Dono wrote:
On May 26, 10:18 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Dono wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9912/9912014v8.pdf
While it is true that over a non-local distance GR predicts anisotropy
in the round-trip speed of light, in practice this is too small to
measure on earth.

The calculations in the "paper" are still wrong, right?

I have not checked them or read the paper in detail. Skipping to the end
the paper says the effect is too small to measure, which is correct.


Tom Roberts

On May 26, 6:07 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Dono wrote:
On May 26, 10:18 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Dono wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9912/9912014v8.pdf
While it is true that over a non-local distance GR predicts anisotropy
in the round-trip speed of light, in practice this is too small to
measure on earth.

The calculations in the "paper" are still wrong, right?

I have not checked them or read the paper in detail. Skipping to the end
the paper says the effect is too small to measure, which is correct.

Tom Roberts



Look at formulas (1) and (2). The guy doesn't understand closing
speed, he thinks that c varies depending on direction (upward vs.
downward). To make matters worse, he uses the newtonian at^2

Dono wrote:
On May 26, 6:07 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Look at formulas (1) and (2). The guy doesn't understand closing
speed, he thinks that c varies depending on direction (upward vs.
downward). To make matters worse, he uses the newtonian at^2

I have no interest in studying and then debating this paper.

But I remark that in GR, for a non-local path [#], on the surface of the
earth, the measured 1-way speed of light _is_ different up from down,
for any sensible method of synchronizing clocks. Moreover, the 1-way
speed of light measured with real clocks will _vary_ when measured over
a non-local vertical path, with the value depending on how much time has
elapsed between synchronizing the clocks and making the measurement. So
it's clear that such measurements are not just measuring the 1-way speed
of light (which cannot vary for such a static situation), but are also
displaying limitations of the instruments.

[#] By "non-local" I mean a path long enough and with clocks
accurate and precise enough to detect the tiny variations
I'm discussing. In practice this is negligible, even for the
best available laboratory clocks.

Measuring the speed of light over round-trip paths does not suffer from
this problem, and over non-local paths is anisotropic on the surface of
the earth. But in practice the magnitude of this anisotropy is well
below measurement resolutions.


Tom Roberts

On May 26, 10:15 pm, Dono wrote:
On May 26, 6:07 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Dono wrote:
On May 26, 10:18 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Dono wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9912/9912014v8.pdf
While it is true that over a non-local distance GR predicts anisotropy
in the round-trip speed of light, in practice this is too small to
measure on earth.

The calculations in the "paper" are still wrong, right?

I have not checked them or read the paper in detail. Skipping to the end
the paper says the effect is too small to measure, which is correct.

Tom Roberts

Look at formulas (1) and (2). The guy doesn't understand closing
speed, he thinks that c varies depending on direction (upward vs.
downward). To make matters worse, he uses the newtonian at^2

Tom Roberts is consistant in perfering a causality violating
interpretation
of Pound-Rebka rather than the Pound-Snider nuclear resonance
interpretation as Okun suggest:

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a
static gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational
redshift, is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the
behaviour of clocks which run the faster the higher they are
located in the potential, whereas the energy and frequency
of the propagating photon do not change with height. The light
thus appears to be redshifted relative to the frequency of the clock.
On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of a
photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading. We do not claim to present
any original ideas or to give a comprehensive review of the
subject, our goal being essentially a pedagogical one.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017

Taking the 3-space length of a 4-space world line is necessary
to make the twins age absrudly so don't expect Tom to find the
faults that you do in the paper and give up his "magic trick"

Sue...

Dono wrote:
On May 26, 9:20 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Androcles wrote in sci.physics.relativity:



"ca314159" wrote in ...
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes that the
"source" of the light in the interferometer can be
wholely represented in only one frame of reference,
the lab frame (where the null result occurs).

The source of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment
must be represented by two separate frames:

The leg of the interferometer where radiation was expected to
be affected by its relative motion with respect to an aether,
composes one frame of reference. I will call this the lab frame.

The other leg of the interferometer composed a completely
different frame of reference; effectively,
it was not in relative motion with respect to the aether;
in this leg there was no expected influence of an aether wind
upon the radiation and so it can be considered as a separate frame
from the lab frame and treated as if it were being dragged along
with the aether. I will call this the aether frame.

