation is
relevant. The real path of the photons is a polygon inscribed in the
rotating circular loop. It is easy to see that the sides of the
polygon covered by c-v photons are LONGER than the sides of the
polygon covered by c+v photons.
You got it BACKWARDS. Given your assumptions (i.e. in this ballistic
theory, using the inertial frame of the center), it is the c+v light ray
that has a longer path, and the c-v ray that has a shorter path [#]. And
if you work it out algebraically you'll find the different speeds and
distances cancel and both rays take exactly the same time to go around
their polygons (the two polygons are not congruent); v cancels out and
that equal-time result holds independent of v, so this ballistic theory
predicts no fringe shift, and is thus refuted by the observations. (This
is easiest to see if one considers the circular path; the polygon
complicates the math considerably.)
[#] for a circular interferometer rotating clockwise relative
to the inertial frame of its center, the "c+v ray" moves
clockwise and the "c-v ray" moves counter-clockwise. The
former must travel more than the circumference of the circle
to get back to the detector and the latter must travel less,
because the instrument is ROTATING CLOCKWISE.
Because all the real physicists already know that ballistic theories are
soundly refuted.
You are simply lying Roberts Roberts.
No. It's just that YOU are unable to read accurately. <shrug>
I have referred countless times
to what inportant Einsteinians such as John Norton, John Stachel, Jean
Eisenstaedt and Banesh Hoffmann think of the emission (ballistic)
theory.
No, you have NOT done that. All you have done (over and over and over
again) is to quote a statement to the effect that ONE EXPERIMENT
(Michelson and Morley) is "compatible with ballistic theory". NONE of
those people have stated that Sagnac "is compatible with ballistic
theory", and indeed, the Sagnac experiment is one of the ones that
refute emission/ballistic theories.
You REALLY need to learn how to read more accurately. <shrug>
And you need to understand that even though ONE experiment is compatible
with multiple theories, the true test of a theory is being compatible
with ALL of the experiments. SR passes this last test, and
emission/ballistic theories do not (Henri Wilson's nonsense
notwithstanding).
You have been silent all along and now: "all the real
physicists"! Who are "all the real physicists" Roberts Roberts?
All the physicists who have written relevant textbooks, have taught
relevant courses, or have thought about this. <shrug>
I repeat: Learn some physics, stop endlessly repeating nonsense, and
above all: GROW UP!
(Don't expect me to respond until you do.)
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
26 Dec 2007 04:52:04 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gcwcj.1095$se5.598@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
: > On Dec 24, 1:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
: > sci.physics.relativity:
: >> Sagnac has been consistent
: >> with SR from the beginning, regardless of which people actually knew it
: >> or not.
: >
: > No Roberts Roberts, Sagnac has ALWAYS been inconsistent with
: > relativity.
:
: This is just plain not true. SR correctly and accurately predicts the
: fringe shifts observed in Sagnac interferometers and fiber gyroscopes.
This is just plain not true and blind faith. SR cannot correctly prophesy
anything.
:
: > I am going to repeat what I have already said
:
: That is ALL YOU EVER DO -- repeat your mistakes over and over and over.
That is ALL YOU EVER DO -- repeat your blind faith over and over and over.
: Why don't you STUDY what SR actually says instead?
It says
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Why don't you STUDY what SR actually says instead?
Because you are fucking stupid, that's why not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
27 Dec 2007 06:11:16 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:oWAcj.41770$S37.8127@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gcwcj.1095$se5.598@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
: > On Dec 24, 1:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
: > sci.physics.relativity:
: >> Sagnac has been consistent
: >> with SR from the beginning, regardless of which people actually knew
it
: >> or not.
: >
: > No Roberts Roberts, Sagnac has ALWAYS been inconsistent with
: > relativity.
:
: This is just plain not true. SR correctly and accurately predicts the
: fringe shifts observed in Sagnac interferometers and fiber gyroscopes.
This is just plain not true and blind faith. SR cannot correctly prophesy
anything.
Typically pathetic reply
It says
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Yeup .. a perfectly sensible of time sync .. why don't you understatnd it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
27 Dec 2007 01:30:22 AM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 7:29=A0pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Sagnac has been consistent
with SR from the beginning, regardless of which people actually knew it=
or not.
No Roberts Roberts, Sagnac has ALWAYS been inconsistent with
relativity.
This is just plain not true. SR correctly and accurately predicts the
fringe shifts observed in Sagnac interferometers and fiber gyroscopes.
