Falsification of the theory of relativity

Science > Physics > Falsification of the theory of relativity

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Pentcho Valev"
Date:	02 Aug 2005 03:23:04 AM
Object:	Falsification of the theory of relativity

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
experimentally, is:
A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light
(the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency of
the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
principle)?
B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
principle?
An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is correct,
we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).
Pentcho Valev
.

User: "Harry"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	02 Aug 2005 05:09:39 AM

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122970984.866638.224910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
experimentally, is:

A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light
(the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency of
the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
principle)?

B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
principle?

An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is correct,
we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).

Nice, I fully agree! However - of course ;-) - your argument is certainly
flawed, and I'll now spend 5 minutes to see if I can find the flaw.
2min.30 : You messed up by thinking that wavelength is primary, and
frequency follows. Not so, the speed of light is even *irrelevant* with such
problems.
In a stationary situation, the number of wavecrests can't change, as first
Einstein and later Hatch and others argued. It's a continuity relation. But
I don't blame you for making that mistake, some relativists can't understand
that simple fact either, despite that it was explained by Einstein in 1911
already... The clock that is deeper in the gravitational field ticks slower,
so that the received frequency as measured by such a clock is higher. That's
all.
Apart of that, you could learn a lot if you present each part of your paper
as a separate question to this group, and that could be interesting for a
number of people here.
Harald
.

User: "Helmut Wabnig EmailAddress"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	02 Aug 2005 03:49:47 AM

On 2 Aug 2005 01:23:04 -0700, "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com>
wrote:

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
experimentally, is:

A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light
(the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency of
the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
principle)?

B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
principle?

An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is correct,
we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).

Pentcho Valev

You are 100 years too late.
w.
.

User: "Tom Roberts"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	02 Aug 2005 09:12:20 AM

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
experimentally, [...]
If this argument is correct,
we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).

Nonsense. You simply do not understand relativity. Or how science is
performed. Or what Popper wrote.
Specifically, you say this factor is "confirmed experimentally", which
quite clearly implies that this is NOT an "experimental falsification of
the theory of relativity". (This does not depend on whether or not your
argument is correct -- all that matters is the agreement between
relativity's predictions and the experimental measurements.)
Just because you have an alternative interpretation does NOT falsify any
other interpretation. Interpretations cannot falsify anything, only
EXPERIMENTS can do that. And here they don't. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	02 Aug 2005 06:59:35 AM

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
experimentally, is:

A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light
(the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency of
the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
principle)?

B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
principle?

An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is correct,
we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).

See: http://www.google.com/search?q=Valev+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 03:12:48 AM

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
experimentally, is:

A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light
(the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency of
the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
principle)?

B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
principle?

An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is correct,
we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).

Pentcho Valev

Why didn't you save pixels, and keep it simple.
A high school school student can soon see that the whole Einstein
Special Relativity (based on Lorentz) depends on circular logic.
The arguement (math or fundamental), goes that velocity alters length.
Then comes that which says that velocity alters TIME also.
Analysis of the two quickly shows that the RESULTS of one, are used in
the DERIVATION of the other, and vice-versa.......rubber rulers and
variable clocks.
Such symbiotic associations of "proof", can never fail!!!!!!!
But they are still wrong/false/deceitful/crap from "end to end"
Jim Greenfield
c'=c+v
.

User: "Paul B. Andersen"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 03:17:19 PM

skrev:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
experimentally, is:

A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light
(the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency of
the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
principle)?

B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
principle?

An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is correct,
we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).

Pentcho Valev

You are Henri Wilson's alter ego, are you not? :-)
Paul
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 03:21:02 PM

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in message
news:1123100239.870685.322980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
|

User: "Paul B. Andersen"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	04 Aug 2005 07:12:38 AM

Androcles skrev:

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in message
news:1123100239.870685.322980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
|

skrev:
| > Why didn't you save pixels, and keep it simple.
| > A high school school student can soon see that the whole Einstein
| > Special Relativity (based on Lorentz) depends on circular logic.
| > The arguement (math or fundamental), goes that velocity alters length.
| > Then comes that which says that velocity alters TIME also.
| > Analysis of the two quickly shows that the RESULTS of one, are used in
| > the DERIVATION of the other, and vice-versa.......rubber rulers and
| > variable clocks.
| > Such symbiotic associations of "proof", can never fail!!!!!!!
| > But they are still wrong/false/deceitful/crap from "end to end"
| >
| > Jim Greenfield
| > c'=c+v
|
| You are Henri Wilson's alter ego, are you not? :-)
|
| Paul

