Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384538 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-29 03:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-09 06:56 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 03:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-29 11:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-29 12:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-29 12:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:35 +0300
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 19:53 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 21:10 +0300
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 21:02 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 22:32 +0300
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 21:58 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 12:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-02 21:49 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 16:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-02 23:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-03 18:21 +0200
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-30 05:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 00:41 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 05:17 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-31 06:03 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 07:06 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-31 19:46 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 12:16 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-31 21:24 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 18:22 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-31 23:22 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 08:24 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 18:27 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 13:21 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-03 11:07 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 09:38 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-04 06:52 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-04 12:45 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-05 10:32 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 11:54 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-05 21:34 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:19 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-05 07:00 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-05 16:40 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-05 17:43 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-06 08:09 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:19 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:30 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:07 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-06 15:14 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-07 06:11 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 06:15 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-07 07:58 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-08 07:28 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-08 21:07 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-08 21:19 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:40 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-09 17:41 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-09 19:36 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-10 08:06 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 22:24 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-10 07:55 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-12 05:55 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-12 09:51 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-12 10:02 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-13 07:02 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 09:41 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 10:00 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-13 12:12 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 14:03 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-14 13:54 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-14 16:37 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-15 06:23 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-15 16:20 -0700
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-13 13:04 -0500
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-13 20:09 +0200
Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 15:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-04 13:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-02 12:40 +1000
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-02 02:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 04:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 02:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-08 09:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-06-09 06:56 -0700
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 07:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <b2524efd-3260-482f-a5ba-54c39f23ed27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385740 |
On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 1:02:44 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 5:55:44 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 10:55:10 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 8:24:06 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 6/9/2016 7:41 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > The IRT transformations are included in the following link: > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > > > Your equations 4.3 and 4.4 are incorrect and are not the Lorentz > > > > coordinate transformations. The correct ones are given below. > > > > > > It's true that 4.3 & 4.4 (and the inverse transformations 4.5 & 4.6) are not written as coordinate transformations, but they can charitably be interpreted as the Lorentz transformations for the coordinate differentials, or coordinate increments. Likewise the proposed "IRT transformations" (equations 4.11 to 4.14) are given in terms of increments of the coordinates, rather than actual coordinates. We can make allowances for this, but I don't see any way of rationalizing the fact that the transformation from lower to higher absolute speed is not the algebraic inverse of the transformation from higher to lower absolute speed. So, as it stands, those equations are logically self-contradictory. If we fix them by eliminating the extra "g", they become > > >identical to the Lorentz transformations (in incremental form). > > > > I