Science > Physics > Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Stan Byers" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2005 09:04:57 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
Re-post due to data transmission errors
Hello Tom Roberts,
Thanks for the message, Special Relativity is an interesting issue.
As you no doubt know, in ~1667 Roemer found the
1003 second delay in the expected eclipse timing of
Jupiter's moon Io. This delay is still evident in the
cited data from the late 1990's.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
These charts were derived from the eclipse event
observation records provided on the web by
Astronomy On-Line.
The data sets used from Astronomy On-Line were checked
against the scattered data points available from the
Galilean Satellite Eclipse Timing Data. The citation for this data is
"Galilean Satellite Eclipse Timing Data by A. Mallama, P. Nelson,
J. Park, D. Collins, and B. Krobusek, 2003,
http://www.amsmeteors.org/mallama/galilean/timings.html
No discrepancies were found between the two data sources.
The accuracy of the 1003 second delay does not enter into
the logic of this issue.
The pivotal question is, Does any delay whatsoever exist.
If there is a measurable delay,... then Special Relativity is impossible.
If there is no delay then Special Relativity is still a theory to be proven.
The delay demonstrates that light manifests a finite speed
(c ) of ~ 300,000 km/sec in relation to Jupiter while it is
traversing a path across the Earth's orbit.
Earth's finite average longitudinal speed in relation to Jupiter
for the trip is ~17.36 km/sec.
My understanding of relative speed is that if two things
have velocities on the same path in the same direction,
in relation to a third object, the relative velocity will be
the algebraic difference between the velocities.
Since the light speed, c, in relation to Jupiter is 299,103 km/s,
and the spacecraft speed ( v ) in relation to Jupiter is
17.361 km/sec,...this results in an average reduced relative
speed of c - v = 299,085.6 km/sec. between the eclipse
event image motion and the spacecraft motion.
If the speed of the train of light and events from
Jupiter was not reduced in relation to the retreating Earth,
succeeding observations of eclipse events would remain
in synchronism with the observations at the near point.! !
How could a station 2.6549 million miles further from Jupiter
observe an eclipse event at the same time that it is observed
at the near point ? ? This could only happen if the speed
of light was infinite.
This delay data causes this line of reasoning which results in :
* If the 1003 second delay exists, Special Relativity does not.
* If Special Relativity is true, there can be no delay.
The intention of the article "Light speed vs Special Relativity"
is to provide enough detail, data and transparency to allow
those with opposing opinions to easily use this same material
from the Earth/Jupiter/Io scenario, in order to demonstrate
with "specificity" to the world and the web the logic of :
a.. Einstein's SR postulate,...Quote "There exists a
coordinate system with respect to which every light
ray propagates in vacuum with the velocity c".
Unquote,.....from Einstein's 1912 SR manuscript.
b.. Their reconciliation of the SR postulate with the
opposite conclusions indicated by this data.
c.. The changes necessary in this simple arithmetic
that will bring Roemer's data into agreement with SR.
In the vast world wide web and available publications
there may be articles that interpret Einstein's Special
Relativity theory in a manner that provides agreement
with Roemer's data. Limited searches by this author
have not revealed such information. A notice of links
to such information,especially from the SR advocates,
will be appreciated and acknowledged promptly on this forum.
Citations and links to the supporting data sources have
been included in order to encourage and aid other
researchers to replicate this article. If any researchers wish
to obtain the Excel files containing the data and charts used
to produce this article, please email a request to
sbyers11@comcast.net. .
All reviews, alternate views, and comments are welcome.
Cheers, Stan Byers
"Tom Roberts" <> wrote in message
news:I82gf.1038$4o7.426@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
Stan Byers wrote:
I wish to have English web pages (~9) translated into German. The title
and
URL of the material is; "Light Speed versus Special Relativity",
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
That page is useless. It only looks at ANCIENT measurements, and does not
include an error analysis at all. In fact, it is extremely likely that
when the errorbars of those measurements are included, they will be
consistent with modern measurements.
Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars.
That page completely ignores the many modern measurements, which VASTLY
smaller errorbars, that all show the constancy of the speed of light in
many different situations.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
21 Nov 2005 04:25:04 AM |
|
|
"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:142dnRnbBYX8pBzenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Re-post due to data transmission errors
Hello Tom Roberts,
Thanks for the message, Special Relativity is an interesting issue.
As you no doubt know, in ~1667 Roemer found the
1003 second delay in the expected eclipse timing of
Jupiter's moon Io. This delay is still evident in the
cited data from the late 1990's.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
These charts were derived from the eclipse event
observation records provided on the web by
Astronomy On-Line.
The data sets used from Astronomy On-Line were checked
against the scattered data points available from the
Galilean Satellite Eclipse Timing Data. The citation for this data is
"Galilean Satellite Eclipse Timing Data by A. Mallama, P. Nelson,
J. Park, D. Collins, and B. Krobusek, 2003,
http://www.amsmeteors.org/mallama/galilean/timings.html
No discrepancies were found between the two data sources.
The accuracy of the 1003 second delay does not enter into
the logic of this issue.
The pivotal question is, Does any delay whatsoever exist.
If there is a measurable delay,... then Special Relativity is impossible.
Your claim is based on a misunderstanding. See below.
If there is no delay then Special Relativity is still a theory to be
proven.
The delay demonstrates that light manifests a finite speed
(c ) of ~ 300,000 km/sec in relation to Jupiter while it is
traversing a path across the Earth's orbit.
Earth's finite average longitudinal speed in relation to Jupiter
for the trip is ~17.36 km/sec.
My understanding of relative speed is that if two things
have velocities on the same path in the same direction,
in relation to a third object, the relative velocity will be
the algebraic difference between the velocities.
SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses speed of
objects relative to inertial reference systems.
Thus, according to SRT, light speed will be measured as c in any chosen
inertial frame; consequently the speed of a light ray relative to objects
that are moving in that frame with velocity v will be determined in that
frame as c-v ("closing speed"). Similarly, the speed of a radio signal
relative to a GPS receiver on the rotating earth surface is determined as
c-v (the speed of light is *not* c relative to the receiver, despite the
confusing jargon of calling a reference frame "an observer"!). And as
extreme example: also according to SRT, a very fast electron can be nearly
as fast as a light ray.
I hope this helped; although I didn't look into it, likely it's the cause of
the below problems.
Harald
Since the light speed, c, in relation to Jupiter is 299,103 km/s,
and the spacecraft speed ( v ) in relation to Jupiter is
17.361 km/sec,...this results in an average reduced relative
speed of c - v = 299,085.6 km/sec. between the eclipse
event image motion and the spacecraft motion.
If the speed of the train of light and events from
Jupiter was not reduced in relation to the retreating Earth,
succeeding observations of eclipse events would remain
in synchronism with the observations at the near point.! !
How could a station 2.6549 million miles further from Jupiter
observe an eclipse event at the same time that it is observed
at the near point ? ? This could only happen if the speed
of light was infinite.
This delay data causes this line of reasoning which results in :
* If the 1003 second delay exists, Special Relativity does not.
* If Special Relativity is true, there can be no delay.
The intention of the article "Light speed vs Special Relativity"
is to provide enough detail, data and transparency to allow
those with opposing opinions to easily use this same material
from the Earth/Jupiter/Io scenario, in order to demonstrate
with "specificity" to the world and the web the logic of :
a.. Einstein's SR postulate,...Quote "There exists a
coordinate system with respect to which every light
ray propagates in vacuum with the velocity c".
Unquote,.....from Einstein's 1912 SR manuscript.
b.. Their reconciliation of the SR postulate with the
opposite conclusions indicated by this data.
c.. The changes necessary in this simple arithmetic
that will bring Roemer's data into agreement with SR.
In the vast world wide web and available publications
there may be articles that interpret Einstein's Special
Relativity theory in a manner that provides agreement
with Roemer's data. Limited searches by this author
have not revealed such information. A notice of links
to such information,especially from the SR advocates,
will be appreciated and acknowledged promptly on this forum.
Citations and links to the supporting data sources have
been included in order to encourage and aid other
researchers to replicate this article. If any researchers wish
to obtain the Excel files containing the data and charts used
to produce this article, please email a request to
sbyers11@comcast.net. .
All reviews, alternate views, and comments are welcome.
Cheers, Stan Byers
"Tom Roberts" < > wrote in message
news:I82gf.1038$4o7.426@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
Stan Byers wrote:
I wish to have English web pages (~9) translated into German. The title
and
URL of the material is; "Light Speed versus Special Relativity",
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
That page is useless. It only looks at ANCIENT measurements, and does
not
include an error analysis at all. In fact, it is extremely likely that
when the errorbars of those measurements are included, they will be
consistent with modern measurements.
Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars.
That page completely ignores the many modern measurements, which VASTLY
smaller errorbars, that all show the constancy of the speed of light in
many different situations.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan Byers" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
21 Nov 2005 01:18:29 PM |
|
|
Hello Harald and Group,
The single goal of the paper
" Light Speed versus Special Relativity" is to show that
the Roemer light speed delay refutes the main tenant of
Einstein's 1912 manuscript for Special Relativity:
Quote "There exists a coordinate system with respect
to which every light ray propagates in vacuum
with the velocity c". Unquote.
My interpretation of Einstein's meaning for this quote
agrees with the interpretation of
the Special Relativity advocates listed in the paper at
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm#SRAdvocates .
This quote from Einstein's manuscript is the only issue
addressed and refuted by the Jupiter, Io, Earth scenario
presented by the charts and article.
None of the other interpretations called SR, SRT and
the multitude of derived attributes to Special Relativity
are addressed by this article.
Harald, Your post suggest that the paper misunderstands
your interpretation or attributes of Special Relativity.
In the clearest manner possible the issue between Roemer's
delay data and Einstein's statement has been presented.
All of the data, charts and logic are available. If any reader
can cut and paste and show an error with specificity, I will
be happy to quickly address the issue.
SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses speed
of
objects relative to inertial reference systems
Arguments and issues from other interpretations of SR
are not required to resolve the single goal of this paper.
If other versions of SR have or can be constructed
without Einstein's main quote as above, then that is
an issue for a new thread.
The following quote from the paper addresses concerns
about different reference frames. Quote
When this Earth/Jupiter/Io scenario is analyzed
with the concept of Special Relativity in mind,
it is obvious that the light train leaving Jupiter
does not arrive at a retreating Earth with a constant
speed of c in relation to Earth. However once a light
beam from Jupiter enters the Earth's cloak of
atmosphere and secondary radiation,... its locally
measured speed between two points becomes c in
relation to Earth. This has no influence on the
Doppler frequency changes and the Doppler period
changes which are caused by the relative speed changes
due to Earth's orbital velocity referenced to Jupiter
and the eclipse light train. If our atmosphere exhibited
a light speed radically different then c, Roemer's delay
would still be evident. Unquote
Cheers, Stan Byers
Fremont, California. USA
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4381a080$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:142dnRnbBYX8pBzenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Your claim is based on a misunderstanding. See below.
If there is no delay then Special Relativity is still a theory to be
proven.
.
SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses speed
of
objects relative to inertial reference systems.
Thus, according to SRT, light speed will be measured as c in any chosen
inertial frame; consequently the speed of a light ray relative to objects
that are moving in that frame with velocity v will be determined in that
frame as c-v ("closing speed"). Similarly, the speed of a radio signal
relative to a GPS receiver on the rotating earth surface is determined as
c-v (the speed of light is *not* c relative to the receiver, despite the
confusing jargon of calling a reference frame "an observer"!). And as
extreme example: also according to SRT, a very fast electron can be nearly
as fast as a light ray.
I hope this helped; although I didn't look into it, likely it's the cause
of
the below problems.
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
21 Nov 2005 05:58:38 PM |
|
|
"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VP-dnb6--tQTgB_eRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Hello Harald and Group,
The single goal of the paper
" Light Speed versus Special Relativity" is to show that
the Roemer light speed delay refutes the main tenant of
Einstein's 1912 manuscript for Special Relativity:
Quote "There exists a coordinate system with respect
to which every light ray propagates in vacuum
with the velocity c". Unquote.
Go back to the 1905 original, Stan.
"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."
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
It IS because the Archangel Einstein says it is. It is the word of god,
a papal bull, a royal decree.
Forget Roberts and his error bars, he was busily measuring picoseconds for
the lifetime of a muon in another thread.
The guy is a charlatan trying to throw in a red herring, a total fraud.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes"
Roberts failed to use his famous capital letters in "OBSERVATIONS".
You should READ and UNDERSTAND Roberts is a LIAR.
A "liar" is a naughty person who should be in prison for "fraud",
aka *****, aka crap.
I am continually unamazed at how some people are incompetent in everything
they attempt. Tom Roberts seems to get something important wrong in
everything he writes, regardless of subject. <shrug>
You are not going to convince the Pope there is no god. He would have no
i.n.c.o.m.e. if he agreed. Tom Roberts wants m.o.n.e.y. He will say
a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g to defend his religion. Like a catholic priest who molests
children, he k.n.o.w.s he is wrong but will never admit it.
Now...to help you understand a little physics.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
(Or stars explode twice in three months).
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
22 Nov 2005 02:56:21 AM |
|
|
Hi Stan, I'll cut directly to the essence:
"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VP-dnb6--tQTgB_eRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Hello Harald and Group,
The single goal of the paper
" Light Speed versus Special Relativity" is to show that
the Roemer light speed delay refutes the main tenant of
Einstein's 1912 manuscript for Special Relativity:
1. > Quote "There exists a coordinate system with respect
to which every light ray propagates in vacuum
with the velocity c". Unquote.
SNIP
The following quote from the paper addresses concerns
about different reference frames. Quote
2. > When this Earth/Jupiter/Io scenario is analyzed
with the concept of Special Relativity in mind,
it is obvious that the light train leaving Jupiter
does not arrive at a retreating Earth with a constant
speed of c in relation to Earth.
SNIP
Stan, you now confirmed that the problem is due to a misunderstanding of
SRT.
There is no disagreement between statement 1. and statement 2.
If light speed is assumed to be determined/defined to be c in the coordinate
system of quote 1,
then obviously, if it's taken to be c in a coordinate system in which the
earth has a velocity v, then the closing speed can only be c-v if the light
ray and the earth move in the same direction.
3. >However once a light
beam from Jupiter enters the Earth's cloak of
atmosphere and secondary radiation,... its locally
measured speed between two points becomes c in
relation to Earth. This has no influence on the
Doppler frequency changes and the Doppler period
changes which are caused by the relative speed changes
due to Earth's orbital velocity referenced to Jupiter
and the eclipse light train. If our atmosphere exhibited
a light speed radically different then c, Roemer's delay
would still be evident. Unquote
There is no disagreement between point 1. and point 3. either:
In a system in which v_earth=0, obviously the "closing speed" c-v=c;
and indeed this does not influence Doppler, as was already explained in
Einstein's 1905 paper.
Apparently you didn't try to understand what I tried to explain to you
below.
Good luck,
Harald
SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses speed
of
objects relative to inertial reference systems.
Thus, according to SRT, light speed will be measured as c in any chosen
inertial frame; consequently the speed of a light ray relative to
objects
that are moving in that frame with velocity v will be determined in that
frame as c-v ("closing speed"). Similarly, the speed of a radio signal
relative to a GPS receiver on the rotating earth surface is determined
as
c-v (the speed of light is *not* c relative to the receiver, despite the
confusing jargon of calling a reference frame "an observer"!). And as
extreme example: also according to SRT, a very fast electron can be
nearly
as fast as a light ray.