You are grinning ape, are you not? :-)

Androcles

Grinning, but leaving the farting to you.
Androcles wrote:
| I found your statement "Let's call the period between each time the
| satellites are adjacent T." so funny, Paul, it caused me to roll on
the
| floor laughing so hard I uncontrollably farted.
Paul
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	04 Aug 2005 11:55:42 AM

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in message
news:1123157558.064360.90500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles skrev:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in message
| > news:1123100239.870685.322980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > |

skrev:
| > | > Why didn't you save pixels, and keep it simple.
| > | > A high school school student can soon see that the whole
Einstein
| > | > Special Relativity (based on Lorentz) depends on circular logic.
| > | > The arguement (math or fundamental), goes that velocity alters
length.
| > | > Then comes that which says that velocity alters TIME also.
| > | > Analysis of the two quickly shows that the RESULTS of one, are
used in
| > | > the DERIVATION of the other, and vice-versa.......rubber rulers
and
| > | > variable clocks.
| > | > Such symbiotic associations of "proof", can never fail!!!!!!!
| > | > But they are still wrong/false/deceitful/crap from "end to end"
| > | >
| > | > Jim Greenfield
| > | > c'=c+v
| > |
| > | You are Henri Wilson's alter ego, are you not? :-)
| > |
| > | Paul
| >
| > You are grinning ape, are you not? :-)
| >
| > Androcles
|
| Grinning, but leaving the farting to you.
|
| Androcles wrote:
|| I found your statement "Let's call the period between each time the
|| satellites are adjacent T." so funny, Paul, it caused me to roll on
| the
|| floor laughing so hard I uncontrollably farted.
|
| Paul
Grin at this. :-)
On page http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
is a description of the Sagnac effect, and the author of that page
states:
[quote]
A clock attached to the perimeter of the ring would, according to
special relativity, record a lesser time, by the factor
gamma = (1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2), so the Sagnac delay with respect to such
a clock would be [4A\omega/c^2]/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2). "
[end quote]
The author has accepted the "Lorentz" (actually Einstein) transforms
at face value instead of deriving them from first principles, a common
error of many.
Sagnac closely resembles Einstein's own thought experiment, in that
it is evaluating the speed and time of flight of the light over a fixed
distance.
Einstein uses reflection to obtain the return (or counterclockwise) ray,
but that is not as important as the values c+v and c-v for the distance
travelled and the resulting times obtained.
In the case of Sagnac, these values apply not to the rotating apparatus
but to the stationary observer, who now simulates Einstein's "moving"
frame, the light's speed being c in the apparatus.
It is as if the apparatus did not rotate and the observer moved around
the circumference.
To see why, we imagine the following:
Ref: http://carouselmagic.com/graphics/lj400.jpg
On the carousel, normally the rider moves with the same angular
velocity as the ride, his relative velocity is zero with respect to the
ride. To model our situation, we need children to walk or run around
the carousel in opposite directions and meet again where they started,
relative to the carousel. Grandpa puts the children on the slowly
turning carousel and off they go in opposite directions, and he waits
to see what happens. The child that moved in the same direction as
the carousel meets grandpa before he meets his sibling, there is a
non-zero angle alpha in the diagram shown at
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
The frequency of the clockwise child, in radians per second or steps
he takes, is different to the frequency of the counterclockwise child,
as seen from where grandpa is standing.
Whether or not we turn the carousel, grandpa could walk around it
to his starting point and obtain the same result.
From the carousel's point of view the speed of the children is c.
From grandpa's point of view the speeds of the children are
c+v and c-v.
The carousel is Einstein's "stationary" frame and grandpa is the