I am going to repeat what I have already said
That is ALL YOU EVER DO -- repeat your mistakes over and over and over.
Why don't you STUDY what SR actually says instead? -- then you could get
off your endless cycle and actually do something useful.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"It's also worth noting that there is no Doppler shift involved in a
Sagnac device..."
If this is experimentally confirmed, then the Sagnac effect clearly
confirms the ballistic theory and refutes relativity.
Nonsense. There would indeed be a Doppler shift _IF_ one observed the
light from an inertial frame, due to the motion of the source relative
to that frame. But in a Sagnac DEVICE the detector is co-rotating with
the source, and this EXACTLY cancels the Doppler shift as seen from an
inertial frame. In the DEVICE ITSELF there is no Doppler shift, as
stated above. This is fully compatible with the predictions of SR.
Roberts Roberts you have snipped an explanation of mine which is
relevant. I am giving it again, with some elaboration:
The Doppler shift, like the gravitational redshift, is defined in
terms of the relashionship between the light source and the detector,
as you do above Roberts Roberts, but at the moment the light reaches
the detector, that relationship becomes immaterial and the only
relevant question is:
WHAT IS THE SUM OF THE SPEEDS OF THE LIGHT AND THE DETECTOR AS SEEN
FROM AN INERTIAL FRAME?
That is the only relevant question Roberts Roberts because the Doppler
shift, just like the gravitational redshift, obeys the formula
F =3D S/L
where F is the frequency measured by the detector, S is the sum of the
speeds of the light and the detector at the moment of reception and L
is the wavelength. According to the ballistic theory, in the Sagnac
experiment S=3Dc in both directions and therefore the prediction is: "no
Doppler shift". Relativity gives S=3Dc-v in the co-rotating direction,
S=3Dc+v in the counter-rotating direction and therefore the prediction
is: "two different Doppler shifts". Clearly the absence of a Doppler
shift "in the DEVICE ITSELF" confirms the ballistic theory and refutes
relativity.
If one sticks to the
ballistic theory and assumes that, according to the observer at rest,
the speed of the photons is c-v in the counter-rotating and c+v in the
co-rotating direction all along, the following observation is
relevant. The real path of the photons is a polygon inscribed in the
rotating circular loop. It is easy to see that the sides of the
polygon covered by c-v photons are LONGER than the sides of the
polygon covered by c+v photons.
You got it BACKWARDS. Given your assumptions (i.e. in this ballistic
theory, using the inertial frame of the center), it is the c+v light ray
that has a longer path, and the c-v ray that has a shorter path [#]. And
if you work it out algebraically you'll find the different speeds and
distances cancel and both rays take exactly the same time to go around
their polygons (the two polygons are not congruent); v cancels out and
that equal-time result holds independent of v, so this ballistic theory
predicts no fringe shift, and is thus refuted by the observations. (This
is easiest to see if one considers the circular path; the polygon
complicates the math considerably.)
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 [#] for a circular interferometer rotating clockwise relat=
ive
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 to the inertial frame of its center, the "c+v ray" moves
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 clockwise and the "c-v ray" moves counter-clockwise. The
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 former must travel more than the circumference of the circ=
le
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 to get back to the detector and the latter must travel les=
s,
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 because the instrument is ROTATING CLOCKWISE.
Note that I am talking about the SIDES of the c-v polygon inscribed in
the rotating circular loop which are LONGER than the SIDES of the c+v
polygon inscribed in the rotating circular loop. Think more Roberts
Roberts.
Because all the real physicists already know that ballistic theories ar=
e
soundly refuted.
You are simply lying Roberts Roberts.
No. It's just that YOU are unable to read accurately. <shrug>
I have referred countless times
to what inportant Einsteinians such as John Norton, John Stachel, Jean
Eisenstaedt and Banesh Hoffmann think of the emission (ballistic)
theory.
No, you have NOT done that. All you have done (over and over and over
again) is to quote a statement to the effect that ONE EXPERIMENT
(Michelson and Morley) is "compatible with ballistic theory". NONE of
those people have stated that Sagnac "is compatible with ballistic
theory", and indeed, the Sagnac experiment is one of the ones that
refute emission/ballistic theories.
Roberts Roberts you are right when you say that "NONE of those people
have stated that Sagnac "is compatible with ballistic theory". But
they have not stated Sagnac is compatible with relativity either.
