Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #617936 > unrolled thread

Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless larryadams717@comcast.net - 2017-02-10 10:49 -0800
    Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 13:00 -0600
      Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 19:58 -0800
      Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless larryadams717@comcast.net - 2017-02-12 16:19 -0800
        covariance (x,y) e.g noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 19:42 -0800
        Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:41 -0600
          Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 07:35 -0800
        Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 10:20 -0800
    Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless larryadams717@comcast.net - 2017-02-12 16:14 -0800
      Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 00:31 -0800
    Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless larryadams717@comcast.net - 2017-02-13 12:59 -0800
      Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-02-15 10:06 -0800
        Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 12:37 -0800
        Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless larryadams717@comcast.net - 2017-02-16 13:27 -0800
          Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless larryadams717@comcast.net - 2017-02-16 13:31 -0800
            Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 16:17 -0800
          Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 21:37 -0800
            covariant par of variables, say, moranges N mapples noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:36 -0800
            Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless larryadams717@comcast.net - 2017-02-17 17:31 -0800
              Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless larryadams717@comcast.net - 2017-02-17 19:38 -0800
                Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:13 -0800
                Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless larryadams717@comcast.net - 2017-02-19 14:27 -0800
                  Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 20:53 -0800
                    Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-02-20 09:13 -0800
                    Re: Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless larryadams717@comcast.net - 2017-02-20 19:38 -0800
                      covariance is only pertaining to a pair covaying variables (in the plane e.g) thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-02-20 22:20 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#617936 — Relativistic Covariance is Meaningless

There is a book by Wallace Kantor, titled, "The Relativistic Propagation of Light." In it, he completely refutes both Special and General Relativity. He refers to actual experiments contradicting both theories.

The "relativistic" propagation of light means the speed of light is relative to the motion of the source (i.e., not a constant at all!)

Both Kretschmann and Einstein admitted that the results of his two theories were based on covariance (or, mathematical form invariance.) This requirement means that both the moving and stationary frames must use the same mathematical formula.

Covariance does not produce any physical results. It is strictly a mathematical construct.

A theory that produces genuine physical results is Galilean Electrodynamics. It transforms Maxwell's equations using different equations in each frame. I have a pre-print of correspondence that I sent to the journal of the same name.

There is no increase of mass with velocity (acceleration); neither is there length contraction.

However, in the Unified Field Theory of Subquantum Kinetics (Dr. Paul LaViolete)
there is time dilation based on Doppler-shifted frequencies. These frequencies are also shifted by massive stars. LaViolette includes his predictions and experimental confirmations in his book.

http://starburstfound.org/subquantum-kinetics-a-nontechnical-summary/

http://starburstfound.org/predictions-part-2/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#617938

On 2/10/2017 12:49 PM, larryadams717@comcast.net wrote:
> The "relativistic" propagation of light means the speed of light is relative to the motion of the source (i.e., not a constant at all!)

I don't believe this is accurate. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618032

one often notices a confusion of waves of light,
with newtonianically massless zotas,
whish ian iota with no mass, whatsoever ... and, yet,
the quantum when caught by an antenna -- 00ps, spelling --
imparts an electron-voltage

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618399

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:00:21 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Larry A wrote:
> > The "relativistic" propagation of light means the speed of light is relative to the motion of the source (i.e., not a constant at all!)
> 
> I don't believe this is accurate. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

The book by Wallace Kantor refutes SR and GR. The Newtonian law for the addition of velocities is c + v. Kantor provides experimental evidence for this. Galilean Electrodynamics also confirms this.

Einstein's constant speed of light -postulate- was exactly that: an arbitrary definition which has been disproved. Not only by Kantor, but by Barry Setterfield, in 1987, as reported by another scientist, Dr. Lambert Dolphin, then at SRI (Stanford Research Institute) in Menlo Park, California.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618408 — covariance (x,y) e.g

park, menlo

> Einstein's constant speed of light -postulate- was exactly that: an arbitrary definition which has been disproved. Not only by Kantor, but by Barry Setterfield, in 1987, as reported by another scientist, Dr. Lambert Dolphin, then at SRI (Stanford Research Institute) in Menlo Park, California.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618422