"moving" frame. Einstein uses quotation marks around "stationary"
and "moving" to emphasize the frames are interchangable, he states
[quote]
" In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish
this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be
introduced hereafter, we call it the "stationary system.''
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The stationary system is the one in which the speed of light is c.
It is grandpa's watch that must record a lesser time according to
special relativity, not "the clock at the perimeter of the ring" as the
author states, for it is grandpa that perceives c+v and c-v, not the
carousel.
The reason he must do so is Einstein's whimsical definition of time.
[quote]
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.
[end quote]
This definition bears no resemblance to reality or the Sagnac effect,
but it is the heart of special relativity, so I'll proceed.
The transforms Einstein created and unfairly ascribed to Lorentz
were derived from his equation
�[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
where x' is the distance the light travels, here the circumference of
the ring. There is double usage of the term x', it is the distance the
light travels and a coordinate in the "moving" frame.
The remaining parameters for the function tau are y and z, coordinates,
and the time taken by the light to complete a circuit of the ring or
travel
from 0 to x' or the other way or both.
For clarity I shall replace the times x'/(c-v) with the symbol a and
and x'/(c+v) with the symbol b.
The y term can be considered to play a role, since the angle alpha
will produce y = R.cos(alpha), x' = R.sin(alpha), R being the radius
of the ring, R = x'/2\pi.
However, we can ignore y because Einstein later differentiates his
equation by making x' infinitessimally small, and in any event the
coordinate x' is zero even though the distance x' is non-zero, the
light returns to it's starting point in the carousel or ring frame.
It does not quite do so in grandpa's frame, though.
Thus we have Einstein's equation with x' = 0 when used as a
coordinate, and x' =x-vt = the circumference of the ring which is
greater than zero when used as a length. This now gives is
�[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+a+b)] = tau(0,0,0,t+a)***
Now the x', y, and z coordinates are redundant, being zero, leaving
�[tau(t)+tau(t+a+b)] = tau(t+a).
Since tau(t) must equal t, the clock on the carousel being initially
synchronized with grandpa's watch, that too can be disregarded.
The t is redundant, it refers to the time at which the experiment
takes place, leaving
�tau(a+b) = tau(a).
Hence we have divorced length from time by the elimination of
coordinates, taken out the Lorentx contraction and left only
time as the sole parameter to the function tau.
But something is wrong.
In Sagnac, the times a=x'/(c-v) and b=x'/(c+v are not consecutive,
they are concurrent. To make them consecutive, we must ask
grandpa to reverse his direction and walk the opposite way
around the carousel immediately after his first circumnavigation,
or alternatively let grandpa remain and the children to reverse
(or reflect at x') as the carousel slowly turns.
That produces -alpha, and grandpa meets the children at his
original starting location, hence
tau(a+b) = tau(a)+tau(b)
2nd footnote here. ****
Had grandpa reversed the order of his two excursions we would
have found
�tau(a+b) = tau(b)
We then have two equations for tau,
�tau(a+b) = tau(a) ... 1
�tau(a+b) = tau(b) ... 2
from which is is immediately clear that tau is not a function,
having two different values, unless those values are the same.
Einstein clearly states
[quote]
In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on
account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute
to space and time.
[end quote]
It follows that tau is not a linear function as claimed and Einstein's
definition of time is not satisfied.
Androcles.
footnote:
*** To be pedantic,
�[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(R.sin(alpha), R.cos(alpha),0,t+a+b)] =
tau(R.sin(alpha), R.cos(alpha),0,t+a)
where R = x'/2\pi, but the coordinates play no significant role in
Sagnac.
****
"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
LOL! Too funny!
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	05 Aug 2005 03:42:38 PM