Superior brothers are just silent about Sagnac Roberts Roberts. Why?
Perhaps they, unlike you, somehow feel that, if both Michelson-Morley
and Pound-Rebka are compatible with Newton's emission theory of light
that contradicts Einstein's 1905 light postulate, it would be too
silly to claim that Sagnac, whose setup does not involve an
essentially different physics, is compatible with Einstein's 1905
light postulate that contradicts Newton's emission theory of light.
Too silly Roberts Roberts. Superior brothers just do not want to be
authors of such a silly statement that would be exposed forever in the
internet.
You REALLY need to learn how to read more accurately. <shrug>
And you need to understand that even though ONE experiment is compatible
with multiple theories, the true test of a theory is being compatible
with ALL of the experiments. SR passes this last test, and
emission/ballistic theories do not (Henri Wilson's nonsense
notwithstanding).
This "statistical" way of verifying theories is camouflage devised in
Einstein criminal cult Roberts Roberts. Just analyse correctly ONE
experiment, e.g. Pound-Rebka, in PHYSICAL terms, and you will be able
to prove rigorously that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2)
relevant in the presence of a gravitational field and the equivalent
equation c'=3Dc+v relevant in the absence of a gravitational filed are
BOTH CORRECT.
You have been silent all along and now: "all the real
physicists"! Who are "all the real physicists" Roberts Roberts?
All the physicists who have written relevant textbooks, have taught
relevant courses, or have thought about this. <shrug>
I repeat: Learn some physics, stop endlessly repeating nonsense, and
above all: GROW UP!
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (Don't expect me to respond until you do.)
I don't.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henri Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
26 Dec 2007 02:14:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:29:03 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
If one sticks to the
ballistic theory and assumes that, according to the observer at rest,
the speed of the photons is c-v in the counter-rotating and c+v in the
co-rotating direction all along, the following observation is
relevant. The real path of the photons is a polygon inscribed in the
rotating circular loop. It is easy to see that the sides of the
polygon covered by c-v photons are LONGER than the sides of the
polygon covered by c+v photons.
You got it BACKWARDS. Given your assumptions (i.e. in this ballistic
theory, using the inertial frame of the center), it is the c+v light ray
that has a longer path, and the c-v ray that has a shorter path [#]. And
if you work it out algebraically you'll find the different speeds and
distances cancel and both rays take exactly the same time to go around
their polygons (the two polygons are not congruent); v cancels out and
that equal-time result holds independent of v, so this ballistic theory
predicts no fringe shift, and is thus refuted by the observations.
Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but their frequencies
are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.
Even YOU should know that two clocks that begin in synch and are running at
different rates will subsequently read different times.
Because all the real physicists already know that ballistic theories are
soundly refuted.
You are simply lying Roberts Roberts.
No. It's just that YOU are unable to read accurately. <shrug>
I have referred countless times
to what inportant Einsteinians such as John Norton, John Stachel, Jean
Eisenstaedt and Banesh Hoffmann think of the emission (ballistic)
theory.
No, you have NOT done that. All you have done (over and over and over
again) is to quote a statement to the effect that ONE EXPERIMENT
(Michelson and Morley) is "compatible with ballistic theory". NONE of
those people have stated that Sagnac "is compatible with ballistic
theory", and indeed, the Sagnac experiment is one of the ones that
refute emission/ballistic theories.
You REALLY need to learn how to read more accurately. <shrug>
And you need to understand that even though ONE experiment is compatible
with multiple theories, the true test of a theory is being compatible
with ALL of the experiments. SR passes this last test, and
emission/ballistic theories do not (Henri Wilson's nonsense
notwithstanding).
'Nonsense' that produces the correct answer......
Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.
You have been silent all along and now: "all the real
physicists"! Who are "all the real physicists" Roberts Roberts?
All the physicists who have written relevant textbooks, have taught
relevant courses, or have thought about this. <shrug>
I repeat: Learn some physics, stop endlessly repeating nonsense, and
above all: GROW UP!
(Don't expect me to respond until you do.)
Tom Roberts
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
27 Dec 2007 06:10:18 AM |
|
|
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:t3d5n391dh2d1u0puudooqie0ab1d1l05u@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:29:03 -0600, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
If one sticks to the
ballistic theory and assumes that, according to the observer at rest,
the speed of the photons is c-v in the counter-rotating and c+v in the
co-rotating direction all along, the following observation is
relevant. The real path of the photons is a polygon inscribed in the
rotating circular loop. It is easy to see that the sides of the
polygon covered by c-v photons are LONGER than the sides of the
polygon covered by c+v photons.
