VALIDITY OF EINSTEIN'S THEORY

**brian a m stuckless**

Alex wrote: -=- snip -=-
No, for instance, when relativity was first developed many
physicists thought that photons might have mass.
-=- snip -=-
Alex wrote:
It is important to understand that even if the photon had a
tiny mass this would not affect special relativity theory.

$$ A PHOTON has mass h*fL/c^2, STANDARD SI kilogram mass.
$$ YOU are using an old Coup-GR RE-definition of "mass".
$$ The REST mass, m_o = sqrt{1 - (v^2/c^2)}*h*fL / c^2.
$$ There's NO G_uv & T_uv equitable "mass" in GR & SR.
$$ Profoundly, there is NO "curvature" in GR ..or SR.
$$ Only NEWTON's side of the Newtonian Limit ..TRUE.

Best wishes Alex Green
VALiDiTY OF EiNSTEiN's [PRE-coup] THEORY.
TRUE physical Bi-focal FoR stereoscopic .

**Sorcerer**

"Alex" wrote in message
ups.com...
|" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
| modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "
|
| No,

Yes!

for instance, when relativity was first developed many physicists
| thought that photons might have mass. Your challenge is to work out
| how physicists such as de Broglie could believe in relativity and in
| the idea that the speed of photons might not be equal to the universal
| constant "c". See:
|
| http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity

Real physics:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Androcles.

**Dirk Van de moortel**

**Alex**

Sorcerer wrote:
"Alex" wrote in message
ups.com...
|" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
| modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "
|
| No,

Yes!

for instance, when relativity was first developed many physicists
| thought that photons might have mass. Your challenge is to work out
| how physicists such as de Broglie could believe in relativity and in
| the idea that the speed of photons might not be equal to the universal
| constant "c". See:
|
| http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity

Real physics:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

The Sagnac effect illustrates my point about the velocity, or apparent
velocity, of photons superbly:

The Sagnac effect is not an artifact of the choice of reference frame.
It is independent of the choice of reference frame, as is shown by a
calculation that invokes the metric tensor for an observer at the axis
of rotation of the ring interferometer and rotating with it yielding
the same outcome. If one starts with the Minkowski metric and does the
coordinate conversions x = r cos ( a + w t ) and mathy = r sin (a + w
t ), the line element of the resultant metric is

ds^2 = (c^2 - r^2w^2) dt^2 - dr^2 - r^2 da^2 - dz^2 - 2r^2 w dt da

where
* t is proper time for the central observer,
* r is distance from the center,
* a is the angular distance along the ring from the direction the
central observer is facing,
* z is the direction perpendicular to the plane of the ring, and
* w is the rate of rotation of the ring and the observer.

Under this metric, the speed of light tangent to the ring is c +- r w
depending on whether the light is moving against or with the rotation
of the ring. Note that only the case of w = 0 is inertial. For w ne
0 this frame of reference is non-inertial, which is why the speed of
light at positions distant from the observer (at r=0 ) can vary from
c .

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

The important feature of modern relativity is the Minkowski metric.

Androcles.

**Sorcerer**

"Alex" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Alex" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
| | modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "
| |
| | No,
|
| Yes!
|
|
|
|
| for instance, when relativity was first developed many physicists
| | thought that photons might have mass. Your challenge is to work out
| | how physicists such as de Broglie could believe in relativity and in
| | the idea that the speed of photons might not be equal to the universal
| | constant "c". See:
| |
| | http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity
|
| Real physics:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
|
| The Sagnac effect illustrates my point about the velocity, or apparent
| velocity, of photons superbly:

| The Sagnac effect is not an artifact of the choice of reference frame.
| It is independent of the choice of reference frame, as is shown by a
| calculation that invokes the metric tensor for an observer at the axis
| of rotation of the ring interferometer and rotating with it yielding
| the same outcome. If one starts with the Minkowski metric and does the
| coordinate conversions x = r cos ( a + w t ) and mathy = r sin (a + w
| t ), the line element of the resultant metric is
|
| ds^2 = (c^2 - r^2w^2) dt^2 - dr^2 - r^2 da^2 - dz^2 - 2r^2 w dt da
|
| where
| * t is proper time for the central observer,
| * r is distance from the center,
| * a is the angular distance along the ring from the direction the
| central observer is facing,
| * z is the direction perpendicular to the plane of the ring, and
| * w is the rate of rotation of the ring and the observer.
|
| Under this metric, the speed of light tangent to the ring is c +- r w