To John
Most mathematicians follow after a consensus thinking that has no real
point of departure and no direction,despite the hoopla using the
opinions of the guys in the late 19th/early 20th century,the error is
strictly Newton's in combining the Keplerian insight on planetary
motion with the Roemerian insight on finite light speed .
The only way to resolve apparent retrograde motion is to recognise
the orbital motion of the Earth (thus infering heliocentricity for our
motion and that of all the planets) as the faster Earth moves in an
inner orbit to Jupiter and Saturn.This actual time lapse footage of
Jupiter and Saturn is something the early heliocentrists knew
intuitively without the benfits of contemporary imaging technology but
we can enjoy without much effort.
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/05.motion_planets/jupiter_saturn_retro.gif
Newton introduced a framehopping observer solution to resolve
retrograde motion and subsequently everyone,at least every foolish
person who follows Newton's dumb reasoning, becomes aframehopping
maniac.
Here is the error -
"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances,..."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
Try to disprove relativity is like trying to disprove a cartoon,it
can't be done and those foolish enough to try and no better or worse
than the proponents.
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	05 Aug 2005 04:01:19 PM

<geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123274558.802268.323670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Here is the error -
|
| "For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
| nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
| direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
| little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
| distances,..."
|
All I see is a quotation.
Newton is describing a sketch he made that you can see animated.
http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
What is it that you find WRONG with it?
Point to the words and explain.
Androcles
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 08:35:07 AM

wrote:

A high school school student can soon see that the whole Einstein
Special Relativity (based on Lorentz) depends on circular logic.
The arguement (math or fundamental), goes that velocity alters length.
Then comes that which says that velocity alters TIME also.
Analysis of the two quickly shows that the RESULTS of one, are used in
the DERIVATION of the other, and vice-versa.......rubber rulers and
variable clocks.
Such symbiotic associations of "proof", can never fail!!!!!!!
But they are still wrong/false/deceitful/crap from "end to end"

Jim Greenfield
c'=c+v

Cite data please.
.

User: "sue jahn"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 08:49:12 AM

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:fK3Ie.213668$x96.25570@attbi_s72...

jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:

Cite data please.

Annotated Exerpt from:
XII. The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion
Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html==================================...
[Begin non-clock fluff]
A priori it is quite clear that we must be able to learn something
about the physical behaviour of measuring-rods and clocks from
the equations of transformation, for the magnitudes x, y, z, t, are
nothing more nor less than the results of measurements obtainable
by means of measuring-rods and clocks. If we had based our
considerations on the Galilei transformation we should not have
obtained a contraction of the rod as a consequence of its motion. 4
Let us now consider a seconds-clock which is permanently
situated at the origin (x' = 0) of K'. t' = 0 and t' = 1 are two
successive ticks of this clock. The first and fourth equations of the
Lorentz transformation give for these two ticks: t = 0
and
(eqution for interval t)
[End non-clock fluff]
As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged
[ note that judgement over a non zero length path is the only mechanism
stated to cause a variation in local and remote clocks]
from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two
strokes of the clock is not one second, but
http://www.bartleby.com/173/M5.GIF (equation for interval)
seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time.
[here we must make the assumtion that the clock is moving away from the
observer. if it was moving toward the observer, he would say "a somewhat
smaller time" ]
As a consequence of its motion [away from the observer]
[Doppler effect]
the clock goes more slowly than when at rest.
Here also the velocity c plays the part of an
unattainable limiting velocity.
[the result of Coulomb coupling to matter in
the local FoR]
========================
Comments
The clock described, in order to slow with motion,
depends on the *inclusion* of an optical path
delay, which increases with the motion.
The clock is not characterized for motion
which would decrease the path length.
Absent is any inversse form of equation
http://www.bartleby.com/173/M5.GIF
further absent is a rigorous demonstration that such
inverse application will conserve all clock strokes
emitted as images.
Sue...
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 08:17:24 AM

wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
experimentally, is:

A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light
(the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency of
the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
principle)?

B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
principle?

An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is correct,
we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).

Pentcho Valev

Why didn't you save pixels, and keep it simple.
A high school school student can soon see that the whole Einstein
Special Relativity (based on Lorentz) depends on circular logic.

High school students might indeed "see" that; however, that does by
no means imply that they are right...

The arguement (math or fundamental), goes that velocity alters length.

Vaguely right.

Then comes that which says that velocity alters TIME also.

Vaguely right.

Analysis of the two quickly shows that the RESULTS of one, are used in
the DERIVATION of the other, and vice-versa.

*****. The two derivations are completely independent
of each other.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "Helmut Wabnig EmailAddress"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 05:45:16 AM

On 3 Aug 2005 01:12:48 -0700, "jgreenfield@seol.net.au"
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote:

Jim Greenfield
c'=c+v

Anything to prove it?
w.
.

User: "Harry"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 09:19:03 AM

"Helmut Wabnig" <EmailAddress> wrote in message
news:p081f1ho0v95rfth06bd8047eia5050hi8@4ax.com...

On 3 Aug 2005 01:12:48 -0700, "jgreenfield@seol.net.au"
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote:

Jim Greenfield
c'=c+v

Anything to prove it?