You got it BACKWARDS. Given your assumptions (i.e. in this ballistic
theory, using the inertial frame of the center), it is the c+v light ray
that has a longer path, and the c-v ray that has a shorter path [#]. And
if you work it out algebraically you'll find the different speeds and
distances cancel and both rays take exactly the same time to go around
their polygons (the two polygons are not congruent); v cancels out and
that equal-time result holds independent of v, so this ballistic theory
predicts no fringe shift, and is thus refuted by the observations.
Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but their
frequencies
are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.
Irrelevant, as the detector is NOT stationary in the non-rotating frame ..
whne you doppler shift back to take the speed of the detectors into account,
they have the ame wavelength . Gees .. this has been explained to you
countless times
'Nonsense' that produces the correct answer......
Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.
No
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henri Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
27 Dec 2007 03:27:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:10:18 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:t3d5n391dh2d1u0puudooqie0ab1d1l05u@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:29:03 -0600, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
If one sticks to the
ballistic theory and assumes that, according to the observer at rest,
the speed of the photons is c-v in the counter-rotating and c+v in the
co-rotating direction all along, the following observation is
relevant. The real path of the photons is a polygon inscribed in the
rotating circular loop. It is easy to see that the sides of the
polygon covered by c-v photons are LONGER than the sides of the
polygon covered by c+v photons.
You got it BACKWARDS. Given your assumptions (i.e. in this ballistic
theory, using the inertial frame of the center), it is the c+v light ray
that has a longer path, and the c-v ray that has a shorter path [#]. And
if you work it out algebraically you'll find the different speeds and
distances cancel and both rays take exactly the same time to go around
their polygons (the two polygons are not congruent); v cancels out and
that equal-time result holds independent of v, so this ballistic theory
predicts no fringe shift, and is thus refuted by the observations.
Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but their
frequencies
are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.
Irrelevant, as the detector is NOT stationary in the non-rotating frame ..
whne you doppler shift back to take the speed of the detectors into account,
they have the ame wavelength . Gees .. this has been explained to you
countless times
Listen you pathetic halfwit, the detector frame is NOT the nonrotating frame.
'Nonsense' that produces the correct answer......
Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.
No
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
27 Dec 2007 05:09:31 PM |
|
|
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:n468n3pt68a71a6t2b3sh879v7rvpognlb@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:10:18 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Irrelevant, as the detector is NOT stationary in the non-rotating frame ..
whne you doppler shift back to take the speed of the detectors into
account,
they have the ame wavelength . Gees .. this has been explained to you
countless times
Listen you pathetic halfwit, the detector frame is NOT the nonrotating
frame.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE JUST BEEN TELLING YOU !!! Gees, you're slow.
You have calculated the frequencies in the non-rotating frame and used that
to conclude that the frequencies at the detector are difference .. that
ASSUMES the detector is fixed in the non-rotating frame. WRONG. You need
to apply a Doppler shift again, back to the detector frame (the rotating
frame), and the frequencies are once again the same. Same time of journey
... same frequency .. so it must be the same phase .. so NO Sagnac effect.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul B. Andersen" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
28 Dec 2007 05:45:06 AM |
|
|
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
[according to the Emission theory:]
Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but their frequencies
are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.
From this correct statement it follows that
the Emission theory predicts no Sagnac effect.
--
Paul
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
28 Dec 2007 06:29:50 AM |
|
|
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:4774E1C2.8080108@hiadeletethis.no...
: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: [according to the Emission theory:]
: > Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but their
frequencies
: > are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.
:
: From this correct statement it follows that
: the Emission theory predicts no Sagnac effect.
:
However, we cannot ignore the Coriolis effect, which a tusseladd would,
of course.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG1.gif
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
28 Dec 2007 07:00:14 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:2%5dj.112201$cJ3.96259@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:4774E1C2.8080108@hiadeletethis.no...
: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: [according to the Emission theory:]
: > Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but their
frequencies
: > are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.
:
: From this correct statement it follows that
: the Emission theory predicts no Sagnac effect.