But the actual light source of the Michelson-Morley experiment
effectively exists at the intersection of these two different
frames of reference and yet emits the same radiation into both of them;
so then, how can we say that the source will be affected by
the relative motion between the lab frame and the aether frames
when the light source exists inside both frames at the same time?

We can't, and that's why there's a null result.

You can theorise all you want to, Sagnac doesn't get a null result but it would
if you stopped it turning.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Sagnac's experiment can be regarded as a proof that Einstein criminal
cult has managed to destroy rationality in science completely. There
can be no other experiment more convincingly refuting Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light and yet simple and even
naive camouflage devised by Einstein criminal cult has been absolutely
efficient for almost a century:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames
Vesselin Petkov
Science College, Concordia University
1455 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8

"The Sagnac effect can de described as follows. Two light signals
emitted from a point M on the rim of a rotating disk and propagating
along its rim in opposite directions will not arrive simultaneously at
M. There still exist people who question special relativity and their
main argument has been this effect. They claim that for an observer on
the rotating disk the speed of light is not constant - that the
Galilean law of velocity addition (c+v and c v, where v is the orbital
speed at a point on the disk rim) should be used by the rotating
observer in order to explain the time difference in the arrival of the
two light signals at M. What makes such claims even more persistent is
the lack of a clear position on the issue of the speed of light in non-
inertial reference frames. What special relativity states is that the
speed of light is constant only in inertial reference frames - this
constancy follows from the impossibility to detect absolute motion
(more precisely, it follows from the non-existence of absolute
motion). Accelerated motion can be detected and for this reason the
coordinate velocity of light in non-inertial reference frames is a
function of the proper acceleration of the frame. The rotating disk is
a non-inertial reference frame and its acceleration can be detected by
different means including light signals. That is why it is not
surprising that the coordinate velocity of light as determined on the
disk depends on the centripetal acceleration of the disk."

Pentcho Valev


Now it is clear where you get all your ideas. Check this out, by the
same "scientist":

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9810/9810030v14.pdf

The idiot apparently never heard of Pound-Rebka.

You believe other relativists are cleverer? Besides, Vesselin Petkov
is not an ordinary relativist - he is one of the leaders of the so-
called Minkowski spacetime money-makers - an influential cartel in
Einstein criminal cult:

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/

Pentcho Valev

On May 26, 9:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Dono wrote:
On May 26, 6:07 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Look at formulas (1) and (2). The guy doesn't understand closing
speed, he thinks that c varies depending on direction (upward vs.
downward). To make matters worse, he uses the newtonian at^2

I have no interest in studying and then debating this paper.

But I remark that in GR, for a non-local path [#], on the surface of the
earth, the measured 1-way speed of light _is_ different up from down,
for any sensible method of synchronizing clocks. Moreover, the 1-way
speed of light measured with real clocks will _vary_ when measured over
a non-local vertical path, with the value depending on how much time has
elapsed between synchronizing the clocks and making the measurement. So
it's clear that such measurements are not just measuring the 1-way speed
of light (which cannot vary for such a static situation), but are also
displaying limitations of the instruments.

[#] By "non-local" I mean a path long enough and with clocks
accurate and precise enough to detect the tiny variations
I'm discussing. In practice this is negligible, even for the
best available laboratory clocks.

Measuring the speed of light over round-trip paths does not suffer from
this problem, and over non-local paths is anisotropic on the surface of
the earth. But in practice the magnitude of this anisotropy is well
below measurement resolutions.

Tom Roberts



This is interesting, much more interesting than all the crackpot stuff
that started the discussion. Is the proof easy to derive? Can you do a
short writeup? (the math associated with it would be great).

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Sagnac's experiment can be regarded as a proof that Einstein criminal
cult has managed to destroy rationality in science completely. There
can be no other experiment more convincingly refuting Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light

This is plain and simply not true. The constancy of the speed of light
in SR applies ONLY to inertial frames. The rotating Sagnac apparatus is
manifestly not inertial. Indeed, applying an SR analysis in the inertial
frame of its center one obtains values that agree with experimental
observations.

References Roberts Roberts? (If possible available on the internet)

Exercise for the reader: show QUANTITATIVELY that for a Sagnac
apparatus on the surface of the earth the effects of gravitation
and earth's rotation and revolution are all negligible.

Valev continually and repeatedly tries to discuss things he does not
understand, and makes numerous errors therein. And his stupid writing
style underscores his lack of knowledge. He needs to grow up and STUDY,
rather than wasting time posting nonsense to the net.