You can stop right there, the speed of light is no longer c by your own
calculation.
" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "
You've just shattered Einstein's crackpot "postulate".

Don't watch Sagnac turning, your watch will slow down.
By the PoR, you are running around the outside.
As for FoR, this is Sagnac modelled by kids:

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
or
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mpg

| depending on whether the light is moving against or with the rotation
| of the ring. Note that only the case of w = 0 is inertial.

Llight curves both ways. One ray is |c+v|, the other is |c-v|.
BTW, Sagnac is useful to engineers, relativity isn't. Thought experiments
are useless.
"Everything shoud be as silly as possible, preferably sillier."

| For w ne
| 0 this frame of reference is non-inertial, which is why the speed of
| light at positions distant from the observer (at r=0 ) can vary from
| c .

There are no inertial frames, and Einstein did not use the word "inertial".
In **FACT** he said:

"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for
a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img64.gif
second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go
more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

Hence "inertial" is pure bull****.

|
| see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect
|
| The important feature of modern relativity is the Minkowski metric.

Wackypedia is as full of crap as you are. It's not my fault you have your
head so far up your arse you can only see your own important ****.
I don't consider **** to be an important feature, even if you do, dralex.

Androcles.

**Dirk Van de moortel**

"Sorcerer" wrote in message ...

"Alex" wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

|
| see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect
|
| The important feature of modern relativity is the Minkowski metric.

Wackypedia is as full of crap as you are.

Because you so miserably failed to contibute?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_ta...e_Hexenmeister

Dirk Vdm

**Bilge**

Koobee Wublee:
"Bilge" wrote in message
ue-al.net...

Koobee Wublee [wrote]:

GR has been scrutinized closedly on the top level, and it appears
flawless. However, the very foundation is extremely faulty and absurd
which no one has attempted to examine unitl now by Koobee Wublee yours
truly.

Since you also stated:

. com

``The Principle of Equivalence does not show any useful purpose.''

you do not even understand how the foundation of general relativity
relates to general relativity. What is faulty is your understanding. You
also lack the ability to recognize your own incompetence.

Since you have brought it up, let me say that again. Einstein's
version of the principle of Equivalence represents a dead end in the
development of GR. Thus, it suits no purpose in further development of
GR or physics.

That is like saying hydrocarbons are a dead end in the manufacture of
gasoline. Your entire statement makes no sense.

When Newton oberved that apple fallen off a tree, he described the law
of gravity in which better than 99.9% of the situations it is still valid.

What's your point? Physics is not engineering. If you want to do
engineering, stop wasting your time posting to physics newsgroups.
Physicists' goals involve understanding the 0.1% you don't care about.

When you fall from a 10 story building, you don't feel gravity. Big
deal, except bracing for a tragic end!
So, care to prove me wrong?

Prove what wrong? What does that have to do with general relativity?
Post that to an OSHA newsgroup.

www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

This is the same bullie tactics Galileo faced many centuries ago.

``Help! I'm being repressed.''

This article is absolutely meaningless since it can apply to everyone
including your idol Einstein Himself.

Speaking of fallacious logic, you have several examples in that
sentence alone.

For your sake of argument, you'd better concentrate on the technical issues.

That would be possible only if you posted something of technical
merit. You are a poster child for that psychology article. You think
you understand relativity at a level comparable to physicists, yet
every statement you have ever made, indicates that you have no
understanding of general relativity and in general, less understanding
of physics than a sophomore physics student.

