Re: SR theory is simplistic


"G" <gehan_ameresekere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1176804374.114503.156650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 17, 1:28 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"G" <gehan_ameresek...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1176771553.963974.33990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

4. The results of high speed reenactments of the Ives Stilwell
experiment disagree with the emission theory

The results of the Sagnac experiment disagree with Ives and Stillwell.
Fortunately technology makes use of Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Nobody bothers with Ives and Stillwell.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

" This analysis is perfectly valid in both the classical and the
relativistic contexts."

How to prove mathpages wrong?

Look at the *lowest* level.

"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the principle of relativity"- Einstein. (http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html)

Now, the principle of relativity says that my if my desk is orbiting
the sun at 30,000.000 km/sec and my monitor is orbiting the sun at 29,999.999 km/sec, then my monitor is moving away from my desk at
30,000 - 29,999.999 = 1 metre/sec.

The fact that my monitor doesn't move away from my desk yet
orbits the sun (along with me, you and everything else on Earth)
shows that the principle of relativity is absolutely perfect and only
a prominent theoretical fool would reject it.

Why should this be so? Both Orbit the sun as a single unit

Maybe you are crazy enough to bolt your monitor to a desk,
but I don't. Mine are free to move independently.


Einstein doesn't name these prominent theoretical idiots or he'd be
sued in a court-of-law. He's the only prominent theoretical moron
that would reject it.

This very same prominent theoretical moron also states:
"In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school."

1) In short, I'm not a child at school.

Correct
2) In short, I don't make assumptions.

Correct
3) In short, every child in school knows what the principle of relativity is, has done since Copernicus discovered the Earth orbits the Sun and not the other way around.

Not sure about this, after all AE was a child at school once

He wasn't when he wrote that clap-trap propaganda to promote
his own crackpottery.


"In view of this dilemma [What dilemma?] there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo" - Prominent theoretical imbecile.

But anyway, here's the proof.
Sagnac sends light in both directions at the same time.
For it to be "observed" to have the same speed in both directions
we need time dilation plus length contraction in one direction,
and time contraction plus length dilation in the other direction.
I have only one wristwatch and one ruler.
Time dilation and time contraction cannot both be measured
with one device, and it is the "stationary" observer that sees
c, the "moving" observer that sees c+v and c-v.
Thus by the principle of relativity the apparatus is stationary
and the observer runs around it, dilating his wristwatch.
DO NOT WATCH Sagnac in operation, it will slow your heart
down.

By reductio-ad-absurdum, Sagnac actually works and Einstein
was a raving, ranting lunatic.
My analysis is perfectly valid in both the classical and the
relativistic contexts, and mathpages analysis is incomplete.

Moreover, the illustration is wrong onhttp://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
The start and end points do not move relatively to each other, they rotate together.

I cannot make sense of the following: in the same article

"However, if the entire device (including source and detector) is
rotating,"

Now who is to say what is rotating> Is the room rotating or the
observer rotating : I remember seeing a mickey mouse illustration of
this once...

Tell me : is rotation absolute?

The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
The Moon rises in the East and sets in the West.
The moon orbits the Earth, therefore IN FACT, OBVIOUSLY
and CLEARLY the Sun goes around the Earth once a day...
except it doesn't. Watch out for people who say "obviously"
or claim facts which are fiction.

A circular light path is only a
collection of a series of infinestimally small straight
light paths...

A clown is only a fool with his face painted.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... The results of the Sagnac experiment disagree with Ives and Stillwell. ... "Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the principle of relativity"- Einstein. ... the principle of relativity says that my if my desk is orbiting ... Time dilation and time contraction cannot both be measured ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... the principle of relativity says that my if my desk is orbiting ... Sagnac sends light in both directions at the same time. ... Time dilation and time contraction cannot both be measured ... and the observer runs around it, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Great Scientists and Sheep
    ... relativity is that time dilation will increase the nominal speed of ... of the earth is 200000km/sec in the frame in which the spaceship is at rest ... 'Relativity level' - A level of reality where length contraction and ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Simple Sagnac
    ... >>> relativity) I don't see any way to predict the correct Sagnac ... >> different speeds to account for the observed behavior at all ... that you used 2pi r for the distance traveled by the signals. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: All answers to C S Lewis
    ... > Mercury's orbit explained without relativity ... > found in the non-symmetric gravitational field of the sun. ...
    (talk.origins)