0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
They did both experiments in the same article so I don't know what your point is.
Relativity isn't the only thing that provides an explanation for the results.
Quote from: Centra on 20/01/2022 21:50:35Anyway, I'm not saying everything about relativity theory is wrong, but it can also be arrived at by classical methods, it's not hard to find articles about it.Then please do so.
Anyway, I'm not saying everything about relativity theory is wrong, but it can also be arrived at by classical methods, it's not hard to find articles about it.
Quote from: Centra on Yesterday at 12:52:26There are articles showing that the same results can be obtained using classic theory and not involving the speed of light at all.Prove it.
Any theory on the behavior of light on earth has to satisfy the following conditions I. The speed of light as measured in different directions on the earth with respect to the surface of the earth does not show any measurable difference to the accuracy of the 1964 Jaseja d al Michelson and Morley type test. 2. Light that is generated on board a spinning disc and that is split and sent in opposing directions, with and against the direction of the spin of the disc, travels at a speed measured aboard the disc of c +-v against and with the direction of spin, respectively, where v is the peripheral speed of the disc in the path of the light. This was proven by the 1913 Sagnac experiment and by the 1993 Bilge et al experiment (to an accuracy of 1 in 10^20).3. It was conformed by Wang in 2003 that light generated aboard an object travelling in straight-line uniform motion travels at a speed of c+v against the direction of motion of the object and travels at a speed of c-v with the direction of motion of the object. Measurement was made aboard and with respect to the object. 4. In cases (2) and (3) above, the light travels at a speed of c with respect to the fixed laboratory in which the experiment is held. 5. Light generated on the earth and sent around the globe travels faster westward than eastward relative to the surface of the earth The Michelson and Gale 1925 test and the Saburi et al 1976 test, as well as the Global Positioning System (GPS) for clock synchronization, prove this. 6. light coming from a distant star subtends an angle to the orbital path of the earth around the sun relative to a frame set in outer fixed space The orbital speed of the earth around the sun requires that a viewing telescope be tilted to allow for that orbital speed, just as is the case with falling rain being viewed from a moving vehicle, Bradley proved this. Airy proved that filling the barrel of a telescope with water did not affect the apparent position of a star as viewed from earth.Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity TheoriesBy Al Kelly
Quote from: Centra on Today at 06:54:23Relativity isn't the only thing that provides an explanation for the results.You keep saying that, and when I ask you what else might explain it, you don't answer.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/01/2022 08:46:51Quote from: Centra on Today at 06:54:23Relativity isn't the only thing that provides an explanation for the results.You keep saying that, and when I ask you what else might explain it, you don't answer.You can't use Google? https://physics.bg/home/physics-problems/speed-of-light-constancy/
You can't use Google? https://physics.bg/home/physics-problems/speed-of-light-constancy/
That nonsense you cited says this"It becomes clear from this law that the space is stationary – that means “the vacuum is stationary”. "How can that be?We already talked about a vacuum chamber on a plane.So, all you have done is advertised that you can't recognise bullshit when you see it.
Me replying is just keeping the pointlessness going.
That site I posted the link to a couple posts back is really very informative, I think people should read it.
I think people should read it.
Experiments have been done since the Michelson-Morley one and to much greater precision. They support light having a constant speed in all reference frames.
5. Conclusion The travel-time difference of two counter-propagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform. In a segment of uniformly moving fiber with a speed of v and a length of Δl, the travel-time difference is 2vΔl/c2. Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber Ruyong Wang a, Yi Zhengb,*, Aiping Yaob, Dean Langley c
“The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible.”
“If the results of the Miller experiments were to be confirmed, then relativity theory could not be maintained, since the experiments would then prove that, relative to the coordinate systems of the appropriate state of motion (the Earth), the velocity of light in a vacuum would depend upon the direction of motion. With this, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which forms one of the two foundation pillars on which the theory is based, would be refuted.” (Einstein, 1926).
That's exactly what the experiment quoted above proved, that the velocity of light in a vacuum (the inside of an optic fiber) depends upon the direction of motion relative
Einstein's theory of relativity, thus, had one of its two foundation pillars pulled out from under it in the year 2003, 98 years after its publication.
5. Conclusion The LT equations are shown to be merely applicable for events satisfying the basic light speed constancy equations x = ct and x′ = ct′. The erroneous application of the LT on co-local events (x′ = 0; t′ > 0, in K′, or x = 0; t > 0, in K), or simultaneous events (t′ = 0; x′ ≠ 0, in K′, or t = 0; x ≠ 0, in K), is shown to result in mathematical contradictions and invalid predictions of time dilation, or length contraction, respectively. Critical Error in the Formulation of the Special Relativity Radwan M. Kassir*
Quote from: Centra on 22/01/2022 12:35:19That's exactly what the experiment quoted above proved, that the velocity of light in a vacuum (the inside of an optic fiber) depends upon the direction of motion relativeThe inside of a fiber optic cable is glass, not a vacuum and the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. Your ignorance and your pseudoscience sites don't change that.
How the Special Relativity Violates Fundamental Physics ConceptsRadwan M. Kassir ©email@example.comAbstract In this paper, it is shown that the classical addition of velocities is unavoidable, and follows naturally from an intrinsic physics concept. It is revealed that the relativistic addition of velocities and the Lorentz contraction simply lead to time transformations contradicting the Special Relativity predictions. Ironically, the Special Relativity time dilation prediction could be obtained from the classical addition of velocities and the Lorentz contraction, when the travel time of a two-way light trip is considered. A one-way (forward or backward) travel time leads to contradictions with the Special Relativity predictions. The special relativity time dilation factor could be obtained from the classical addition of velocities for a light trip in the transverse direction, but in contradiction with the speed of light postulate. Analyzed light travel time between relatively moving frame origins offers outcomes inconsistent with the Special Relativity.
The entire edifice has collapsed into a pile of rubble,
the Lorentz Transformation was proven to be fatally flawed.
The gravitational theories may be valid, I don't know at the moment,
People who disagree with reality get called lots of things, but "scientist" isn't one of them.