[...]

You have to be a lot more specific in order for us to carry on a
meaningful discussion.

I have no expectation of such a discussion, since you are competent
enough to hold up your end of such a discussion.

**Timo A. Nieminen**

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Sorcerer wrote:

There are no inertial frames, and Einstein did not use the word "inertial".
In **FACT** he said:

"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for
a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img64.gif
second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go
more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

Hence "inertial" is pure bull****.

Since when have you become an anti-Newtonist?

An "inertial frame" is simply a coordinate system in which Newton's
laws hold. You say that there are no inertial frames, so that's
equivalent to saying that Newton was wrong.

Since you're so familiar with the English translation of Einstein's SR
paper, surely you know he (strictly speaking, the translator) wrote
"frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good",
equivalent to "inertial frame". Why not quote a relevant portion of the
paper?

--
T

**Sorcerer**

"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Sorcerer wrote:
|
| There are no inertial frames, and Einstein did not use the word
"inertial".
| In **FACT** he said:
|
| "If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for
| a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
| synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity
| until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
| which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will
be
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img64.gif
| second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must
go
| more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated
| at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
|
| Hence "inertial" is pure bull****.
|
| Since when have you become an anti-Newtonist?
|
| An "inertial frame" is simply a coordinate system in which Newton's
| laws hold.

Hey moron! Newton's laws hold in ALL frames of reference, inertial or
otherwise.
It's only Einstein's silly **** that is limited, dickhead.

|You say that there are no inertial frames, so that's
| equivalent to saying that Newton was wrong.
|
| Since you're so familiar with the English translation of Einstein's SR
| paper, surely you know he (strictly speaking, the translator) wrote
| "frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good",
| equivalent to "inertial frame". Why not quote a relevant portion of the
| paper?

The equations of mechanics hold good in ALL frames, jerk-off. That
you don't know what they are is your problem. Light paths curve, just
like this ball:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
You never be a physicist or mathematician as long as you have a hole
in your arse, Nieminen. **** off, you dumb ****.
Androcles.

**Orator**

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Orator" wrote in message
...

--

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Orator wrote:
--

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Orator wrote:
I don't think so. Speed of light is not constant. For a start
"light"
isn't
constant. The two ends of the spectrum travel at different
speeds.
It is
used in astronomy to determine how far away a star is if I
remember
right.

No, you do not remember right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it is the
Doppler
effect that is being measured referred to commonly as the red shift.
The
wavelength of colours in the spectrum vary.

Correct up to here.

Doppler effect is the difference in sound of a race car approaching
you
from
that when it has past you and is going away from you. The sound waves
are
compressed (high pitch) when the car is approaching you, and they
sound
waves get elongated (low pitch) when it is leaving you. That is the
doppler
effect

Correct up to here.

Light just like sound is a "wave" the blue spectrum is a high
frequenct
(short wave length - most occilations in a given distance) and red
has
the
opposite. This is what causes the "red shift" (for a star some 4.5
billion
light years away). This tells an astronomer if the star is moving
away
from,
or towards you for a starter. The amount of red shift will tell the
astronomer the relative speed the star is moving at.

Correct up to here.

As light is in a "wave" the more occilations it has the greater the
distance
it covered. The less it has the less distance covered, the least
being
no
occilations or a straight line (and no light). Therefor the blue
spectrum
has to cover more distance than the red spectrum. There will then
become
a
point where the blue spectrum light an no longer be stretched any
further
and ceases to exist. Then for light from the sun, the blue spectrum
must
therefore travel faster than the red spectrum to arrive at the same
time
as
it coverds a greater distance. If this was not so the Doppler effect
could
not exist.

No, this is all bolluxed up.

Several comments:
1. There is no limit to how low or high a frequency can be, nor can you
stretch it so much that it "ceases to exist".