By chance he had it right (although c' does not mean what it usually
means!);
See Einstein1905, paragraph 3, for light propagation along X. He added:
"An analogous consideration--applied to the axes of Y and Z--it being borne
in mind that light is always propagated along these axes, when viewed from
the stationary system, with the velocity sqrt(c^2 - v^2) [...]"
All that is really no problem at all.
Harald
.

User: "Bob Casanova"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 03:29:05 PM

On 3 Aug 2005 01:12:48 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "jgreenfield@seol.net.au"
<jgreen@seol.net.au>:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
experimentally, is:

A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light
(the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency of
the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
principle)?

B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
principle?

An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is correct,
we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).

Pentcho Valev

Damn, I guess my GPS just stopped working, not to mention
every cyclotron in existence.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 04:19:32 PM

"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:37a2f1do92pfpia996ifn0d6gh3n69qkca@4ax.com...
| On 3 Aug 2005 01:12:48 -0700, the following appeared in
| sci.skeptic, posted by "jgreenfield@seol.net.au"
| <jgreen@seol.net.au>:
|
| >
| >Pentcho Valev wrote:
| >> The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
| >> Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
| >> experimentally, is:
| >>
| >> A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light
| >> (the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency
of
| >> the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
| >> principle)?
| >>
| >> B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
| >> principle?
| >>
| >> An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
| >> http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is
correct,
| >> we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity
(a la
| >> Popper).
| >>
| >> Pentcho Valev
| >
| >Why didn't you save pixels, and keep it simple.
| >A high school school student can soon see that the whole Einstein
| >Special Relativity (based on Lorentz) depends on circular logic.
| >The arguement (math or fundamental), goes that velocity alters
length.
| >Then comes that which says that velocity alters TIME also.
| >Analysis of the two quickly shows that the RESULTS of one, are used
in
| >the DERIVATION of the other, and vice-versa.......rubber rulers and
| >variable clocks.
| >Such symbiotic associations of "proof", can never fail!!!!!!!
| >But they are still wrong/false/deceitful/crap from "end to end"
| >
| >Jim Greenfield
| >c'=c+v
|
| Damn, I guess my GPS just stopped working, not to mention
| every cyclotron in existence.
|
| --
|
| Bob C.
Why would your GPS stop working?
We know your brain did a long time ago, the best it can manage is a
trite comment.
Damn...
Androcles
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	04 Aug 2005 03:35:59 AM

In Decca there was a master and slaves. GPS and Galilleo relies on
accurate timekeeping by atomic cloks, which is updated by at far longer
time periods. The satellites alll correct their clocks knowing their
velocity and height.
.

User: "Bob Casanova"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	04 Aug 2005 03:22:38 PM

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 21:19:32 GMT, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>:

Because the timing signals from the satellites are corrected
for relativity effects.

We know your brain did a long time ago, the best it can manage is a
trite comment.

My comment was to the point; too bad you didn't understand
it (as evidenced by your question). Would you like to know
the relevance of the "cyclotron" part?

Damn...

Pretty much...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	04 Aug 2005 05:41:39 PM

"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:m3u4f1pk04a1cpmgm52tpijijt9emqn0er@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 21:19:32 GMT, the following appeared in
| sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>:
|
| >
| >"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
| >news:37a2f1do92pfpia996ifn0d6gh3n69qkca@4ax.com...
| >| On 3 Aug 2005 01:12:48 -0700, the following appeared in
| >| sci.skeptic, posted by "jgreenfield@seol.net.au"
| >| <jgreen@seol.net.au>:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >Pentcho Valev wrote:
| >| >> The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
| >| >> Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
| >| >> experimentally, is:
| >| >>
| >| >> A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of
light
| >| >> (the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of
dependency
| >of
| >| >> the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
| >| >> principle)?
| >| >>
| >| >> B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
| >| >> principle?
| >| >>
| >| >> An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
| >| >> http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is
| >correct,
| >| >> we have an experimental falsification of the theory of
relativity
| >(a la
| >| >> Popper).
| >| >>
| >| >> Pentcho Valev
| >| >
| >| >Why didn't you save pixels, and keep it simple.
| >| >A high school school student can soon see that the whole Einstein
| >| >Special Relativity (based on Lorentz) depends on circular logic.
| >| >The arguement (math or fundamental), goes that velocity alters
| >length.
| >| >Then comes that which says that velocity alters TIME also.
| >| >Analysis of the two quickly shows that the RESULTS of one, are
used
| >in
| >| >the DERIVATION of the other, and vice-versa.......rubber rulers
and
| >| >variable clocks.
| >| >Such symbiotic associations of "proof", can never fail!!!!!!!
| >| >But they are still wrong/false/deceitful/crap from "end to end"
| >| >
| >| >Jim Greenfield
| >| >c'=c+v
| >|
| >| Damn, I guess my GPS just stopped working, not to mention
| >| every cyclotron in existence.
| >|
| >| --
| >|
| >| Bob C.
| >
| >Why would your GPS stop working?
|
| Because the timing signals from the satellites are corrected
| for relativity effects.
Maybe so, but then they are recorrected from ground stations.
That is essential because the moon perturbs their ephemerides
and they have to know where they as importantly as when they
are.
| >We know your brain did a long time ago, the best it can manage is a
| >trite comment.
|
| My comment was to the point; too bad you didn't understand
| it (as evidenced by your question). Would you like to know
| the relevance of the "cyclotron" part?
No thank you, I know much more than you realise.
| >Damn...
|
| Pretty much...
|
| --
|
| Bob C.
|
| "Evidence confirming an observation is
| evidence that the observation is wrong."
| - McNameless
A rather silly by-line
Androcles
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 04:12:40 PM