don't follow you. Are you talking about 4.12 and 4.14? What extra "g" you are talking about? Remember: 4.12 is not the inverse of 4.14. > > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 5:55:44 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > Are you talking about 4.12 and 4.14? > > I'm talking about the two IRT transformations, one consisting of 4.11 & 4.12, and the other consisting of 4.13 & 4.14. Equations 4.11 & 4.12 are presented as the transformation from inertial coordinates at a lower absolute speed to inertial coordinates at a higher absolute speed. Equations 4.13 & 4.14 are presented as the transformation from inertial coordinates at a higher speed to inertial coordinates at a lower speed. Logically, these transformations (from lower to higher, and from higher to lower) must be the algebraic inverses of >each other, but they are not, so the equations are logically >self-contradictory. Equations 4.11 and 4.12 are the predictions of A on B where B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A: Eq. 4.11: A predicts that the light-path length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of the right side of eq.4.11. This prediction is based on the assumption that the light-path length of A's meter stick is its material length. Eq. 4.12: A predicts that a second on the B clock is worth the right side of equation 4.12--a larger number of clock seconds on the A clock. Equations 4.13 and 4.14 are the prediction of A on B where B is in a lower state of absolute motion than A: Eq. 4.13: A predicts that the light-path length of a meter stick in B's frame is lengthened by a factor of the right side of Eq. 4.13. This prediction is based on the assumption that the light-path length of A's meter stick is its material length. Eq. 4.14: A predicts that a second on the B clock is worth the right side of Eq. 4.14---a smaller number of clock seconds on the A clock. > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 5:55:44 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > What extra "g" you are talking about? > > For clarity, let x,t denote a system of inertial coordinates at absolute rest, and let X,T denote a system of inertial coordinates in absolute motion with speed v. Equations 4.11 and 4.12 tell us that > > X = g(x – vt) (4.11 clarified) > T = g(t – vx/(gc)^2) (4.12 clarified) > > where g = 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2). These two equations are identical to the Lorentz transformation except that 4.12 has "gc" instead of "c". This is the extra g that I'm referring to. On the other hand, equations 4.13 and 4.14 tell us that > > x = (1/g)(X + vT) (4.13 clarified) > t = (1/g)(T + vX/(gc)^2) (4.14 clarified) > > Logically, the transformation from (x,t) to (X,T) must be the algebraic inverse of the transformation from (X,T) to (x,t), but it is not. To see this, note that the inverse of the transformation given by 4.11 & 4.12 is > > x = (1/g)(X + vT) / [1 – (v/(gc)^2)] (inv1) > t = (1/g)(T + vX/(gc)^2) / [1 – (v/(gc)^2)] (inv2) > > This differs from equations (4.13 & 4.14) by the factor [1 - (v/gc)^2] in the denominators. Therefore, IRT is algebraically self-contradictory. The only way to make it algebraically consistent would be to replace "gc" with c everywhere, in which case it would be identical to the Lorentz transformation. > > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 5:55:44 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > Remember: 4.12 is not the inverse of 4.14. > > Equation 4.12 is just part of a transformation, so it has no inverse by itself. The transformation from x,t to X,T consists of the pair of equations 4.11 & 4.12. Likewise the transformation from X,T to x,t consists of the pair of equations 4.13 & 4.14. Logically, the pair (4.11 & 4.12) must be the algebraic inverse of the pair (4.13 & 4.14). Since they are not, the equations are logically self-contradictory. The only way to make them algebraically consistent would be to replace "gc" with c in equations 4.12, in which case equations 4.11 & 4.12 would be identical to the Lorentz transformations 4.5 & 4.6, and the inverse transformation inv1 & inv2 would be identical to the inverse Lorentz transformation 4.3 & 4.4. There is no extra g in any of the IRT equations. There is no inverse transformations. A predicts the values of the light-path length of a meter stick in B's frame and the worth of a clock second on B's clock when B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A and when B is in a lower state of absolute motion than A.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 09:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <71c329bf-48c1-4c80-a0ef-62a54b5e79d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385783 |
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 7:02:26 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > Equations 4.11 and 4.12 are the predictions of A on B... In my effort to understand IRT, I asked this question: “SRT says inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. For IRT, can you tell me how inertial coordinate systems are related?” Your answer was “They are related by the IRT transformations which includes the LT as a subset.” I then asked “What are those IRT coordinate transformations?” You answered “The IRT transformations are included in the following link...” I studied the IRT Transformations given in the link, and explained why they are logically self-contradictory, due to the spurious factor of g, which is the only thing that makes them different from the Lorentz transformations. If you are now saying that those equations are NOT the relation between inertial coordinate systems, then can you tell me how (according to IRT) inertial coordinate systems are related? On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 7:02:26 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > A predicts the ...length of a meter stick in B's frame and the > worth of a clock second on B's clock when B is in a higher > state of absolute motion than A, and when B is in a lower > state of absolute motion than A. You have two sets of equations, Set1 to make predictions about rods and clocks in a higher state of absolute motion, and Set2 to make predictions about rods and clocks in a lower state of absolute motion. If B is in a lower state of motion than A, then A would use Set2 to make predictions about rods and clocks in B. But in this situation couldn’t B use Set1 to make predictions about rods and clocks in A? The most efficient way of describing this is to state how the inertial coordinates of A and B are related to each other, because they each evaluate distances and times using their own inertial coordinates. That’s why I’ve been asking how, according to IRT, the inertial coordinate systems are related. According to SRT, they are related by Lorentz transformations. I'm trying to find out how they are related according to IRT. Your transformation equations (in the linked pdf file) are almost identical to the Lorentz transformations, except for the spurious factor of g that makes them logically self-contradictory. To rescue IRT, I think you need to come up with a transformation between inertial coordinate systems that is not self-contradictory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 10:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <1b0f4aad-bb7f-4a1d-8153-661454ea37d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385783 |