If that was true, then light speed would be infinite. Light ceases to be
light at some point and the object becomes invisible even if the wave
length
merely.becames extreme.

Consider the supersonic aircraft, flying at supersonic speed. You cannot
hear it coming because it travels faster than sound. The "sonic boom"
you
hear is an atmospheric event (like thunder) and not the sound of the
aircraft engines. The reason you will hear the aircraft after it has
passed
is that sound propagates through vibrations in matter and has no
existence
of its own (as in a vaccume).

2. The shifting has nothing to do with how fast the light is traveling.
Redshifted light from a star is still traveling toward your eye at c
(the speed of light), at the same speed that it would have if the star
were not receding and the light unshifted.

If the measure of the band between the top and the bottom of the
occilation
is seen as "light", you are correct. It is understood most often in that
manner as well, hence the difficulty in picturing this concept. One
would
need to think of a single photon. This occilation we measure is a "wave"
and
the more often it visits the top and bottom of the band, in a given
distance, the further it has to travel. Therefore light at two different
frequencies must have different speeds to arrive simultaneously at a
given
point..

3. If light from a star is redshifted, then *all* the frequencies of
light from that star are shifted by the same ratio, whether the
original light was red, green, or blue. Recall that the light from a
star is an entire spectrum, not just a particular color, and all
frequencies in that spectrum are shifted.

True and this is the proof of the pudding of my view. You state that
all.colours shift to the red by the same amount, no disagreement there.
If
one then takes an extreme example and say that it has shifted so far
that
blue is now red, then the light spectrum above red has been extingusihed
by
the speed of the object emiting the light. To put it another way, light
of
the other spectrums were too slow to get here.

4. A blue part of the spectrum that is shifted into the green is still
lower in frequency and so we still call it red-shifted, even though it
is not red.

True, but green is no longer blue either and that is really the point.

5. The shift is due to the relative motion of the *star*, not the
light. The red light from a star doesn't shift differently than the
blue light from the same star, nor does it travel at a different speed
than the blue light from that star.

Naturally it is the star that has a speed - however it does affect the
speed
of light in realtion to a stationary point (assuming us to be
"stationary").
Therefor that light is; C - speed of the star. If C was constant (in
relation to us) it would require a variable speed for C - eg in this
case,
C+ speed of the star.

Of course it can be argued that it is "constant", by only looking at the
red, where other spectrums have dropped off and not made it here.

Does this help?

It obviously didn't.
I'm pessimistic on this one.
Sounds like a troll.
But good luck anyway ;-)

If you look at my address, you will assuredly see "troll.bridge.net", but be
this from a troll or not, you are welcome to point out any alleged errors,
and replace them with sound logical alternative - if you can that is :-)

I also have another conundrum for you to solve, if you feel capable of it
that is - explain why it is, at least theoretically, possible to exceed the
speed of light while standing still (some people have already posed such a
theory). It is astonishingly simple actually.

Yours is a fairly common view most would ascribe to. "Light" is not in
general considered per individual colour.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
VALIDITY OF EINSTEIN'S THEORY	Pentcho Valev	Physics - General Discussion	31	July 1st 06 11:16 AM
Moving Dimensions Theory--Not String Theory--Satisfies Einstein's Requirements for a Physical Theory	Bill Hobba	The Theory of Relativity	4	December 29th 05 07:07 AM
Moving Dimensions Theory--Not String Theory--Satisfies Einstein's Requirements for a Physical Theory	Bill Hobba	Physics - New Theories	4	December 29th 05 07:07 AM
Moving Dimensions Theory--Not String Theory--Satisfies Einstein's Requirements for a Physical Theory	Dastardly Fiend	Physics - General Discussion	2	December 28th 05 11:04 PM
Moving Dimensions Theory--Not String Theory--Satisfies Einstein's Requirements for a Physical Theory	Dastardly Fiend	Physics - New Theories	2	December 28th 05 11:04 PM