:
However, we cannot ignore the Coriolis effect, which a tusseladd would,
of course.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
The diagram is wrong .. it shows light taking a curved path in the inertial
frame with no reason. it would be an apparent curved path in the rotating
frame, in reality. Light would travel in straight lines in the inertial
frame.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul B. Andersen" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
28 Dec 2007 08:53:24 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:2%5dj.112201$cJ3.96259@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:4774E1C2.8080108@hiadeletethis.no...
: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: [according to the Emission theory:]
: > Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but their
frequencies
: > are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.
:
: From this correct statement it follows that
: the Emission theory predicts no Sagnac effect.
:
However, we cannot ignore the Coriolis effect, which a tusseladd would,
of course.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
The diagram is wrong .. it shows light taking a curved path in the inertial
frame with no reason. it would be an apparent curved path in the rotating
frame, in reality. Light would travel in straight lines in the inertial
frame.
Each photon will travel in straight lines in the inertial frame,
but the beam - "the array of photons observed at an instant", will
be curved. But very slightly, and it will not save the emission theory.
See:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
page 6.
--
Paul
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
28 Dec 2007 09:53:10 AM |
|
|
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:47750DE4.7060901@hiadeletethis.no...
: Jeckyl wrote:
: > "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
: > news:2%5dj.112201$cJ3.96259@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
: >> news:4774E1C2.8080108@hiadeletethis.no...
: >> : Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: >> : [according to the Emission theory:]
: >> : > Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but their
: >> frequencies
: >> : > are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.
: >> :
: >> : From this correct statement it follows that
: >> : the Emission theory predicts no Sagnac effect.
: >> :
: >>
: >> However, we cannot ignore the Coriolis effect, which a tusseladd would,
: >> of course.
: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
: >
: > The diagram is wrong .. it shows light taking a curved path in the
inertial
: > frame with no reason. it would be an apparent curved path in the
rotating
: > frame, in reality. Light would travel in straight lines in the inertial
: > frame.
:
: Each photon will travel in straight lines in the inertial frame,
: but the beam - "the array of photons observed at an instant", will
: be curved. But very slightly, and it will not save the emission theory.
Oh look, the ball curves for no reason. Nature must be wrong.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
In other words Fecal Jekyll is a whining ranting moronic idiot squealing his
blind faith in his pathetic religion.
The actual displacement is v/c, and nothing can save SR.
Sagnac is isomorphic to Albert Crankstein's thought experiment.
: See:
: http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
Which is a joke, the detector is not the beamsplitter.
The two rays leave the beamsplitter with different
velocities v+c and v-c on parallel paths and arrive out
of phase at the detector, seen in fig. 1 on page 1.
Omitting the detector on page 6 won't save SR, Tusseladd.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.
"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."
In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.
What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery et. al. fail to realise is
the existence of isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.
You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
-- Sir Isaac Newton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
28 Dec 2007 05:45:09 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:GZ8dj.112218$cJ3.47937@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:47750DE4.7060901@hiadeletethis.no...
: Jeckyl wrote:
: > "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
: > news:2%5dj.112201$cJ3.96259@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in
message
: >> news:4774E1C2.8080108@hiadeletethis.no...
: >> : Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: >> : [according to the Emission theory:]
: >> : > Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but their
: >> frequencies
: >> : > are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.
: >> :
: >> : From this correct statement it follows that
: >> : the Emission theory predicts no Sagnac effect.
: >> :
: >>
: >> However, we cannot ignore the Coriolis effect, which a tusseladd
would,
: >> of course.
: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
: >
: > The diagram is wrong .. it shows light taking a curved path in the
inertial
: > frame with no reason. it would be an apparent curved path in the
rotating
: > frame, in reality. Light would travel in straight lines in the
inertial
: > frame.
:
: Each photon will travel in straight lines in the inertial frame,
: but the beam - "the array of photons observed at an instant", will
: be curved. But very slightly, and it will not save the emission theory.
Oh look, the ball curves for no reason. Nature must be wrong.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
That's exactly what I siad
In other words Fecal Jekyll is a whining ranting moronic idiot squealing
his
blind faith in his pathetic religion.
I also said the light will appear curved .. dopey.
However, you simply got wrong about which frame will show the curvature.
Light travels in a straight line in the inertial (non-rotating) frame and
will appear curved in the non-inertial frame.
You showed it the other way around .. being curved in the inertial frame.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul B. Andersen" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
07 Jan 2008 04:01:26 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl skrev:
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:GZ8dj.112218$cJ3.47937@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:47750DE4.7060901@hiadeletethis.no...