On 2/12/2017 6:19 PM, larryadams717@comcast.net wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:00:21 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Larry A wrote:
>>> The "relativistic" propagation of light means the speed of light is relative to the motion of the source (i.e., not a constant at all!)
>>
>> I don't believe this is accurate. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> The book by Wallace Kantor refutes SR and GR. The Newtonian law for the addition of velocities is c + v. Kantor provides
> experimental evidence for this. Galilean Electrodynamics also confirms this.
>
> Einstein's constant speed of light -postulate- was exactly that: an arbitrary definition which has been disproved. Not only
> by Kantor, but by Barry Setterfield, in 1987, as reported by another scientist, Dr. Lambert Dolphin, then at SRI (Stanford
> Research Institute) in Menlo Park, California.
>

Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with my question.
Did you just write something incorrect to open the door to yourself to 
mention these other things?


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618431

apparently; anyway,
lightwaves are the only thing that is only wavey --
light doesn't care about Ninkowski's slogan about timennspacen --
should it?...  let's talk about some other thing,
tha tMinkowski did -- before you died!

> Did you just write something incorrect to open the door to yourself to 
> mention these other things?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618448

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:19:51 PM UTC-5, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
[]
> 
> The book by Wallace Kantor refutes SR and GR. The Newtonian law for the
> addition of velocities is c + v. Kantor provides experimental evidence
> for this.

is there a reference to a published paper?


> Galilean Electrodynamics also confirms this.
> 
> Einstein's constant speed of light -postulate- was exactly that:
> an arbitrary definition which has been disproved. Not only by
> Kantor, but by Barry Setterfield, in 1987, as reported by another
> scientist, Dr. Lambert Dolphin, then at SRI (Stanford Research
> Institute) in Menlo Park, California.

Again: reference to the paper?
What journal? date published? title?

There is nothing wrong with a postulate which leads to correct
derivation of results. So far SR and GR stand on pretty solid
ground theoretically and experimentally, especially regarding
the SOL limit.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618398

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-8, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> There is a book by Wallace Kantor, titled, "The Relativistic Propagation of Light." In it, he completely refutes both Special and General Relativity. He refers to actual experiments contradicting both theories.
> 
> The "relativistic" propagation of light means the speed of light is relative to the motion of the source (i.e., not a constant at all!)
> 
> Both Kretschmann and Einstein admitted that the results of his two theories were based on covariance (or, mathematical form invariance.) This requirement means that both the moving and stationary frames must use the same mathematical formula.
> 
> Covariance does not produce any physical results. It is strictly a mathematical construct.
> 
> A theory that produces genuine physical results is Galilean Electrodynamics. It transforms Maxwell's equations using different equations in each frame. I have a pre-print of correspondence that I sent to the journal of the same name.
> 
> There is no increase of mass with velocity (acceleration); neither is there length contraction.
> 
> However, in the Unified Field Theory of Subquantum Kinetics (Dr. Paul LaViolete)
> there is time dilation based on Doppler-shifted frequencies. These frequencies are also shifted by massive stars. LaViolette includes his predictions and experimental confirmations in his book.
> 
> http://starburstfound.org/subquantum-kinetics-a-nontechnical-summary/
> 
> http://starburstfound.org/predictions-part-2/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618770

light is only waves in matter;
a photon does not pertain to Minkowski's sylli slogan
about timennspacenn, and is not a newtonian rockton.

covariance of a pair of variables is all that is pairwise appreciable

> > The "relativistic" propagation of light means the speed of light is relative to the motion of the source (i.e., not a constant at all!)
> > 
> > Both Kretschmann and Einstein admitted that the results of his two theories were based on covariance (or, mathematical form invariance.) This requirement means that both the moving and stationary frames must use the same mathematical formula.
> > 
> > Covariance does not produce any physical results. It is strictly a mathematical construct.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618463