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 7:02:26 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > A predicts the ...length of a meter stick in B's frame and the > worth of a clock second on B's clock when B is in a higher > state of absolute motion than A, and when B is in a lower > state of absolute motion than A. You have two sets of equations, Set1 to make predictions about rods and clocks in a higher state of absolute motion, and Set2 to make predictions about rods and clocks in a lower state of absolute motion. If B is in a lower state of motion than A, then A would use Set2 to make predictions about rods and clocks in B, and similarly B would use Set1 to make predictions about rods and clocks in A. But this implies that Set1 and Set2 must be inverses of each other. With the Lorentz transformation, they are indeed inverses of each other, but with the IRT transformation they are not (due to the spurious factor of g). Therefore, the IRT transformations are logically self-contradictory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 12:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <81124c51-6e07-42a2-81c4-9b6fb3c30c11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385794 |
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 1:00:17 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 7:02:26 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > A predicts the ...length of a meter stick in B's frame and the > > worth of a clock second on B's clock when B is in a higher > > state of absolute motion than A, and when B is in a lower > > state of absolute motion than A. > > You have two sets of equations, Set1 to make predictions about rods and clocks in a higher state of absolute motion, and Set2 to make predictions about rods and clocks in a lower state of absolute motion. If B is in a lower state of motion than A, then A would use Set2 to make predictions about rods and clocks in B, and similarly B would use Set1 to make predictions about rods and clocks in A. But this implies that Set1 and Set2 must be inverses of each other. With the Lorentz transformation, they are indeed inverses of each other, but with the IRT transformation they are not (due to the spurious factor of g). Therefore, the IRT transformations are logically self-contradictory. You are mistaken.....the two sets of equations are from A's point of view. There is no transform from B's point of view. If B is the observer he would have the same sets of equations to predict the values of A's second and the light path length of A's meter stick.....of course the subscripts of all the terms are changed. In IRT there is no inverse transformation equations. Also in IRT the relative velocity as measure by A is not the same as measured by B.....why? Because an A second have different duration than a B second.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 14:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <5a3b6d4b-587b-4cf4-bda6-543009d10aa6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385809 |
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 12:12:42 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > In IRT the relative velocity as measured by A is not the > same as measured by B..... Interesting. If A and B are moving directly away from each other, and they are each transmitting a light pulse once per second (according to their own clocks), will they be receiving pulses from each other with the same reduced frequency, or will they be receiving different frequencies? Your pdf file says the relative velocity measured by A is v = L_a(f_aa - f_ab) where L_a is wavelength of standard light as measured by A, f_aa is freq of A's light as measured by A, and f_ab is freq of B's light as measured by A. Presumably the relative velocity as measured by B is v = L_b(f_bb - f_ba) But I would think L_b = L_a, and f_bb = f_aa, and f_ba = f_ab, so the velocities should be the same. How are they different? Are you saying the Doppler shift between two relatively moving observers is not the same for both? I've never heard of any evidence for such an asymmetry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 13:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <1f411d7a-0dcd-4d4e-ad48-8f4a6e6cf3d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385817 |
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 5:03:44 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 12:12:42 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > In IRT the relative velocity as measured by A is not the > > same as measured by B..... > > Interesting. If A and B are moving directly away from each other, and they are each transmitting a light pulse once per second (according to their own clocks), will they be receiving pulses from each other with the same reduced frequency, or will they be receiving different frequencies? > > Your pdf file says the relative velocity measured by A is > > v = L_a(f_aa - f_ab) > > where L_a is wavelength of standard light as measured by A, f_aa is freq of A's light as measured by A, and f_ab is freq of B's light as measured by A. Presumably the relative velocity as measured by B is > > v = L_b(f_bb - f_ba) > > But I would think L_b = L_a, and f_bb = f_aa, and f_ba = f_ab, so the velocities should be the same. How are they different? Are you saying the Doppler shift between two relatively moving observers is not the same for both? I've never heard of any evidence for such an asymmetry. f_ba not equal to f_ab because the "second" used to define these terms are not universal (not having the same duration) in the A and B frames.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-14 16:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <fbe18154-e99f-49d9-ae4d-f775ca44665b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385889 |