Bob Casanova wrote:

On 3 Aug 2005 01:12:48 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "jgreenfield@seol.net.au"
<jgreen@seol.net.au>:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
experimentally, is:

A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light
(the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency of
the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
principle)?

B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
principle?

An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is correct,
we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).

Pentcho Valev

Damn, I guess my GPS just stopped working, not to mention
every cyclotron in existence.

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

And those muon quit making it to the surface of the earth!
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	02 Aug 2005 03:54:47 AM

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in
Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed
experimentally, is:

A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light
(the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency of
the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v
principle)?

B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c
principle?

An argument favouring (B) can be seen in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is correct,
we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).

You *do* know that there are *two* theories of relativity (special and
general), don't you?
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	04 Aug 2005 02:30:56 PM

To Bjorn
Now Bjorn,there is also the great 1898 fictional narrative which
provides the working model for both.
" `Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the
pause required for the proper assimilation of this, `know very
well that Time is only a kind of Space"
http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/classic_books_online/timem11.htm
What began as a cartoon ends as one but theorists love the choices they
have given themselves and the particularly the ultimate choice of
missing the point.
The empirical tradition tends towards mediocrity,something even the
poets have known for centuries -
http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/newton.jpg
.

User: "Mike"
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	03 Aug 2005 06:06:54 PM

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip]
.... If this argument is correct,

we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la
Popper).

Pentcho Valev

The argument is unsound but Relativity has been falsified long ago,
both at its premises and its predictions. It is a flat dead theory by
now.
Just two examples:
A. Cosmic rays carry much more energy than that predicted by
Relativity. Falsifified via prediction.
B. The only possible carrier of gravitational energy from source to
detector, such as that emitted by binary stars, requires that the
spacetime of GR is a substance of some. The presence of such substance
and associated theory was falsified by several experiments going back
to MMX. Falsified in its basis.
The final blow may be something like falsification of EP by using
chiral mass pairs (see Uncle AL). Russinal scientists have already
documented directionality of G but as usual have been having problems
publishing in mainstream journals.
The only theory that is left to work with is QM and finding some way to
introduce G in it. Voices are now heard that gravity may be an external
force to known universe. The party will start soon, intelligent
designers are having a ball.
Mike
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Falsification of the theory of relativity	02 Aug 2005 08:51:55 AM

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip]

An argument favouring (B) can be seen in http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm .

Maybe.

If this argument is correct, we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la Popper).

That deduction is correct.
We Pretty
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Spring-Light Theory..
A kooky new theory on the Pentagon holes
General Information about M-Theory (11-dimensional theory)
The New Theory on the properties of matter.
theory-edge cool links directory
A Modified Theory of Quantum System
How to tell if a theory is a good one
Theory of beliefs (model of browhaha)

lattice gauge theory
Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
Geomagnetic field reason; A new theory
Does Superstrings Theory solve single electron interference?
What are the thoughts here on Heim theory?
Cosmic Triumph: Satellite confirms birth theory of universe
"The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"

NEWER

pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER