Disproof of Relativity

[JammyTown]

cinci: Stellar aberration is the result of a moving reciever.

cinci: Yes, aberration is a function of the motion of the observer as I said.
***************************

Just a minor point: There is also aberration when the light source moves, and the receiver/observer is stationary.

[xuqut]

[i]xuqut: If the speed of emission is c, then sin(a) = c/c and hence no cosine component meaning a = π/2 i.e. the same direction the light was shot.

This whole post of yours ignored what is going on.

We are trying to explain the angle when a moving light source shoots straight up the y-axis from the view of the stationary frame.

We are operating in SR.

Do you want to do this or not.

If you have the answer, then quote from the correct sections as I did and explain it.

[cincirob]

xuqut: This whole post of yours ignored what is going on.

cinci: I didn't ignore anything. I commented on everything you said. Youjust keep ignoring everything I say and rattling onto something else. None of this stuff is what explains your laser problem. When you get ready to stop rattling on about other subjects, I'll solve your problem for you .....again.
********************************

xuqut: We are trying to explain the angle when a moving light source shoots straight up the y-axis from the view of the stationary frame. We are operating in SR. Do you want to do this or not. If you have the answer, then quote from the correct sections as I did and explain it.

cinci: No, "We" aren't trying to do anything of the sort. YOU have wandered off into Doppler effects and addition of velocities on your own and I am spending all my time trying to correct you misunderstandings there. When you get through with all that nonsense, I'll solve your problem...again. It winds up with the same angle you get from aberration, but understanding it by dealing with aberration is not the answer.

All that is required to understand this is the Lorentz transformations. The Lorentz transformations ARE SR. Let me know when you're ready to listen.
*******************************************

[xuqut]

xuqut: This whole post of yours ignored what is going on.

cinci: I didn't ignore anything. I commented on everything you said. Youjust keep ignoring everything I say and rattling onto something else. None of this stuff is what explains your laser problem. When you get ready to stop rattling on about other subjects, I'll solve your problem for you .....again.
********************************

xuqut: We are trying to explain the angle when a moving light source shoots straight up the y-axis from the view of the stationary frame. We are operating in SR. Do you want to do this or not. If you have the answer, then quote from the correct sections as I did and explain it.

cinci: No, "We" aren't trying to do anything of the sort. YOU have wandered off into Doppler effects and addition of velocities on your own and I am spending all my time trying to correct you misunderstandings there. When you get through with all that nonsense, I'll solve your problem...again. It winds up with the same angle you get from aberration, but understanding it by dealing with aberration is not the answer.

All that is required to understand this is the Lorentz transformations. The Lorentz transformations ARE SR. Let me know when you're ready to listen.
*******************************************

OK,

try to show why the angle is created when a moving frame shoots up the y-axis in the stationary system.

[cincirob]

Tomorrow!

[xuqut]

Tomorrow!

Here it is in a more formal setting.



Now, if this angle exists as Einstein contends, then cos(φ) = v/c where v is the relative velocity of the light source and c is the speed of the light path to the target from the view of the stationary frame. Also, φ is the angle of the light path to the direction of the moving light source.
Therefore, sin(φ) = √( c² - v²) / c just exactly as Einstein contended in section 3.
An analogous consideration--applied to the axes of Y and Z--it being borne in mind that light is always propagated along these axes, when viewed from the stationary system, with the velocity √( c² - v²)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

So, from the above, Einstein explained the reasoning behind this angle.

However, the absolute constant value of c necessitates the composition of velocities equation where a = π/2, ie the angle between the two velocities is π/2 is:
V = √( v² + w ² - (vw/c)² ).

Set w = √( c² - v²) as per Einstein's instructions, then V < c and hence the light path is not c and Einstein' theory contradicts itself.

On the other hand, if we assume light is shot up the y axis at c, then sin(φ) = c / c, hence φ = π/2 therefore, cos(φ) = 0, = 0/c and so there is no x -component and hence no angle.
Without this angle in the moving frame, light does not proceed directly from the emission point A to the moving receiver B and hence Einstein' theory contradicts itself.

Either way, SR contradicts itself with this angle.

[cincirob]

I will do this my way and only after you have agreed to the one-way speed of light measurement article. You're wasting your time trying to prove something wrong that you don't understand
************************

[xuqut]

I will do this my way and only after you have agreed to the one-way speed of light measurement article. You're wasting your time trying to prove something wrong that you don't understand
************************

Now, be nice.

Here is the problem with SR.

The light postulate contends light moves through space at one speed c. That has been validated by tests from moving light sources.

On the other hand, the wave properties of light match the frame's uniform motion and hence are consistent in every direction from light emission.

So, SR contends two inconsistent features.
1) Light speed is an absolute constant.
2) Lights speed matches the uniform motion in the frame ala Ritz's theory of light. That is how the moving frame has a light sphere expanding spherically from its moving origin of light emission.


When SR is attacked for the speed of light not being modified by any motion, it uses conditions 1.

When SR is attacked for the speed of light being constant in all directions from light emission in the frame which is Ritz's theory, it uses condition 2.

Condition 1 and 2 are not logically consistent with each other.

1says objects move relative to an absolute constant speed of light.

2 says light moves relative to the uniform motion of the frame.

Your other thread supports the consistent wave properties of light in all directions but I have posted over and over, this is consistent with an absolute constant speed of light and is also consistent with Ritz's theory.

To measure the absolute speed of light, you cannot use wave properties since they have been proven to match the uniform motion of the frame.

[cincirob]

The other thread has nothing to do with wave properties. Until you get it, I will waste no more time with you. You haven't read the other article, not even the parts that I posted. You don't make any specific comments about what I posted. You just keep on rattling off your incorrect ideas. Ignore somebody else; I've go better things to do.

[xuqut]

The other thread has nothing to do with wave properties. Until you get it, I will waste no more time with you. You haven't read the other article, not even the parts that I posted. You don't make any specific comments about what I posted. You just keep on rattling off your incorrect ideas. Ignore somebody else; I've go better things to do.

I showed you Ritz's theory.

I think you and I are too stubborn. You have proven Ritz's theory of light and I do not believe in that.

Your light speed matches the speed of the earth and measures c in both directions even thpough everyone knows the earth is moving at around 30 km/s

I already proved to you your experiment looks for a phase differential > than the expected and finds none. I agree and accept this as the wave properties match the absolute motion of the frame and remain consistent in all directions.


These are not clocks based on motion. These are clocks based on the wave properties.

I proved your experiment claims to be similar to this one.

Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731–734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the Earth and separated by a 21-km fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them. They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... -way_tests

Kolen and Torr, Found. Phys. 12 no. 4 (1982), pg 401 (proposal). Torr and Kolen, NBS Special Publication 617 (1984), pg 675–679(results).
This is an experiment using two atomic clocks separated by 500 meters connected by an underground coaxial cable, which looks for sidereal variations in the phase between them. Variations in that phase are interpreted as variations in the one-way speed of propagation in the cable. This experiment is quite similar to those of Krisher et al. and Cialdea referenced above (both of whom reported null results).


GPS

Allan et al., IEEE Trans. Inst. and Meas., IM-32 no. 2 (1985), pg 118.
They discuss in detail how time and frequency comparisons among the various standards organizations of the world can be performed with an accuracy of about 1 part in 1014, using GPS satellites.

I just do not know how to communicate with you light speed cannot be an absolute constant in space while at the space time constant in all directions in a frame like earth that is moving in the close absolute sense at 30km/s.

Look here, the absolute constancy of light through space is shown here.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 7340v1.pdf

If you are correct, prove this. Prove light matches the absolute motion of the earth while at the same time, moves though space at only one speed regardless of the absolute motion of the earth.

[cincirob]

You're not listening. Get right with the experiment or forget it. If you can't understand a simple experiment measuring the speed of light, then you will never understand relativity. Read the abstract. It's all there. Let me know when you get it.

[xuqut]

You're not listening. Get right with the experiment or forget it. If you can't understand a simple experiment measuring the speed of light, then you will never understand relativity. Read the abstract. It's all there. Let me know when you get it.

Here is a paper showing conclusive evidence that the speed of light is an absolute c in space.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 7340v1.pdf

I cannot reconcile your experiment because it cannot be done.

Light cannot move through space at one speed c and be measured at c in a frame like earth that is known to be moving somehow.

Your experiment depends on the wave properties of light and that is how they are reconciled but they are incompatible.

One experiment says the speed of light is a constnat in space.

The other experiment says the wave properties are constant in all directions in a frame.

They are syaing different things.

I have explained my side correctly.

Now explain yours by matching the results of the light wave experiment you posted with an absolute constant speed of light in space.

[aguerami]

You're not listening. Get right with the experiment or forget it. If you can't understand a simple experiment measuring the speed of light, then you will never understand relativity. Read the abstract. It's all there. Let me know when you get it.

Cincirob, You are a difficult person to communicate with. You are dismissive to everything but YOUR, I'm sorry, EINSTEIN's ideas. You should be able to understand that e does not = mc^2. But like every good fundamentalist, you are not moved by reason, logic, or mathematics.

Yes, everything in Einstein's world is a vector. In reality, everything in the universe is in a matrix with interactions of fields passing through that matrix. The universe cannot be flat, we see the universe is not flat. The concept of modified Z direction based on the weight of an object is absurd. Einstein dismisses density by using Newtonian mass. Einstein creates some of the most absurd paradoxes; Black holes create multiverses, which create time travel, and the lovely symmetry.

The speed of light is not constant http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Speed%20of%20Light. The universe is not a vacuum.

It is not possible to have two exactly the same rods. This has been proven by quantum mechanics.

Enjoy your belief system. I have work to do.
Aaron Guerami

[cincirob]

aguerami: Cincirob, You are a difficult person to communicate with. You are dismissive to everything but YOUR, I'm sorry, EINSTEIN's ideas. You should be able to understand that e does not = mc^2. But like every good fundamentalist, you are not moved by reason, logic, or mathematics.

cinci: You pretend that Einstein wrote down E= mc^2 a hundred years ago and nobody ever thought to check up on it. How do you explain nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, or electron-postiron annihilation? Are you not aware of numerous particle interactions and radioactive decay situations where energy is produced with an attendant loss of mass from the particles that is consistent with E = mc^2. Have you done a mathematical analysis of any of these things...I have. If you want to prove E = mc^2 wrong, you have to find a place where it doesn't give the right answer. Have you done that? No, you are trying to legislate that it is wrong by claiming it's a vector equation. You're like the gentle-folk in Kansas (if I remember correctly) who legislated that pi = 3 because that other number was just too complicated.
****************************

aguerami: Yes, everything in Einstein's world is a vector. In reality, everything in the universe is in a matrix with interactions of fields passing through that matrix. The universe cannot be flat, we see the universe is not flat. The concept of modified Z direction based on the weight of an object is absurd. Einstein dismisses density by using Newtonian mass. Einstein creates some of the most absurd paradoxes; Black holes create multiverses, which create time travel, and the lovely symmetry.

cinci: Actually, one of the latest theories is that everything we see in the universe is some kind of hologram. Vectors are old hat by that theory. You claim to be all about new ideas so why aren't you into holograms?

Vectors are just mathematical conveniences. Nobody ever saw a vector. They are used because you can simplify a lot of mathematics by treating things as vectors. The whole of SR is done without any reference to vectors. If you think relativity creates paradoxes, then let's talk about them. If there is a theory that black holes create multiverses, it's news to me and it would be something Einstein would not have credited because he didn't think there could be any. I know of no evidence that Eisntein believed in time travel nor has anyone produced a practical method for it even theoretically.
**************************

The speed of light is not constant http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com/searc ... of%20Light. The universe is not a vacuum.

cinci: Cute, but not meaningful. When you get out to where there's about one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, you're close enough.
********************************************

aguerami: It is not possible to have two exactly the same rods. This has been proven by quantum mechanics.

cinci: What does the length of two rods not being identical have to do with relativity? Why would you quote quantum mechanics anyway? Those folks believe relativity and include it in their model
****************************

aguerami: Enjoy your belief system. I have work to do.

cinci: And a lot to learn. So far in this discussion I have answered all your questions (challenges?) with direct answers and I'll address anything else you wish to bring up. But what usually happens when I do that with anti-relativists has happened again. They resort to ad hominem attacks. Having failed to find any flaw in the theory of relativity, you now suggest that there are flaws in me. Good luck in whatever work you're pursuing.
*************************************

[CCC]

Here is the problem with SR.

The light postulate contends light moves through space at one speed c. That has been validated by tests from moving light sources.

On the other hand, the wave properties of light match the frame's uniform motion and hence are consistent in every direction from light emission.

So, SR contends two inconsistent features.
1) Light speed is an absolute constant.
2) Lights speed matches the uniform motion in the frame ala Ritz's theory of light. That is how the moving frame has a light sphere expanding spherically from its moving origin of light emission.


When SR is attacked for the speed of light not being modified by any motion, it uses conditions 1.

When SR is attacked for the speed of light being constant in all directions from light emission in the frame which is Ritz's theory, it uses condition 2.

Condition 1 and 2 are not logically consistent with each other.

1says objects move relative to an absolute constant speed of light.

2 says light moves relative to the uniform motion of the frame.

Your other thread supports the consistent wave properties of light in all directions but I have posted over and over, this is consistent with an absolute constant speed of light and is also consistent with Ritz's theory.

To measure the absolute speed of light, you cannot use wave properties since they have been proven to match the uniform motion of the frame.

Einstein devoted much of "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" to showing that those two properties are not, in fact, necessarily inconsistent.