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 1:54:57 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > f_ba not equal to f_ab... Okay, let's consider a specific example: Suppose A is at absolute rest, and B is moving away at some speed v (according to A). Questions: - Does f_aa = f_bb? If not, how are they related? - Does L_a = L_b? If not, how are they related? - How are f_ab and f_ba related? In other words, what is your Doppler formula for the standard reference light emitted by A and received by B, and for the light emitted by B and received by A? (Remember, A is at absolute rest, and B is in absolute motion with speed v.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 06:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <ecdbf60a-6959-4a4f-ba7e-979eeedc5f9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385903 |
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:37:56 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 1:54:57 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > f_ba not equal to f_ab... > > Okay, let's consider a specific example: Suppose A is at absolute rest, and B is moving away at some speed v (according to A). > > Questions: > - Does f_aa = f_bb? If not, how are they related? f_aa =/= f_bb because an A second not equal to a B second in terms of duration (absolute time). This is where SR is failing. SR claims that the speed of light is a universal constant....it is not because a clock second to define the speed of light is not a universal interval of time. This means that the speed of light is a local constant and the incoming speed of light is: c'=(measured incoming frequency)(L_aa...the universal wavelength of the source) > - Does L_a = L_b? If not, how are they related? L_a=L_b because no time interval is involved in these measurements. This means that wavelength of the source is a universal constant instead of the speed of light as claimed by SR. > - How are f_ab and f_ba related? In other words, what is your Doppler formula for the standard reference light emitted by A and received by B, and for the light emitted by B and received by A? (Remember, A is at absolute rest, and B is in absolute motion with speed v.) They are related by the factors of gamma or 1/gamma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 16:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <7b8b65e2-99de-43c8-874e-31df4ca3126e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385919 |
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:23:56 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:37:56 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: >> Suppose A is at absolute rest, and B is moving away >> at some speed v (according to A). Does f_aa = f_bb? >> If not, how are they related? > > f_aa =/= f_bb… The speed of light is a local constant and > the incoming speed of light is: c'=(measured incoming frequency) > (L_aa...the universal wavelength of the source) If A is at absolute rest, and B is moving directly away at speed v (according to A), and if you know the actual numerical values of f_aa, L_a, and v, could you compute the numerical value of f_bb? If so, what formula would you use to compute it? If not, what additional information would you need to compute it? >> How are f_ab and f_ba related? > >They are related by the factors of gamma or 1/gamma. If A is at absolute rest, and B is moving directly away at speed v (according to A), and if you know the actual numerical values of f_aa, L_a, and v, could you compute the numerical values of f_ab and f_ba? If so, what formula would you use to compute them? If not, what additional information would you need to compute them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 13:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <qZWdnVeHYoAAaMPKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #385740 |
On 6/12/16 6/12/16 - 12:02 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote: > [...] Attempting to convince kenseto of anything is rather hopeless. He has shown a complete inability to understand logic, ordinary English, or the vocabulary of physics. And also complete ignorance of the relevant experimental record. The simplest refutation of his "IRT transforms" is that they do not form a group; the transforms among coordinate systems must form a group or they won't be self-consistent. As you pointed out, his "IRT transforms" are not self-consistent (and also in many ways other than what you showed). Given the definition of "inertial frame" (implicitly in flat spacetime), there are exactly three admissible transformation groups among them: the Galilei group, the Euclid (4-d) group, and the Lorentz group. All but the last are experimentally refuted, and it is the essence of SR. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-13 20:09 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <njmsu5$8ic$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #385803 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:qZWdnVeHYoAAaMPKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com... |Given the definition of "inertial frame" (implicitly in flat spacetime), there |are exactly three admissible transformation groups among them: the Galilei |group, the Euclid (4-d) group, and the Lorentz group. All but the last are |experimentally refuted, and it is the essence of SR. A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. They weren't, and the essence of The Shit is screaming, that good clocks are unsynchronized clocks, because the community of physicists said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 15:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pentcho's False Baloney Won't Kill Physics 'Cause No One Listens to his Nonsense |
| Message-ID | <abb1a0ce-0494-4a8b-87b8-818ccebf74f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384645 |
El martes, 31 de mayo de 2016, 9:03:36 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > W dniu wtorek, 31 maja 2016 14:17:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > Actually, claiming light speed changes with the speed of the source/observer > > when REAL MEASUREMENTS demonstrate that it doesn't is the most idiotic > > thing in the history of the world. > > Real measurements imagined by relativistic moron, only. > Real measurement made for real prove, that time at GPS > (as defined by your poor idiot guru) is galilean with > the precision of an acceptable error, and the idiocy > above can't survive it. You seem forgetting completely that all GPS receptors are resolving all the time with extraordinary accuracy (since already almost 4 decades) systems of Newtonian equations in the ECI Euclidean space with Cartesian coordinates and the time defined by 1905 Einstein, the same showed by all the synchronized GPS operative clocks in all places, including the satellite and ground ones. All the signals received in the receptors from the moving satellites have always the same velocity c, not depending on transmitter source velocity (or any other), in total agreement with 1905 Relativity (1905R) two postulates. The very successful GPS function based on 1905R RELATIVISTIC REAL MEASUREMENTS, is then a HUGE experimental support for that theory. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <19338052-916d-4231-89d1-bd7c1b173a71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384600 |