I do not have time right now Roberts Roberts but tomorrow I am going
to compare my stupidity and your stupidity:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c45cb1c4adda7?
Tom Roberts in sci.physics.relativity: "The speed of the light is also
independent of source velocity, both in SR and GR, and experimentally.
The frequency and wavelength of the emitted light, however, are not
independent of source velocity, and depend upon the relative velocity
of the source and observer, including the direction of this velocity 3-
vector wrt the beam of light. The SR Doppler formula describes this
quite well (i.e. agrees with experimental measurements)." Tom Roberts


Roberts Roberts your silence prevents me from comparing my stupidity
and your stupidity. Just answer a simple question Roberts Roberts:
Would you call the distance between two consecutive flashes emitted by
a light source "wavelength"? See more in

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2830d9a42e1c1?

Pentcho Valev

On May 26, 8:10 pm, "Androcles" wrote:


The word "inertial" appears nowhere in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies".
What special relativity DOES claim is contained in the last three paragraphs
of section 4,
which clearly refers to non-inertial frames.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"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."


But instead of inertial he writes 'uniform translatory motion'.

And if you had quoted all the relevant part, everyone would have seen
that Einstein was assuming that motion along a curve could be analyzed
as a composite inertial motion, which I assume was only temptative at
this time when he had not yet developed GR. Here is the missing part
of your quotation:

"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 second slow".

Best regards

"LauLuna" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On May 26, 8:10 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
:
:
: The word "inertial" appears nowhere in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
: Bodies".
: What special relativity DOES claim is contained in the last three
paragraphs
: of section 4,
: which clearly refers to non-inertial frames.
: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
:
: "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."
:
:
: But instead of inertial he writes 'uniform translatory motion'.
:

I'm not so deranged that I hallucinate a clock at the equator is in
'uniform translatory motion'.

: And if you had quoted all the relevant part


I did, imbecile. The relevant part is where the great astrologer Einstein
applies his crystal ball readings and palmistry to the real Earth, dolt.
I'll
decide what's relevant, idiot.

: , everyone would have seen

'Everyone' can read for themselves, some of them can even think for
themselves.

: that Einstein was assuming

Yes, you have that right. Congratulations, genius, take one brownie point.
Einstein does a lot of assuming and no proving. That's how the fine art
of persuading the gullible is accomplished.


: that motion along a curve could be analyzed
: as a composite inertial motion, which I assume

*You* assume? Einstein does all the assuming for you, cretin.
Ass-u-me makes an ass out of u and ewe, not u and me.

"Thence we CONCLUDE" that Einstein didn't realise atomic clocks
would someday disprove his quack crackpottery.

: was only temptative at
: this time when he had not yet developed GR. Here is the missing part
: of your quotation:
:
: "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 second slow".
:
Here is the missing part of *your* quotation: "1/2 tv^2/c^2".

Here is the missing part of your brain, plug it in and think clearly:

"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 sundials at A is moved in a closed curve with
constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then
by the sundial which has remained at rest the travelled sundial
on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 millenia slow".

I do not assume that the result proved for a polygonal line was proved at
all.
In fact it was disproved by Einstein himself in section 3, which you *might*
see clearly by making the polygon a square.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img26.gif

Now all you need do is apply the Anderson transformations.
"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen


: Best regards

Thank you.

Without regards,
Androcles.

Dono wrote:
On May 26, 9:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
But I remark that in GR, for a non-local path [#], on the surface of the
earth, the measured 1-way speed of light _is_ different up from down,
for any sensible method of synchronizing clocks. [...]

This is interesting, much more interesting than all the crackpot stuff
that started the discussion. Is the proof easy to derive? Can you do a
short writeup? (the math associated with it would be great).

Already posted to this newsgroup, long ago (1998):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2?dmode=source

(I of course applied the equivalence principle to convert the
conclusions of this SR computation to the earth's surface.)

That is a computation in SR, in GR one would integrate the metric over
the light path. That's more complicated, but for the Schwarzschild
manifold and vertical paths it can be done. Somewhere I have a
Mathematica notebook with this computation for LIGO detecting sun and
moon (unfortunately they have no sensitivity at all for signals of this
frequency). The conclusions are essentially the same, but the details
differ a bit....


Tom Roberts