I hope this helped; although I didn't look into it, likely it's the
cause
of the below problems.
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
22 Nov 2005 03:11:28 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4382dd35$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
obviously the "closing speed" c-v=c;
Obviously you are an incompetent idiot who thinks 2-1 = 2.
Only a total phuckwit would make such a statement as yours.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
22 Nov 2005 04:48:53 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:4hBgf.66645$Es4.63737@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4382dd35$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
obviously the "closing speed" c-v=c;
Obviously you are an incompetent idiot who thinks 2-1 = 2.
Only a total phuckwit would make such a statement as yours.
You snipped the context: "obviously" refers to the case that v=0. Like most
others in this group, I stopped trying to explain simple things to you, such
as that 1-0=1.
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
22 Nov 2005 05:46:20 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4382f793$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:4hBgf.66645$Es4.63737@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4382dd35$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
obviously the "closing speed" c-v=c;
Obviously you are an incompetent idiot who thinks 2-1 = 2.
Only a total phuckwit would make such a statement as yours.
You snipped the context:
Doesn't fucking matter.
In context or out, it is a stupid and ridiculous claim.
"obviously" refers to the case that v=0.
Ok, so v = 0 in all of relativity, so Einstein's relativity is trivially
stupid, as are you.
In CONTEXT, the relative velocity between Earth and Jupiter is is zero twice
every 13 months, so obviously you are a fucking babbling idiot.
Like most
others in this group,
Don't try to hide behind others. They are phuckwitted as you are, you dumb
*****.
I stopped trying to explain simple things to you, such
as that 1-0=1.
If you want to claim v = 0 all the time that's fine with me.
1/sqrt(*1-0^2/c^2) = 1/sqrt(1-0) = 1/sqrt(1) = 1/1 = 1
You are a fucking moron, vanlintel, as dumb as all relativerati or
relativerazzi or whatever you call your cult of following of sheep, all
bleating about how you try to explain simple things. You are fucking simple
to begin with, you imbecile.
You want to whine about the context, you arsehole, here's the context:
======================================
Thanks for the message, Special Relativity is an interesting issue.
As you no doubt know, in ~1667 Roemer found the
1003 second delay in the expected eclipse timing of
Jupiter's moon Io. This delay is still evident in the
cited data from the late 1990's.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
These charts were derived from the eclipse event
observation records provided on the web by
Astronomy On-Line.
The data sets used from Astronomy On-Line were checked
against the scattered data points available from the
Galilean Satellite Eclipse Timing Data. The citation for this data is
"Galilean Satellite Eclipse Timing Data by A. Mallama, P. Nelson,
J. Park, D. Collins, and B. Krobusek, 2003,
http://www.amsmeteors.org/mallama/galilean/timings.html
No discrepancies were found between the two data sources.
The accuracy of the 1003 second delay does not enter into
the logic of this issue.
The pivotal question is, Does any delay whatsoever exist.
If there is a measurable delay,... then Special Relativity is impossible.
If there is no delay then Special Relativity is still a theory to be proven.
The delay demonstrates that light manifests a finite speed
(c ) of ~ 300,000 km/sec in relation to Jupiter while it is
traversing a path across the Earth's orbit.
Earth's finite average longitudinal speed in relation to Jupiter
for the trip is ~17.36 km/sec.
My understanding of relative speed is that if two things
have velocities on the same path in the same direction,
in relation to a third object, the relative velocity will be
the algebraic difference between the velocities.
Since the light speed, c, in relation to Jupiter is 299,103 km/s,
and the spacecraft speed ( v ) in relation to Jupiter is
17.361 km/sec,...this results in an average reduced relative
speed of c - v = 299,085.6 km/sec. between the eclipse
event image motion and the spacecraft motion.
If the speed of the train of light and events from
Jupiter was not reduced in relation to the retreating Earth,
succeeding observations of eclipse events would remain
in synchronism with the observations at the near point.! !
How could a station 2.6549 million miles further from Jupiter
observe an eclipse event at the same time that it is observed
at the near point ? ? This could only happen if the speed
of light was infinite.
This delay data causes this line of reasoning which results in :
* If the 1003 second delay exists, Special Relativity does not.
* If Special Relativity is true, there can be no delay.
The intention of the article "Light speed vs Special Relativity"
is to provide enough detail, data and transparency to allow
those with opposing opinions to easily use this same material
from the Earth/Jupiter/Io scenario, in order to demonstrate
with "specificity" to the world and the web the logic of :
a.. Einstein's SR postulate,...Quote "There exists a
coordinate system with respect to which every light
ray propagates in vacuum with the velocity c".
Unquote,.....from Einstein's 1912 SR manuscript.
b.. Their reconciliation of the SR postulate with the
opposite conclusions indicated by this data.
c.. The changes necessary in this simple arithmetic
that will bring Roemer's data into agreement with SR.
In the vast world wide web and available publications
there may be articles that interpret Einstein's Special
Relativity theory in a manner that provides agreement
with Roemer's data. Limited searches by this author
have not revealed such information. A notice of links
to such information,especially from the SR advocates,
will be appreciated and acknowledged promptly on this forum.
Citations and links to the supporting data sources have
been included in order to encourage and aid other
researchers to replicate this article. If any researchers wish
to obtain the Excel files containing the data and charts used
to produce this article, please email a request to
sbyers11@comcast.net. .
All reviews, alternate views, and comments are welcome.
Cheers, Stan Byers
======================================
And your reply, you stoooopid cretin, is
======================================
Hi Stan, I'll cut directly to the essence:
SNIP
SNIP
Stan, you now confirmed that the problem is due to a misunderstanding of
SRT.
If light speed is assumed to be determined/defined to be c in the coordinate
system of quote 1,
then obviously, if it's taken to be c in a coordinate system in which the
earth has a velocity v, then the closing speed can only be c-v if the light
ray and the earth move in the same direction.
======================================
Did you simply explain to Stan that v = 0 ?
No, you idiot, you deliberately implied v> 0.
You are a cretin, a boor, a wanker, a moron, a useless dreg, a drain on
society.
In short, in context, a dumb stooopid *****.
You got lost up your own arsehole and can't find your way out, living
permanently in a manure storm.
*****.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
22 Nov 2005 06:53:02 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:gyDgf.67012$Es4.37455@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4382f793$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
SNIP
I stopped trying to explain simple things to you, such
as that 1-0=1.
If you want to claim v = 0 all the time that's fine with me.
I didn't. Instead I pointed out that for Stan's example no.3 in which v=0,
the problem is trivial -- just in case Stan would overlook that simple fact.
SNIP
You are a fucking moron, vanlintel, as dumb as all relativerati or
relativerazzi or whatever you call your cult of following of sheep, all
bleating about how you try to explain simple things. You are fucking
simple
to begin with, you imbecile.
I think I should take it as a compliment...
You want to whine about the context, you arsehole, here's the context:
SNIP the misrepresented rest -- you are as dirty in language and methods as
your brother Shuby.
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
22 Nov 2005 07:28:32 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438314af$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:gyDgf.67012$Es4.37455@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4382f793$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
SNIP
I stopped trying to explain simple things to you, such
as that 1-0=1.
If you want to claim v = 0 all the time that's fine with me.
I didn't.
You did.
AND
You've snipped.
You've taken what I said out of context. Whine whine!
You are a fucking idiot that thinks 2-1 = 2
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stan Byers" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
23 Nov 2005 10:10:24 AM |
|
|
Hello Harry and Group,
Thanks for the message. Evidently you and I have interesting and differing
interpretations of Einstein's 1905 statement. The quote that is in the paper
is taken from my 1996 copy of the English translation of Einstein's 1912
Manuscript on the Special Theory of Relativity, pg. 56,...by George
Braziller.
Quote "There exists a coordinate system with respect to which every light
ray propagates in vacuum with the velocity c". Unquote.
My interpretation of this statement, and my understanding of the
interpretation quoted by the special relativity advocates listed in the
paper is as follows:
* The vacuum is taken to be the "one vacuum" of the complete and "one
uni-verse". This vacuum is also characterized by terms such as Inertial
space, Side Real space, Star Field space, and Outer space.
* The terms "a coordinate system" is not taken to mean a separate
Inertial frame for each emitting object or observer.
* Now per the statement, as light is emitted from Jupiter it will have
a constant speed of c in relation to the vacuum and all observers,
regardless of the side real motion of Jupiter or
the relative motion of any observers.
This is obviously an extremely counter intuitive concept, and is the only
concept that the paper "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" was designed
to address.
Quoting from Harry's post, full version as given below:
SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses
speed of objects relative to inertial reference systems.
There may be a multitude of versions and schools of Special Relativity that
interpret the above Einstein quote in a manner differing from my
interpretation and there may be flavors of SR constructed
that do not depend on the statement at all.
My single purpose is to only address the above version and
show that it conflicts with the current and 1676 data.
Another concept that Roemer's delay refutes is that the speed of light has
an
upper limit in the vacuum regardless of the relative speed of the emitter
and observer. The charts clearly demonstrate that the observed speed of
light is c plus v when the Earth is approaching Jupiter. The data
demonstrates that light does not have an upper limit in the vacuum
of space.
This leaves Einstein's derivation of E = MC squared without
a foundation. E = MC squared was derived with the quoted statement
as a given.
E = MC squared may or may not be true, but you can't
derive a valid proof from a falsified statement.
The term observed speed does not refer to the speed of Jupiter's light
within the observers atmosphere,...it refers to the speed of the light
as it travels through the vacuum of space between the source and
observer and relative to the motion of the observers orbital motion.
Planetary rotation is not a factor, you have to place the
mathematical observer at the north or south pole.
Cheers, Stan Byers
Fremont, California. USA
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4382dd35$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Hi Stan, I'll cut directly to the essence:
"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VP-dnb6--tQTgB_eRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Hello Harald and Group,
The single goal of the paper
" Light Speed versus Special Relativity" is to show that
the Roemer light speed delay refutes the main tenant of
Einstein's 1912 manuscript for Special Relativity:
1. > Quote "There exists a coordinate system with respect
to which every light ray propagates in vacuum
with the velocity c". Unquote.
SNIP
The following quote from the paper addresses concerns
about different reference frames. Quote
2. > When this Earth/Jupiter/Io scenario is analyzed
with the concept of Special Relativity in mind,
it is obvious that the light train leaving Jupiter
does not arrive at a retreating Earth with a constant
speed of c in relation to Earth.
SNIP
Stan, you now confirmed that the problem is due to a misunderstanding of
SRT.
There is no disagreement between statement 1. and statement 2.
If light speed is assumed to be determined/defined to be c in the
coordinate
system of quote 1,
then obviously, if it's taken to be c in a coordinate system in which the
earth has a velocity v, then the closing speed can only be c-v if the
light
ray and the earth move in the same direction.
3. >However once a light
beam from Jupiter enters the Earth's cloak of
atmosphere and secondary radiation,... its locally
measured speed between two points becomes c in
relation to Earth. This has no influence on the
Doppler frequency changes and the Doppler period
changes which are caused by the relative speed changes
due to Earth's orbital velocity referenced to Jupiter
and the eclipse light train. If our atmosphere exhibited
a light speed radically different then c, Roemer's delay
would still be evident. Unquote
There is no disagreement between point 1. and point 3. either:
In a system in which v_earth=0, obviously the "closing speed" c-v=c;
and indeed this does not influence Doppler, as was already explained in
Einstein's 1905 paper.
Apparently you didn't try to understand what I tried to explain to you
below.
Good luck,
Harald
SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses
speed
of
objects relative to inertial reference systems.
Thus, according to SRT, light speed will be measured as c in any chosen
inertial frame; consequently the speed of a light ray relative to
objects
that are moving in that frame with velocity v will be determined in
that
frame as c-v ("closing speed"). Similarly, the speed of a radio signal
relative to a GPS receiver on the rotating earth surface is determined
as
c-v (the speed of light is *not* c relative to the receiver, despite
the
confusing jargon of calling a reference frame "an observer"!). And as
extreme example: also according to SRT, a very fast electron can be
nearly
as fast as a light ray.
I hope this helped; although I didn't look into it, likely it's the
cause
of the below problems.
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
23 Nov 2005 11:41:22 AM |
|
|
"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8-qdnQhnTrLvCRnenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Hello Harry and Group,
Thanks for the message. Evidently you and I have interesting and
differing
interpretations of Einstein's 1905 statement. The quote that is in the
paper
is taken from my 1996 copy of the English translation of Einstein's 1912
Manuscript on the Special Theory of Relativity, pg. 56,...by George
Braziller.
Quote "There exists a coordinate system with respect to which every light
ray propagates in vacuum with the velocity c". Unquote.
My interpretation of this statement, and my understanding of the
interpretation quoted by the special relativity advocates listed in the
paper is as follows:
* The vacuum is taken to be the "one vacuum" of the complete and "one
uni-verse". This vacuum is also characterized by terms such as Inertial
space, Side Real space, Star Field space, and Outer space.
Sideral perhaps?!
* The terms "a coordinate system" is not taken to mean a separate
Inertial frame for each emitting object or observer.
* Now per the statement, as light is emitted from Jupiter it will have
a constant speed of c in relation to the vacuum and all observers,
regardless of the side real motion of Jupiter or
the relative motion of any observers.
Sidereal for sure!
This is obviously an extremely counter intuitive concept, and is the only
concept that the paper "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" was
designed
to address.
Quoting from Harry's post, full version as given below:
SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses
speed of objects relative to inertial reference systems.
There may be a multitude of versions and schools of Special Relativity
that
interpret the above Einstein quote in a manner differing from my
interpretation and there may be flavors of SR constructed
that do not depend on the statement at all.
OK, so you merely try to show that your reading doesn't correspond to the
data, and you're not really interested to know that it also doesn't
correspond to what Lorentz and Einstein explained about it.
But what does that have to do with translating an article?
My single purpose is to only address the above version and
show that it conflicts with the current and 1676 data.
Sure, and it is well known to also conclict with GPS data.
Another concept that Roemer's delay refutes is that the speed of light has
an
upper limit in the vacuum regardless of the relative speed of the emitter
and observer. The charts clearly demonstrate that the observed speed of
light is c plus v when the Earth is approaching Jupiter.
Again, the one doesn't invalidate the other, as I already pointed out to you
in point 2 below: if the limit speed of *one* object is c, then the limit
closing speed of two objects (or of the earth relative to a light ray) that
approach each other, is c+c= 2c.
However, this is indeed misunderstood or not understood at all by too many
people...
The data
demonstrates that light does not have an upper limit in the vacuum
of space.
If the data shows that when the earth has a velocity v, that the closing
speed of a light ray and the earth is significantly *more* than c+v, *then*
that would demonstrate what you claim. But I don't think so.
This leaves Einstein's derivation of E = MC squared without
a foundation. E = MC squared was derived with the quoted statement
as a given.
E = MC squared may or may not be true, but you can't
derive a valid proof from a falsified statement.
No worries: that equation was also derived without special relativity.
The term observed speed does not refer to the speed of Jupiter's light
within the observers atmosphere,...it refers to the speed of the light
as it travels through the vacuum of space between the source and
observer and relative to the motion of the observers orbital motion.
No, it refers to the observer's chosen inertial coordinate system.
Planetary rotation is not a factor, you have to place the
mathematical observer at the north or south pole.
Cheers, Stan Byers
Best regards,
Harald
Fremont, California. USA
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4382dd35$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Hi Stan, I'll cut directly to the essence:
"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VP-dnb6--tQTgB_eRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Hello Harald and Group,
The single goal of the paper
" Light Speed versus Special Relativity" is to show that
the Roemer light speed delay refutes the main tenant of
Einstein's 1912 manuscript for Special Relativity:
1. > Quote "There exists a coordinate system with respect
to which every light ray propagates in vacuum
with the velocity c". Unquote.
SNIP
The following quote from the paper addresses concerns
about different reference frames. Quote
2. > When this Earth/Jupiter/Io scenario is analyzed
with the concept of Special Relativity in mind,
it is obvious that the light train leaving Jupiter
does not arrive at a retreating Earth with a constant
speed of c in relation to Earth.
SNIP
Stan, you now confirmed that the problem is due to a misunderstanding of
SRT.
There is no disagreement between statement 1. and statement 2.
If light speed is assumed to be determined/defined to be c in the
coordinate
system of quote 1,
then obviously, if it's taken to be c in a coordinate system in which
the
earth has a velocity v, then the closing speed can only be c-v if the
light
ray and the earth move in the same direction.
3. >However once a light
beam from Jupiter enters the Earth's cloak of
atmosphere and secondary radiation,... its locally
measured speed between two points becomes c in
relation to Earth. This has no influence on the
Doppler frequency changes and the Doppler period
changes which are caused by the relative speed changes
due to Earth's orbital velocity referenced to Jupiter
and the eclipse light train. If our atmosphere exhibited
a light speed radically different then c, Roemer's delay
would still be evident. Unquote
There is no disagreement between point 1. and point 3. either:
In a system in which v_earth=0, obviously the "closing speed" c-v=c;
and indeed this does not influence Doppler, as was already explained in
Einstein's 1905 paper.
Apparently you didn't try to understand what I tried to explain to you
below.
Good luck,
Harald
SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses
speed
of
objects relative to inertial reference systems.
Thus, according to SRT, light speed will be measured as c in any
chosen
inertial frame; consequently the speed of a light ray relative to
objects
that are moving in that frame with velocity v will be determined in
that
frame as c-v ("closing speed"). Similarly, the speed of a radio
signal
relative to a GPS receiver on the rotating earth surface is
determined
as
c-v (the speed of light is *not* c relative to the receiver, despite
the
confusing jargon of calling a reference frame "an observer"!). And as
extreme example: also according to SRT, a very fast electron can be
nearly
as fast as a light ray.
I hope this helped; although I didn't look into it, likely it's the
cause
of the below problems.
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan Byers" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
28 Nov 2005 10:35:55 PM |
|
|
Hello Mr. Harry and Group,
Thanks for the response. It just may be that
we will correct some of the misunderstanding that
plague SR. There seem to be two seperate versions
of SR that are embraced by the SR advocates.
Version A interprets Einstein's constant light speed
statement to mean that all interstellar light travels to
us at the one constant speed c, and this speed is not
dependent on the speed of the source in relation to
Earth.
Version B interprets Einstein's constant light speed
statement to mean that interstellar light traveling to us
has the normal speed c modified depending on the
speed of the source in relation to Earth.
The list of SR advocates that are presented in the paper
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm#SRAdvocates
are advocates of Version A of SR. The paper of this URL also
interprets SR and Einstein's light speed statement as Version A.
A web search for the term [ special relativity ] reveals that there
exist schools and groups of SR advocates that interpret Einstein's
constant speed statement as Version B.
Version A Advocates respond to the posts and the web page
by trying to disprove the data and charts of the
Jupiter/Io demonstration that disprove SR.
Version B Advocates respond by claiming that the Jupiter/Io
demonstration does not conflict with SR and therefore
SR is not disproven.
I returned to the English interpretation of Einstein's 1912 manuscript
to find a passage on page 66 that clearly demonstrates that Version A is
Einstein's intended meaning for the constant light speed
statement.
The passage will be added to the web page and is copied here.
Comments and red ink are welcome.
The Second Version of Special Relativity
When one searches the web for the term [Special Relativity] it is found that
there are groups and schools that embrace Special Relativity,...but
interpret Einstein's statement to mean that the speed of light in free space
travels at c in relation to it's source. If Einstein's constant c statement
is interpreted in this manner,...then there is no reason for the existence
of Special Relativity, and there would be no conflict with the charts of
this paper. The Jupiter/Io data and charts demonstrate that light has a
closing speed for an observer ( c' ) that depends on the relative speed (
v ) between the observer and the source ( c' = c +or- v ). A quote from a
sci.physics.relativity news group discussion is an example of this second
version of special relativity.
This quote is arguing that the Jupiter/Io charts and Roemer's delay do not
dispute Einstein's constant c statement. Quote
SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses speed
of
objects relative to inertial reference systems.
Thus, according to SRT, light speed will be measured as c in any chosen
inertial frame; consequently the speed of a light ray relative to objects
that are moving in that frame with velocity v will be determined in that
frame as c-v ("closing speed"). Unquote
Returning to the English translation of Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on SR we
find a passage on page 66 that disputes the above quote and clarifies
Einstein's meaning concerning the speed of light in the vacuum of space.
Quote:
In case I, the velocity of light would depend on the state of motion of
the light source. Light rays of most diverse propagation velocities would be
present at one and the same location at the same time. The physical
properties of light would not be determined, then, by the frequency alone,
since the wavelength and the frequency would be independent of each other;
the light originating from stars that are moving relative to us would have
to be physically distinguishable from the light originating from light
sources at rest. Experience has yielded nothing of the sort. The most
convincing argument against this point of view, which has been advocated by
Ritz, has been put forward by the Dutch astronomer Pexider. The individual
stars of stellar systems (double stars) must have sent us light of different
velocities during different epochs of their orbits. Thus, the time of
propagation of the light from double stars to us would be different for
different epochs. The temporal sequence of the epochs as traced by us with
the help of the Doppler principle would be different from that in reality; a
simple calculation shows that, indeed, if the underlying hypothesis were
borne out by the facts, the indicated influence would have to so
considerable that it would have been absolutely impossible for the
astronomers to miss it. The untenability of this conception can surely be
viewed as being definitively proved. Unquote
The passage of the above quote is essentially stating that the speed of all
starlight through the interstellar space travels at the same speed, c,
towards us, regardless of the speed of the star in relation to earth. This
is clearly refuted by the Jupiter/Io light speed data and charts presented
with this paper.
Advocates of Special Relativity that believe that interstellar light speed
is dependent on the speed of the source (The Second Version of SR) , should
not assume that they have an argument with this paper. The clear single
intent of this paper and data is to refute the version of Einstein's
statement claiming that interstellar light is independent of the source
velocity, and independent of the observers velocity.
The Special Relativity advocates listed above, Special Relativity Advocates,
and readers who may believe that the SR concept is a "law" instead of just a
"theory",... need to closely review the following quote from one of
Einstein's 1949 letters to his friend Maurice Solovine.
Quote: Now one may think that I am looking back on my life's work with
serene satisfaction. Viewed more closely however, it is quite different.
There is not a single concept of which I am certain that it will stand the
test of time. I am not sure that the concepts are on the right track at all.
Unquote
Various English translations of this above quote can be found on the
internet. Einstein was responding to Maurice Solovine's letter of
congratulations on his 70th birthday.
The use of the universally recognized term "Inertial Space" demonstrates
that we already accept the fact that the medium which supports inertial
force is present, regardless of an object's speed or direction in relation
to sidereal space and Newton's inertial space. The medium supporting inertia
is the same medium supporting the isotropic characteristics of light
relative to its source. In this model of physical systems, this medium is
called Prime Force background radiation. A review of this web site's section
on ...Inertia,... may lead to a better understanding of how this model
demonstrates the unity of matter and Prime Force radiation (Pf),... and how
it allows light to exhibit a constant speed in relation to each of its
individual sources. ***
The above additions will be added to the web page after reviews.
Cheers, Stan Byers
Fremont, California, USA
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4384a9c4$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8-qdnQhnTrLvCRnenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Hello Harry and Group,
Thanks for the message. Evidently you and I have interesting and
differing
interpretations of Einstein's 1905 statement. The quote that is in the
paper
is taken from my 1996 copy of the English translation of Einstein's 1912
Manuscript on the Special Theory of Relativity, pg. 56,...by George
Braziller.
Quote "There exists a coordinate system with respect to which every
light
ray propagates in vacuum with the velocity c". Unquote.
My interpretation of this statement, and my understanding of the
interpretation quoted by the special relativity advocates listed in the
paper is as follows:
* The vacuum is taken to be the "one vacuum" of the complete and
"one
uni-verse". This vacuum is also characterized by terms such as Inertial
space, Side Real space, Star Field space, and Outer space.
Sideral perhaps?!
* The terms "a coordinate system" is not taken to mean a separate
Inertial frame for each emitting object or observer.
* Now per the statement, as light is emitted from Jupiter it will
have
a constant speed of c in relation to the vacuum and all observers,
regardless of the side real motion of Jupiter or
the relative motion of any observers.
Sidereal for sure!
This is obviously an extremely counter intuitive concept, and is the only
concept that the paper "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" was
designed
to address.
Quoting from Harry's post, full version as given below:
SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses
speed of objects relative to inertial reference systems.
There may be a multitude of versions and schools of Special Relativity
that
interpret the above Einstein quote in a manner differing from my
interpretation and there may be flavors of SR constructed
that do not depend on the statement at all.
OK, so you merely try to show that your reading doesn't correspond to the
data, and you're not really interested to know that it also doesn't
correspond to what Lorentz and Einstein explained about it.
But what does that have to do with translating an article?
My single purpose is to only address the above version and
show that it conflicts with the current and 1676 data.
Sure, and it is well known to also conclict with GPS data.
Another concept that Roemer's delay refutes is that the speed of light
has
an
upper limit in the vacuum regardless of the relative speed of the emitter
and observer. The charts clearly demonstrate that the observed speed of
light is c plus v when the Earth is approaching Jupiter.
Again, the one doesn't invalidate the other, as I already pointed out to
you
in point 2 below: if the limit speed of *one* object is c, then the limit
closing speed of two objects (or of the earth relative to a light ray)
that
approach each other, is c+c= 2c.
However, this is indeed misunderstood or not understood at all by too many
people...
The data
demonstrates that light does not have an upper limit in the vacuum
of space.
If the data shows that when the earth has a velocity v, that the closing
speed of a light ray and the earth is significantly *more* than c+v,
*then*
that would demonstrate what you claim. But I don't think so.
This leaves Einstein's derivation of E = MC squared without
a foundation. E = MC squared was derived with the quoted statement
as a given.
E = MC squared may or may not be true, but you can't
derive a valid proof from a falsified statement.
No worries: that equation was also derived without special relativity.
The term observed speed does not refer to the speed of Jupiter's light
within the observers atmosphere,...it refers to the speed of the light
as it travels through the vacuum of space between the source and
observer and relative to the motion of the observers orbital motion.
No, it refers to the observer's chosen inertial coordinate system.
Planetary rotation is not a factor, you have to place the
mathematical observer at the north or south pole.
Cheers, Stan Byers
Best regards,
Harald
Fremont, California. USA
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
29 Nov 2005 12:15:46 PM |
|
|
SR states flatly that the speed of light will be "constant in vacuo,"
meaning that it will be constant in a vacuum for all possible observers
regardless of their own velocities -- whether 'ground velocity' (as on
Earth) or 'relative velocity' (as in space). Vacuum, void, exhaustion,
emptiness or nothingness (to which I would add 'everythingness' as being a
synonym for nothingness) is the required presumed universal common to all.
What would you think is the range of velocity? 0-186,200 mps (rounded
off)? 0-300,000 kps (rounded off)? First of all you would have to fix or
nail down "0" regarding the entire Universe before you could fix -- nail
down -- 186,200 mps or 300,000 kps regarding the entire Universe. This only
means that what we fix as "0" on Earth won't be "0" everywhere else in the
entirety of the Universe. Rather than chase the infinite possibilities of
"0" it can be simply designated as everythingness and/or nothingness,
vacuum, void, exhaustion, emptiness. Thus the speed of light will always be
"constant in vacuo."
There are more facets, there is a much greater dimensionality, to light
than the strict constant in a vacuum of speed though. Differentiations, the
"infinite possibilities," should be realized in the facets of
"wavelength"....and "frequency"....and "quantum mechanics."
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
29 Nov 2005 03:13:29 PM |
|
|
glbrad01 wrote: >
SR states flatly that the speed of light will be
"constant in vacuo," -=-
Yes, "constant" ..in any "constant particle-count".
-=- meaning that it will be constant -=-
Yes, "constant" ..as in any "constant particle-count".
-=- in a vacuum for all possible observers regardless of
their own velocities -- whether 'ground velocity' (as on
Earth) or 'relative velocity' (as in space). Vacuum, void,
exhaustion, emptiness or nothingness (to which I would add
'everythingness' as being a synonym for nothingness) is
the required presumed universal common to all.
$ OFF WiTH the HEAD to HEAL it.!!
The cHURCH-of-ENGLAND is STANDiNG in My WHOLLY of WHOLLYs.!!
You go into as though a DEEP sleep ..OFF HEAD, and HEALED.!!
WHOLLY, WHOLLY, WHOLLY, over, over & over and HEALED, duh.!!
NO ABOMiNATiON of DESOLATiON stands BESiDE or BESiDEs, Me.!!
brian a m stuckless
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
What would you think is the range of velocity? 0-186,200 mps (rounded
off)? 0-300,000 kps (rounded off)? First of all you would have to fix or
nail down "0" regarding the entire Universe before you could fix -- nail
down -- 186,200 mps or 300,000 kps regarding the entire Universe. This only
means that what we fix as "0" on Earth won't be "0" everywhere else in the
entirety of the Universe. Rather than chase the infinite possibilities of
"0" it can be simply designated as everythingness and/or nothingness,
vacuum, void, exhaustion, emptiness. Thus the speed of light will always be
"constant in vacuo."
There are more facets, there is a much greater dimensionality, to light
than the strict constant in a vacuum of speed though. Differentiations, the
"infinite possibilities," should be realized in the facets of
"wavelength"....and "frequency"....and "quantum mechanics."
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: OFF WiTH the HEAD to HEAL it.!! The cHURCH-of-ENGLAND is STANDiNG in My WHOLLY of WHOLLYs.!! You go into as though a DEEP sleep ..OFF HEAD, and HEALED.!! WHOLLY, WHOLLY, WHOLLY, over, over & over and HEALED, duh.!! NO ABOMiNATiON of DESOLATiON stands |
29 Nov 2005 03:13:30 PM |
|
|
glbrad01 wrote: >
SR states flatly that the speed of light will be
"constant in vacuo," -=-
Yes, "constant" ..in any "constant particle-count".
-=- meaning that it will be constant -=-
Yes, "constant" ..as in any "constant particle-count".
-=- in a vacuum for all possible observers regardless of
their own velocities -- whether 'ground velocity' (as on
Earth) or 'relative velocity' (as in space). Vacuum, void,
exhaustion, emptiness or nothingness (to which I would add
'everythingness' as being a synonym for nothingness) is
the required presumed universal common to all.
$ OFF WiTH the HEAD to HEAL it.!!
The cHURCH-of-ENGLAND is STANDiNG in My WHOLLY of WHOLLYs.!!
You go into as though a DEEP sleep ..OFF HEAD, and HEALED.!!
WHOLLY, WHOLLY, WHOLLY, over, over & over and HEALED, duh.!!
NO ABOMiNATiON of DESOLATiON stands BESiDE or BESiDEs, Me.!!
brian a m stuckless
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
What would you think is the range of velocity? 0-186,200 mps (rounded
off)? 0-300,000 kps (rounded off)? First of all you would have to fix or
nail down "0" regarding the entire Universe before you could fix -- nail
down -- 186,200 mps or 300,000 kps regarding the entire Universe. This only
means that what we fix as "0" on Earth won't be "0" everywhere else in the
entirety of the Universe. Rather than chase the infinite possibilities of
"0" it can be simply designated as everythingness and/or nothingness,
vacuum, void, exhaustion, emptiness. Thus the speed of light will always be
"constant in vacuo."
There are more facets, there is a much greater dimensionality, to light
than the strict constant in a vacuum of speed though. Differentiations, the
"infinite possibilities," should be realized in the facets of
"wavelength"....and "frequency"....and "quantum mechanics."
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
29 Nov 2005 09:08:57 AM |
|
|
"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:99-dnZy39spfRxbeRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
Hello Mr. Harry and Group,
Thanks for the response. It just may be that
we will correct some of the misunderstanding that
plague SR. There seem to be two seperate versions
of SR that are embraced by the SR advocates.
Version A interprets Einstein's constant light speed
statement to mean that all interstellar light travels to
us at the one constant speed c, and this speed is not
dependent on the speed of the source in relation to
Earth.
That's the only one I know... and note that c is similarly independent of
the speed of the earth.
Version B interprets Einstein's constant light speed
statement to mean that interstellar light traveling to us
has the normal speed c modified depending on the
speed of the source in relation to Earth.
Never heard of that one, and also not noticed in this thread.
The list of SR advocates that are presented in the paper
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm#SRAdvocates
are advocates of Version A of SR. The paper of this URL also
interprets SR and Einstein's light speed statement as Version A.
A web search for the term [ special relativity ] reveals that there
exist schools and groups of SR advocates that interpret Einstein's
constant speed statement as Version B.
Me thinks that it's more likely that you misinterpret their
interpretation...
Version A Advocates respond to the posts and the web page
by trying to disprove the data and charts of the
Jupiter/Io demonstration that disprove SR.
Version B Advocates respond by claiming that the Jupiter/Io
demonstration does not conflict with SR and therefore
SR is not disproven.
Funny, I claimed *based on Version A* that the Jupiter/Io
demonstration does not conflict with SR and therefore
SR is not disproven...
I returned to the English interpretation of Einstein's 1912 manuscript
to find a passage on page 66 that clearly demonstrates that Version A is
Einstein's intended meaning for the constant light speed
statement.
The passage will be added to the web page and is copied here.
Comments and red ink are welcome.
SNIP non-existent Version B for clarity.
The Jupiter/Io data and charts demonstrate that light has a
closing speed for an observer ( c' ) that depends on the relative speed (
v ) between the observer and the source ( c' = c +or- v ).
Dear Stan, v is *not* the relative speed between the observer and the source
in SRT... Instead it's the relative speed between an object and a chosen
inertial reference system. And of course, the speed of such a reference
system relative to itself is... (what do you think?).
A quote from a
sci.physics.relativity news group discussion is an example of this second
version of special relativity.
This quote is arguing that the Jupiter/Io charts and Roemer's delay do not
dispute Einstein's constant c statement. Quote
SRT does not use relative speed between objects, despite Einstein's
suggestion in his introduction to his 1905 paper. Instead SRT uses speed
of objects relative to inertial reference systems.
Thus, according to SRT, light speed will be measured as c in any chosen
inertial frame; consequently the speed of a light ray relative to
objects
that are moving in that frame with velocity v will be determined in that
frame as c-v ("closing speed"). Unquote
Are you perhaps confused between either observer or source and "intertial
reference system"?
I think you must be, seeing you erroneous thinking that v= [speed between
observer and source] = [speed between object and inertial system].
FYI (again): an inertial system is not generally co-moving with either
source or detector.
v= speed of object relative to ref. frame, and c= speed of light relative to
ref. frame.
Returning to the English translation of Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on SR
we
find a passage on page 66 that disputes the above quote and clarifies
Einstein's meaning concerning the speed of light in the vacuum of space.
Quote:
In case I, the velocity of light would depend on the state of motion of
the light source.
SNIP non-SRT case.
The passage of the above quote is essentially stating that the speed of
all
starlight through the interstellar space travels at the same speed, c,
towards us, regardless of the speed of the star in relation to earth.
Yes.
This
is clearly refuted by the Jupiter/Io light speed data and charts presented
with this paper.
No, why -- what inertial frame was used for the measurements, if any?
SNIP
The Special Relativity advocates listed above, Special Relativity
Advocates,
and readers who may believe that the SR concept is a "law" instead of just
a
"theory",... need to closely review the following quote from one of
Einstein's 1949 letters to his friend Maurice Solovine.
Quote: Now one may think that I am looking back on my life's work with
serene satisfaction. Viewed more closely however, it is quite different.
There is not a single concept of which I am certain that it will stand the
test of time. I am not sure that the concepts are on the right track at
all.
Unquote
Various English translations of this above quote can be found on the
internet. Einstein was responding to Maurice Solovine's letter of
congratulations on his 70th birthday.
The use of the universally recognized term "Inertial Space" demonstrates
that we already accept the fact that the medium which supports inertial
force is present, regardless of an object's speed or direction in relation
to sidereal space and Newton's inertial space. The medium supporting
inertia
is the same medium supporting the isotropic characteristics of light
relative to its source.
?? That sounds like a strange (for me illogical) mix between ballistic
theory and wave theory...
In this model of physical systems, this medium is
called Prime Force background radiation. A review of this web site's
section
on ...Inertia,... may lead to a better understanding of how this model
demonstrates the unity of matter and Prime Force radiation (Pf),... and
how
it allows light to exhibit a constant speed in relation to each of its
individual sources. ***
The above additions will be added to the web page after reviews.
Cheers, Stan Byers
Fremont, California, USA
Cheers,
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
29 Nov 2005 05:18:33 PM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438c71ce$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Funny, I claimed *based on Version A* [ref sbyers]
that the Jupiter/Io
demonstration does not conflict with SR and therefore
SR is not disproven...
That IS funny. Perhaps you'd care to explain how clocks
on Earth speed up when Earth approaches Jupiter and
slow down when Earth recedes from Jupiter, as it does in
every cycle.
You can use a suitably graduated sundial on Mars, hooked up
to a computer and tramsmitting dat via Spirit and Opportunity
as a reference clock and also time Phobos and Deimos while
you are at it.
I claim that SR is total ***** based on a stupid definition
[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]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The time for light to travel from Earth to Jupiter does NOT
equal the time for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth.
I claim that Einstein was deliberately perpetrating a hoax for the
greater glory of Einstein.
I claim that any rational, conscientious individual would see the
hoax when it was pointed out to them.
I claim that any rational jury would convict Einstein for fraud.
The question is, is vanlintel a rational individual or a funny phuckwit
based on version A?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
30 Nov 2005 03:32:29 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:dl5jf.33804$8G6.12538@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438c71ce$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Funny, I claimed *based on Version A* [ref sbyers]
that the Jupiter/Io
demonstration does not conflict with SR and therefore
SR is not disproven...
That IS funny. Perhaps you'd care to explain how clocks
on Earth speed up when Earth approaches Jupiter and
slow down when Earth recedes from Jupiter, as it does in
every cycle.
That's interesting! Why do you conclude that the clock rate changes? (I
happen not to have a sundial on Mars...)
You can use a suitably graduated sundial on Mars, hooked up
to a computer and tramsmitting dat via Spirit and Opportunity
as a reference clock and also time Phobos and Deimos while
you are at it.
I claim that SR is total ***** based on a stupid definition
[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]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
It's pragmatic. We could also define that instead this is so in for example
the frame of the sun. Would still work.