On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 5:57:55 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote: >The speed of light travelling in a vacuum is not a constant... >[cite articles referring to experiments on speed of light] Special relativity says the signal velocity (i.e., the speed of propagation of the energy of light) in vacuum is c, but it does not say the group or phase velocities must equal c. In fact, there are many well-known circumstances in which the phase and/or group velocities do not equal the signal velocity. There is nothing new or mysterious about this. The cited articles describe only changes in the phase and group velocities of light, not changes in the signal velocity. This is why one of the articles says "This work does not challenge relativity theory, but experimentally supports work on the counterintuitive vacuum GROUP velocities..." Likewise the other cited article says it refers to "modification of the wavevectors [of light] resulting in a change to their PHASE and GROUP velocities". On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 5:57:55 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote: >2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his >speed changes), he would again measure the same constant speed, >c = 299,792 kilometers per second. >[This] aspect is even easier to disprove... Statement 2 is strictly meaningless without specifying the meaning of "measure". When scientists make statements like 2, they are tacitly using the word "measure" to refer to a specific operationally defined system of coordinates, but they often don't go to the trouble of stating this explicitly, which leads to a lot of confusion among people who aren't aware of the tacit meaning. The cited articles describing the Doppler effect are all focusing their explanations on the non-relativistic limit, so they aren't relevant to a discussion of the exact relativistic Doppler effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b76f8bf-3fb7-487d-80e7-32b9d208fd12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384538 |
El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2016, 6:05:07 (UTC-4), Pentcho Valev escribió: > Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two aspects: > > 1. Any light moving in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer. > > 2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his speed changes), he would again measure the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second. > You are distorting completely 1905 Einstein's second postulate, see how describes him it at the beginning of Section 2 in his June 30 paper [ ]: [ Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of coordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. Hence velocity =light path/time interval where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in Section 1. ] See at the beginning of the referred Section 1 how in a "stationary system" of coordinates the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good, and a little ahead how he establishes 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. He is then handling the light as a moving agent (that can be of ANY nature, including imaginary) with ANY constant uniform velocity c. Verify by yourself, analyzing in detail the 1905 Einstein's "time" definition, all what I am saying here. See how the second postulate applies only in a "stationary system" (as a Newtonian center of mass one), unique type of entity where "time" is defined, being explicitly the velocity of the moving agent independent on the velocity of the source (or any other entity). > The first aspect has been disproved - the speed of light travelling in a vacuum is not a constant: > The moving agent is imagined at constant uniform velocity by definition, not being affected by the real behavior of any physical process. > http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html > "Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum." > > http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/ > "Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release." > > http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480 > "The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently." > In 1905 Einstein's gedanken, the moving agent constant uniform velocity can be ANY one, without any limitation. Verify it by yourself analyzing the simple Newtonian equations implied. > http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it > "Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do." > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg > "Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light" > > The second aspect is even easier to disprove - I will do this in my next posting. > The simple Newtonian equation that appears in the second postulate only relates the velocity of the moving agent with the space and time of the corresponding stationary system, not depending at all on any more. > Pentcho Valev RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 12:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dr9klnF1a55U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #384538 |
On 29/05/2016 8:05 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote: > Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two aspects: > > 1. Any light moving in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = > 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer. The first postulate is that the laws of physics be the same for all observers. > http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/ "Physicists > manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light > is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - > the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that > the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted > figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air > or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow > press release." > > http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480 They've shown that the group velocity of light is a function of its transverse spatial structure. But what is "transverse" is observer dependent, so the underlying physical law can still be the same. Whether it is, of course, is something for the experimenters to look at, but this experiment as it stands does not violate the first postulate. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 02:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5d97d70-b5dd-40a5-a679-22b3df0e5718@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384818 |