: Jeckyl wrote:
: > "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
: > news:2%5dj.112201$cJ3.96259@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in
message
: >> news:4774E1C2.8080108@hiadeletethis.no...
: >> : Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: >> : [according to the Emission theory:]
: >> : > Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but their
: >> frequencies
: >> : > are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.
: >> :
: >> : From this correct statement it follows that
: >> : the Emission theory predicts no Sagnac effect.
: >> :
: >>
: >> However, we cannot ignore the Coriolis effect, which a tusseladd
would,
: >> of course.
: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
: >
: > The diagram is wrong .. it shows light taking a curved path in the
inertial
: > frame with no reason. it would be an apparent curved path in the
rotating
: > frame, in reality. Light would travel in straight lines in the
inertial
: > frame.
:
: Each photon will travel in straight lines in the inertial frame,
: but the beam - "the array of photons observed at an instant", will
: be curved. But very slightly, and it will not save the emission theory.
Oh look, the ball curves for no reason. Nature must be wrong.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
That's exactly what I siad
In other words Fecal Jekyll is a whining ranting moronic idiot squealing
his
blind faith in his pathetic religion.
I also said the light will appear curved .. dopey.
However, you simply got wrong about which frame will show the curvature.
Light travels in a straight line in the inertial (non-rotating) frame and
will appear curved in the non-inertial frame.
You showed it the other way around .. being curved in the inertial frame.
But the beam - the array of photons observed at the same instant, _is_
curved in the inertial frame. That is because the photons in the beam
are travelling along _different_ straight lines which have an angle to
each other.
We agree that bullets travel along straight lines (ignoring gravity)
in an inertial frame, right?
Now swing a machine gun while firing. Draw a line through the bullets
_at one instant_. Is the line curved?
Or swing a garden hose. Is the water beam curved?
Of course it is. Yet each and every water molecule is travelling
along a straight line.
Now look again at:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
page 6.
The curvature is however so small that it has no measurable
consequences.
--
Paul
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY |
07 Jan 2008 05:44:04 PM |
|
|
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote in message
news:4782A136.8010601@guesswhatuia.no...
Jeckyl skrev:
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:GZ8dj.112218$cJ3.47937@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:47750DE4.7060901@hiadeletethis.no...
: Jeckyl wrote:
: > "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
: > news:2%5dj.112201$cJ3.96259@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in
message
: >> news:4774E1C2.8080108@hiadeletethis.no...
: >> : Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: >> : [according to the Emission theory:]
: >> : > Tom, the rays take the same time to reach the detector but
their
: >> frequencies
: >> : > are doppler shifted in opposite sense in the non-R frame.
: >> :
: >> : From this correct statement it follows that
: >> : the Emission theory predicts no Sagnac effect.
: >> :
: >>
: >> However, we cannot ignore the Coriolis effect, which a tusseladd
would,
: >> of course.
: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
: >
: > The diagram is wrong .. it shows light taking a curved path in the
inertial
: > frame with no reason. it would be an apparent curved path in the
rotating
: > frame, in reality. Light would travel in straight lines in the
inertial
: > frame.
:
: Each photon will travel in straight lines in the inertial frame,
: but the beam - "the array of photons observed at an instant", will
: be curved. But very slightly, and it will not save the emission
theory.
Oh look, the ball curves for no reason. Nature must be wrong.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
That's exactly what I siad
In other words Fecal Jekyll is a whining ranting moronic idiot squealing
his
blind faith in his pathetic religion.
I also said the light will appear curved .. dopey.
However, you simply got wrong about which frame will show the curvature.
Light travels in a straight line in the inertial (non-rotating) frame and
will appear curved in the non-inertial frame.
You showed it the other way around .. being curved in the inertial frame.
But the beam - the array of photons observed at the same instant, _is_
curved in the inertial frame.
But not the path of any invidiual photon
We agree that bullets travel along straight lines (ignoring gravity)
in an inertial frame, right?
Now swing a machine gun while firing. Draw a line through the bullets
_at one instant_. Is the line curved?
Yeup . .but not the path of any bullet
Or swing a garden hose. Is the water beam curved?
Of course it is. Yet each and every water molecule is travelling
along a straight line.
Now look again at:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
page 6.
The curvature is however so small that it has no measurable
consequences.
It has none anyway .. it is only an illusions of a curve .. each
photon/bullet, travels in a straight line in the inertial frame.
.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