The time for light to travel from Earth to Jupiter does NOT
equal the time for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth.
I think that those datapoints don't correspond to the above definition of
fixed points A and B in an inertial reference system.
Harald
I claim that Einstein was deliberately perpetrating a hoax for the
greater glory of Einstein.
I claim that any rational, conscientious individual would see the
hoax when it was pointed out to them.
I claim that any rational jury would convict Einstein for fraud.
The question is, is vanlintel a rational individual or a funny phuckwit
based on version A?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
30 Nov 2005 06:04:26 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d71ae$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:dl5jf.33804$8G6.12538@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438c71ce$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Funny, I claimed *based on Version A* [ref sbyers]
that the Jupiter/Io
demonstration does not conflict with SR and therefore
SR is not disproven...
That IS funny. Perhaps you'd care to explain how clocks
on Earth speed up when Earth approaches Jupiter and
slow down when Earth recedes from Jupiter, as it does in
every cycle.
That's interesting! Why do you conclude that the clock rate changes? (I
happen not to have a sundial on Mars...)
I don't, son. You are the one claiming SR is not disproven.
Of course nobody has to disprove SR, burden of proof is upon the
claimant. I'm just giving you an opportunity to prove your statement
and the tools to do it with. I find your claim to be very funny
in a ridiculous way, so I thought I'd ridicule you a tad to get more
laughs. Let us all see how interesting you can be.
You can use a suitably graduated sundial on Mars, hooked up
to a computer and tramsmitting dat via Spirit and Opportunity
as a reference clock and also time Phobos and Deimos while
you are at it.
I claim that SR is total ***** based on a stupid definition
[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]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
It's pragmatic.
Oooohhhh ...
Pragmatic, huh? That's a BIG word, I had to look it up.
"relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion
of intellectual or artistic matters"
You think it is fact, do you?
I think it is a LIE. I think that x'/(c+v) does NOT equal x'/(c-v).
But then, I'm pragmatic. Prove that x'/(c-v) = x'/(c+v) for me,
would you, there's a good chap. Then we can both be as pragmatic
as the idiot Einstein.
We could also define that instead this is so in for example
the frame of the sun. Would still work.
Still work, eh? Frame of the sun, eh?
Well go on then, show how it still works in the frame of the sun.
Be pragmatic. Show that x'/(c+v) = x'/(c-v) in the frame of the sun,
there's a clever and pragmatic fellow. I STILL think it is a LIE.
But you can teach me, I'm willing to learn.
The time for light to travel from Earth to Jupiter does NOT
equal the time for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth.
I think that those datapoints don't correspond to the above definition of
fixed points A and B in an inertial reference system.
You think, eh? You don't seem to sure. Can you show me where
Einstein said "inertial reference frame" please? I can't seem to find it.
Or perhaps you can show me where you first got the idea of an
inertial reference frame, some moron may have LIED to you.
Was it Tom Roberts or John Baez, or some other idiot?
You do know what a LIE is, I hope? Are you LYING to sbyers?
Telling him things that are NOT true? Things that are NOT pragmatic?
Androcles.
Harald
I claim that Einstein was deliberately perpetrating a hoax for the
greater glory of Einstein.
I claim that any rational, conscientious individual would see the
hoax when it was pointed out to them.
I claim that any rational jury would convict Einstein for fraud.
The question is, is vanlintel a rational individual or a funny phuckwit
based on version A?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
02 Dec 2005 09:12:38 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:ezgjf.109352$Es4.52968@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d71ae$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:dl5jf.33804$8G6.12538@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438c71ce$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Funny, I claimed *based on Version A* [ref sbyers]
that the Jupiter/Io
demonstration does not conflict with SR and therefore
SR is not disproven...
That IS funny. Perhaps you'd care to explain how clocks
on Earth speed up when Earth approaches Jupiter and
slow down when Earth recedes from Jupiter, as it does in
every cycle.
That's interesting! Why do you conclude that the clock rate changes? (I
happen not to have a sundial on Mars...)
I don't, son. You are the one claiming SR is not disproven.
Of course nobody has to disprove SR, burden of proof is upon the
claimant. I'm just giving you an opportunity to prove your statement
and the tools to do it with. I find your claim to be very funny
in a ridiculous way, so I thought I'd ridicule you a tad to get more
laughs. Let us all see how interesting you can be.
You can use a suitably graduated sundial on Mars, hooked up
to a computer and tramsmitting dat via Spirit and Opportunity
as a reference clock and also time Phobos and Deimos while
you are at it.
I claim that SR is total ***** based on a stupid definition
[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]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
It's pragmatic.
Oooohhhh ...
Pragmatic, huh? That's a BIG word, I had to look it up.
"relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion
of intellectual or artistic matters"
You think it is fact, do you?
No, the other one: simply practical, purposefully *not* claimed to be
"true". It was Poincare who proposed it, similar to the rule that current in
a wire flows from + to - (for the calculation it doesn't matter that
electrons actually flow from - to + !).
So, now you: is it a LIE or not that current in a wire flows from + to - ?
I think it is a LIE. I think that x'/(c+v) does NOT equal x'/(c-v).
But then, I'm pragmatic. Prove that x'/(c-v) = x'/(c+v) for me,
would you, there's a good chap. Then we can both be as pragmatic
as the idiot Einstein.
We could also define that instead this is so in for example
the frame of the sun. Would still work.
Still work, eh? Frame of the sun, eh?
Well go on then, show how it still works in the frame of the sun.
Be pragmatic. Show that x'/(c+v) = x'/(c-v) in the frame of the sun,
there's a clever and pragmatic fellow. I STILL think it is a LIE.
But you can teach me, I'm willing to learn.
I won't try anymore, for I don't believe you.
The time for light to travel from Earth to Jupiter does NOT
equal the time for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth.
I think that those datapoints don't correspond to the above definition
of
fixed points A and B in an inertial reference system.
You think, eh? You don't seem to sure. Can you show me where
Einstein said "inertial reference frame" please? I can't seem to find it.
Explained to you before: he (or Plank!) used the more hazy phrase "for which
the laws of nature are valid" or something like that (and I'm sure you know
it...).
Or perhaps you can show me where you first got the idea of an
inertial reference frame, some moron may have LIED to you.
Was it Tom Roberts or John Baez, or some other idiot?
You do know what a LIE is, I hope? Are you LYING to sbyers?
Telling him things that are NOT true? Things that are NOT pragmatic?
Easy: I found the idea more clearly expressed in later papers by Einstein as
well in for example Poincare 1904 -- even in Newton's Principia.
Cheers,
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation |
02 Dec 2005 11:54:04 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:43906467$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:ezgjf.109352$Es4.52968@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d71ae$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:dl5jf.33804$8G6.12538@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438c71ce$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Funny, I claimed *based on Version A* [ref sbyers]
that the Jupiter/Io
demonstration does not conflict with SR and therefore
SR is not disproven...
That IS funny. Perhaps you'd care to explain how clocks
on Earth speed up when Earth approaches Jupiter and
slow down when Earth recedes from Jupiter, as it does in
every cycle.
That's interesting! Why do you conclude that the clock rate changes? (I
happen not to have a sundial on Mars...)
I don't, son. You are the one claiming SR is not disproven.
Of course nobody has to disprove SR, burden of proof is upon the
claimant. I'm just giving you an opportunity to prove your statement
and the tools to do it with. I find your claim to be very funny
in a ridiculous way, so I thought I'd ridicule you a tad to get more
laughs. Let us all see how interesting you can be.
You can use a suitably graduated sundial on Mars, hooked up
to a computer and tramsmitting dat via Spirit and Opportunity
as a reference clock and also time Phobos and Deimos while
you are at it.
I claim that SR is total ***** based on a stupid definition
[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]
Ref: http://www.fou | | | | | | | | | | | | |