W dniu czwartek, 2 czerwca 2016 04:40:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > The first postulate is that the laws of physics be the same for all > observers. First rule of postulating: good postulate should be empty enough to survive anything. This one surely matches, but there are other rules too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 04:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8802d457-a65f-4e13-9427-0b5d22fed8a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384829 |
El jueves, 2 de junio de 2016, 5:53:20 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > W dniu czwartek, 2 czerwca 2016 04:40:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > The first postulate is that the laws of physics be the same for all > > observers. > > First rule of postulating: good postulate should be > empty enough to survive anything. > This one surely matches, but there are other rules > too. In the Introduction of his first June 30 Relativity paper, just after considering the interaction between a magnet and a conductor, 1905 Einstein continues (upper case emphasis is mine) [ ]: [ Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium", suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, THE SAME LAWS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS AND OPTICS WILL BE VALID FOR ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE FOR WHICH THE EQUATIONS OF MECHANICS HOLD GOOD. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. ] As you can read, BOTH 1905 Einstein's postulates are FULL of NEW physical content. In 1905, the laws of electrodynamics and optic were considered valid only in the "luminiferous ether" at absolute rest. As I detailed already in my previous post to you, the two 1905 Einstein postulates find today HUGE experimental support with the very successful GPS operation. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 02:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5f0c90d-3d37-49f8-b326-8106f97ae14c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384538 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pSxaDFkZU8 Why Einstein Wanted To Unify [e.g. particles of light and waves of light] My comment on YouTube: Light behaves like particles in certain respects and waves in other respects but insofar as its speed is concerned, light behaves like particles - the speed of photons varies like the speed of ordinary projectiles, both in the presence and absence of a gravitational field: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots", Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170 Richard Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", p. 15: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 09:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8570b3b5-ba49-4bff-b67a-d3ed09bf3d62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384538 |
Il giorno domenica 29 maggio 2016 12:05:07 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev ha scritto: > Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two aspects: > > 1. Any light moving in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer. > > 2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his speed changes), he would again measure the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second. > > The first aspect has been disproved - the speed of light travelling in a vacuum is not a constant: > > http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html > "Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum." > > http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/ > "Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release." > > http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480 > "The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently." > > http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it > "Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do." > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg > "Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light" > > The second aspect is even easier to disprove - I will do this in my next posting. > > Pentcho Valev ... is it possible that , in the twisted light , the diameter of turn multiplied for the number of turns , produces the number 299....?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 06:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6418c4ac-d372-49a5-890d-2f6f4706423d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384538 |
Il giorno domenica 29 maggio 2016 12:05:07 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev ha scritto: > Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two aspects: > > 1. Any light moving in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer. > > 2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his speed changes), he would again measure the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second. > > The first aspect has been disproved - the speed of light travelling in a vacuum is not a constant: > > http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html > "Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum." > > http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/ > "Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release." > > http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480 > "The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently." > > http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it > "Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do." > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg > "Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light" > > The second aspect is even easier to disprove - I will do this in my next posting. > > Pentcho Valev ..perhaps the twisted light makes in a sec 300 000 km like normally in the vacuum , but it is turning (twisted) and strightly it makes only 3000 km , of course ,.... oldogf by yahoo dot it
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web