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-8, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> There is a book by Wallace Kantor, titled, "The Relativistic Propagation of Light." In it, he completely refutes both Special and General Relativity. He refers to actual experiments contradicting both theories.
> 
> The "relativistic" propagation of light means the speed of light is relative to the motion of the source (i.e., not a constant at all!)
> 
> Both Kretschmann and Einstein admitted that the results of his two theories were based on covariance (or, mathematical form invariance.) This requirement means that both the moving and stationary frames must use the same mathematical formula.
> 
> Covariance does not produce any physical results. It is strictly a mathematical construct.
> 
> A theory that produces genuine physical results is Galilean Electrodynamics. It transforms Maxwell's equations using different equations in each frame. I have a pre-print of correspondence that I sent to the journal of the same name.
> 
> There is no increase of mass with velocity (acceleration); neither is there length contraction.
> 
> However, in the Unified Field Theory of Subquantum Kinetics (Dr. Paul LaViolete)
> there is time dilation based on Doppler-shifted frequencies. These frequencies are also shifted by massive stars. LaViolette includes his predictions and experimental confirmations in his book.
> 
> http://starburstfound.org/subquantum-kinetics-a-nontechnical-summary/
> 
> http://starburstfound.org/predictions-part-2/

The papers are part of Kantor's book. The book is available at the University of California (and perhaps at other schools).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618847

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:59:25 PM UTC-5, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-8, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > There is a book by Wallace Kantor, titled, "The Relativistic
> > Propagation of Light." In it, he completely refutes both Special
> > and General Relativity. He refers to actual experiments contradicting
> > both theories.
> > 
[]
> 
> The papers are part of Kantor's book. The book is available at the
> University of California (and perhaps at other schools).

And an apparent refutation is online here:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.7163.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618969

"fringes observed at infinity"

> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.7163.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618980

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 10:06:50 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:59:25 PM UTC-5, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-8, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > There is a book by Wallace Kantor, titled, "The Relativistic
> > > Propagation of Light." In it, he completely refutes both Special
> > > and General Relativity. He refers to actual experiments contradicting
> > > both theories.
> > > 
> []
> > 
> > The papers are part of Kantor's book. The book is available at the
> > University of California (and perhaps at other schools).
> 
> And an apparent refutation is online here:
> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.7163.pdf

Kantor's book came out in 1976. The article you refer to had an experiment by him in 1962. The book clearly states that SR refers only to inertial frames and rotation, by definition, is a non-inertial frame.So, both his experiment and the non-inertial experiment by the authors in your reference were wrong!

Kantor's many experiments with inertial frames definitely show that c+v is the correct answer.

Perhaps you should find a review of the entire book by a qualified critic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618982

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 10:06:50 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:59:25 PM UTC-5, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-8, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > There is a book by Wallace Kantor, titled, "The Relativistic
> > > Propagation of Light." In it, he completely refutes both Special
> > > and General Relativity. He refers to actual experiments contradicting
> > > both theories.
> > > 
> []
> > 
> > The papers are part of Kantor's book. The book is available at the
> > University of California (and perhaps at other schools).
> 
> And an apparent refutation is online here:
> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.7163.pdf

Kantor's book came out in 1976. The article you refer to had an experiment by him in 1962. The book clearly states that SR refers only to inertial frames and rotation, by definition, is a non-inertial frame.So, both his experiment and the non-inertial experiment by the authors in your reference were wrong!

Kantor's many experiments with inertial frames definitely show that c+v is the correct answer.

Perhaps you should find a review of the entire book by a qualified critic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619050

curvature of rrth is just 1/80,00 miles,
that is 0.0001 reciprocal miles or so;
the smaller, the greater the curvature per Gauss

> Kantor's many experiments with inertial frames definitely show that c+v is the correct answer.
> 
> Perhaps you should find a review of the entire book by a qualified critic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619080

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:27:45 PM UTC-5, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 10:06:50 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:59:25 PM UTC-5, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-8, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > > There is a book by Wallace Kantor, titled, "The Relativistic
> > > > Propagation of Light." In it, he completely refutes both Special
> > > > and General Relativity. He refers to actual experiments contradicting
> > > > both theories.
> > > > 
> > []
> > > 
> > > The papers are part of Kantor's book. The book is available at the
> > > University of California (and perhaps at other schools).
> > 
> > And an apparent refutation is online here:
> > https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.7163.pdf
> 
> Kantor's book came out in 1976.

Where do you get these dates? The refutation article is
"Hadronic Journal.   Issue No. 5. Vol.
 35.  Oct. 2012. pp. 527-556."

5 years ago.


> The article you refer to had an experiment by him in 1962.
> The book clearly states that SR refers only to inertial frames
> and rotation, by definition, is a non-inertial frame.So, both
> his experiment and the non-inertial experiment by the authors
> in your reference were wrong!
> 
> Kantor's many experiments with inertial frames definitely show
> that c+v is the correct answer.

Not having read the book, I have to doubt at least a little.
Anybody showing any data of light with speed c+v (v>0) would get
great attention.
> 
> Perhaps you should find a review of the entire book by a qualified critic.

I am finding it very hard to see any review.
And I am watching the links carefully since at least one goes
not to a review of the book, but to a Russian airline site
that is either slow, or trying to propagate a virus.

Perhaps you could quote a description of the experimental
set up and test results? (Sorry I'm not willing to go out and
buy a copy of the book. Maybe I can find it in the local
college library.)

Thanks for the references in the other post.
(Sadly my math skills are weak after not using them for more than
basic things like motors and controls.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619143 — covariant par of variables, say, moranges N mapples

given an orbital in the plane perpendicular to the direction
-- using H_2 as a proxy just for fun --

> references in the other post.
> (Sadly my math skills are weak after not using them for more than
> basic things like motors and controls.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619227

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:27:45 PM UTC-5, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 10:06:50 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:59:25 PM UTC-5, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-8, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > > > There is a book by Wallace Kantor, titled, "The Relativistic
> > > > > Propagation of Light." In it, he completely refutes both Special
> > > > > and General Relativity. He refers to actual experiments contradicting
> > > > > both theories.
> > > > > 
> > > []
> > > > 
> > > > The papers are part of Kantor's book. The book is available at the
> > > > University of California (and perhaps at other schools).
> > > 
> > > And an apparent refutation is online here:
> > > https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.7163.pdf
> > 
> > Kantor's book came out in 1976.
> 
> Where do you get these dates? The refutation article is
> "Hadronic Journal.   Issue No. 5. Vol.
>  35.  Oct. 2012. pp. 527-556."
> 
> 5 years ago.
> 
> 
> > The article you refer to had an experiment by him in 1962.
> > The book clearly states that SR refers only to inertial frames
> > and rotation, by definition, is a non-inertial frame.So, both
> > his experiment and the non-inertial experiment by the authors
> > in your reference were wrong!
> > 
> > Kantor's many experiments with inertial frames definitely show
> > that c+v is the correct answer.
> 
> Not having read the book, I have to doubt at least a little.
> Anybody showing any data of light with speed c+v (v>0) would get
> great attention.
> > 
> > Perhaps you should find a review of the entire book by a qualified critic.
> 
> I am finding it very hard to see any review.
> And I am watching the links carefully since at least one goes
> not to a review of the book, but to a Russian airline site
> that is either slow, or trying to propagate a virus.
> 
> Perhaps you could quote a description of the experimental
> set up and test results? (Sorry I'm not willing to go out and
> buy a copy of the book. Maybe I can find it in the local
> college library.)
> 
> Thanks for the references in the other post.
> (Sadly my math skills are weak after not using them for more than
> basic things like motors and controls.)

Ed wrote,
The refutation article is
> "Hadronic Journal.   Issue No. 5. Vol.
>  35.  Oct. 2012. pp. 527-556."
Or, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.7163.pdf


The "refutation" article is dated 2012 but only includes experiments from 1962 and 1964.

Abstract

Kantor's 1962 interferometer result supporting the 
emission theory of light was tested by Babcock and 
Bergman (B&B) in 1964, but with rotating glass plates
placed in a vacuum.
---------------------------
As I mentioned before, the refutation is invalid. They used
a non-inertial frame for their experiment. Experiments by
Kantor and others using classical inertial frames always
obtained c+v.

Referring to that “other” post concerning Gyroscope
Antigravity,  GR = curvature with zero torsion and 
Teleparallel Gravity = zero curvature with non-zero torsion.
Please read the articles. In between the equations is text
that adequately explains the concepts.

www.phys.sinica.edu.tw/~heptheory/files/pereira.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0501017.pdf
Larry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619239

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 5:31:48 PM UTC-8, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:27:45 PM UTC-5, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 10:06:50 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:59:25 PM UTC-5, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-8, larrya...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > > > > There is a book by Wallace Kantor, titled, "The Relativistic
> > > > > > Propagation of Light." In it, he completely refutes both Special
> > > > > > and General Relativity. He refers to actual experiments contradicting
> > > > > > both theories.
> > > > > > 
> > > > []
> > > > > 
> > > > > The papers are part of Kantor's book. The book is available at the
> > > > > University of California (and perhaps at other schools).
> > > > 
> > > > And an apparent refutation is online here:
> > > > https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.7163.pdf
> > > 
> > > Kantor's book came out in 1976.
> > 
> > Where do you get these dates? The refutation article is
> > "Hadronic Journal.   Issue No. 5. Vol.
> >  35.  Oct. 2012. pp. 527-556."
> > 
> > 5 years ago.
> > 
> > 
> > > The article you refer to had an experiment by him in 1962.
> > > The book clearly states that SR refers only to inertial frames
> > > and rotation, by definition, is a non-inertial frame.So, both
> > > his experiment and the non-inertial experiment by the authors
> > > in your reference were wrong!
> > > 
> > > Kantor's many experiments with inertial frames definitely show
> > > that c+v is the correct answer.
> > 
> > Not having read the book, I have to doubt at least a little.
> > Anybody showing any data of light with speed c+v (v>0) would get
> > great attention.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps you should find a review of the entire book by a qualified critic.
> > 
> > I am finding it very hard to see any review.
> > And I am watching the links carefully since at least one goes
> > not to a review of the book, but to a Russian airline site
> > that is either slow, or trying to propagate a virus.
> > 
> > Perhaps you could quote a description of the experimental
> > set up and test results? (Sorry I'm not willing to go out and
> > buy a copy of the book. Maybe I can find it in the local
> > college library.)
> > 
> > Thanks for the references in the other post.
> > (Sadly my math skills are weak after not using them for more than
> > basic things like motors and controls.)
> 
> Ed wrote,
> The refutation article is
> > "Hadronic Journal.   Issue No. 5. Vol.
> >  35.  Oct. 2012. pp. 527-556."
> Or, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.7163.pdf
> 
> 
> The "refutation" article is dated 2012 but only includes experiments from 1962 and 1964.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Kantor's 1962 interferometer result supporting the 
> emission theory of light was tested by Babcock and 
> Bergman (B&B) in 1964, but with rotating glass plates
> placed in a vacuum.
> ---------------------------
> As I mentioned before, the refutation is invalid. They used
> a non-inertial frame for their experiment. Experiments by
> Kantor and others using classical inertial frames always
> obtained c+v.
> 
> Referring to that “other” post concerning Gyroscope
> Antigravity,  GR = curvature with zero torsion and 
> Teleparallel Gravity = zero curvature with non-zero torsion.
> Please read the articles. In between the equations is text
> that adequately explains the concepts.
> 
> www.phys.sinica.edu.tw/~heptheory/files/pereira.pdf
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0501017.pdf
> Larry

I stand corrected! There are other more recent experiments on the propagation of light in the 2012 article. But these do not *categorically* refute Kantor. His experiment in 1962 also used a non-inertial frame like the one in 1964 by B&B. So, since he and some experimenters in the article,(B&B and others), did not use an inertial frame, SR is not applicable. The experiments by Kantor, and others, using classical inertial reference frames, always yielded c+v. 

Other experiments reported in the article were interpreted as supporting the "extinction" hypothesis of the propagation of light. Kantor refuted this hypothesis. Also, he,like Feynman, believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the physical evidence supported light as particles rather than as waves. Feynman has an alternate explanation for the two-slit experiment that supposedly proves that light behaves as waves. Feynman did not believe that light was both particles and waves.

Larry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web