[Centra (OP)]

Quote from: Centra on Today at 06:54:23
Relativity 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/

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Centra on Today at 06:54:23
Relativity 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/

It's not my job to use google; it's yours.
So... why didn't you?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Origin]

You can't use Google? https://physics.bg/home/physics-problems/speed-of-light-constancy/

This is nothing but a moronic  arm waving anti-relativity site.  One of their brilliant conclusions is "Therefore, we cannot have any physical equation where “time” appears".  Wow, the equation 50km/1hr = 50 km/hr is not real according to that site.  Seems off to me....

[Centra (OP)]

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.

I'm going to ignore you from now on, nothing personal. Me replying is just keeping the pointlessness going.

[Bored chemist]

Me replying is just keeping the pointlessness going.

Yes.
Just accept that you were wrong, it's quicker that way.

[Centra (OP)]

That site I posted the link to a couple posts back is really very informative, I think people should read it. They explain why the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't show anything unusual and made everybody believe the constancy of light in all inertial frames fallacy. The way they set the experiment up guaranteed that all that would result is the average light speed from both directions combined and would always be the same no matter how many times the experiment was repeated or how large the apparatus. Think about it, they had the beams go in the direction of the earth's rotation and orbit around the sun and then bounce back in the other direction for the same distance, how could that make fringes? The velocity was added in one direction and then subtracted in the other, so all they could ever get was the average of the two. It's like if you did a Sagnac experiment but put a mirror on the back of the light source and bounced it back to where it started from so the same light beam went both ways, it would be completely pointless.

 Later, Michelson did it correctly, with Gail and Pearson and got positive results, showing that light in the earth inertial frame is not constant at all, but changes with the motion of the frame. They did the same thing with GPS. In outer space it would be constant, but not on a planet or anywhere there's gravity. It's like I figured out myself in an earlier post, the speed is dictated by the largest mass in the vicinity, which would mean the largest gravity source. That's why in all those Sagnac type experiments the light behaves according to the lab frame, not any moving frame in the lab, it's locked to earth's gravity as its velocity controller and will behave the same no matter how you move something around with a light source and receptor on or in it.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Origin]

That site I posted the link to a couple posts back is really very informative, I think people should read it.

It's a pseudoscience garbage site. 
You can go to university sites and listen to physics classroom lectures given by real physicist if you want to be informed.

[Bored chemist]

I think people should read it.

It tells lies.

[Centra (OP)]

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.

All of the experiments involving rotating disks or the earth's rotating surface can be discounted on the grounds that they involved a rotating frame and in Einstein relativity rotating frames are considered absolute and not able to be considered at rest from any observation point within them, but the experiment quoted below involved straight line uniform motion so it cannot be be discounted as an inertial reference frame by Einstein relativity standards. The earth's rotation is also not the cause of the results.

Turns out light speed in a uniform straight line motion frame is not constant when in the vicinity of a steady gravitational force, in this case the earth's. The velocity of light is only constant relative to the dominant gravity source in the vicinity of its emission and Einstein never said that, he said the velocity of light is constant in all inertial frames, period. This experiment conclusively proves that statement, one of the two postulates of Special Relativity, to be false, no way around it. He came close to the truth, I'll give him that, but he missed a crucial factor entirely.

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

Einstein himself stated:

“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.”

and

“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 to the coordinate systems of the appropriate state of motion (the Earth), 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. Apparently the wheels of science turn slowly.

[Origin]

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

The 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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

When he put the idea forward he would have known about the speed of light in a moving medium- that experiment had been done before he was born.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
The outcome of that experiment doesn't undermine relativity.
Nor has any subsequent experiment.

[Centra (OP)]

I'm afraid the situation is even worse for the Einstein Fan Club, because in 2014 the Lorentz Transformation was proven to be fatally flawed. The entire edifice has collapsed into a pile of rubble, sorry, Einstein Fan Club. Welcome to the post Einstein Relativity era, after the constancy of light in all inertial reference frames and the Lorentz Transformation time dilation and length contraction formulae were proven fatally flawed. The gravitational theories may be valid, I don't know at the moment, gravity does appear to dilate time, at least when using atomic clocks. Whether it's caused by spacetime curvature is debatable though. How could you prove or disprove that? It can't be accepted as fact, since it can't be definitively proved, but it's an interesting theory.

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*

[Centra (OP)]

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

The 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.

Your first statement is true, I retract my statement that the inside of an optic fiber would qualify as a vacuum. I disagree with your second statement though, on the grounds that experimental results prove the contrary, that the speed of light is not constant in moving inertial frames relative to larger masses in the same vicinity, meaning within the gravity of said larger masses. You made an unfounded generality, that was naughty.

[Centra (OP)]

The same author I quoted earlier, Raswan Kassir, wrote another article the following year further discussing the flaws in Special Relativity which some may find interesting. Kassir appears to be a very perceptive scientist.

How the Special Relativity Violates Fundamental Physics Concepts

Radwan M. Kassir ©2015
radwan.elkassir@dargroup.com

Abstract 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.

[Bored chemist]

The entire edifice has collapsed into a pile of rubble,

No, it has not.

the Lorentz Transformation was proven to be fatally flawed.

If you think that is true, how do you explain why it gives the right answers?

[Bored chemist]

The gravitational theories may be valid, I don't know at the moment,

Well, the evidence says they are so, once again, we are in this territory.

People who disagree with reality get called lots of things, but "scientist" isn't one of them.

[Bored chemist]

Really, if that's all you have, is it worth posting?

Did you notice that it wasn't "all I had"?
It wasn't even the whole of my post.
And I disagree with you (obviously).  I think it is worth posting.  I think that just pointing out where someone has said something utterly stupid is valuable.
It forces them to consider the question of why they believe it.
And it avoids the potential  issue of him thinking it's our job to provide the evidence whereas, since he's the one making the extraordinary claim, he has to provide the extraordinary evidence.

[Halc]

And I disagree with you (obviously).  I think it is worth posting.  I think that just pointing out where someone has said something utterly stupid is valuable.

OK, I'll buy that. The comment was indeed utterly stupid, as evidenced by the fact that the edifice has in fact not even noticed this one more piece of uninformed writing suitable only for wiping ones backside. And trust me, a paper that actually found a problem would get serious attention since there are some real scientists who would love to see said edifice crumble.

It forces them to consider the question of why they believe it.

The writer of the paper lists himself as "Mechanical dept" in someplace in Beirut, so I don't think he has a physics reputation in need of protection. I don't think most of the authors believe their own tripe. It doesn't read like stupidity. It reads like deliberate salesmanship of a defective product. ​They write such papers because there is such a rich demand for such work from Centra and his ilk, fueling internet traffic to such sites that prey on them.
​

And it avoids the potential  issue of him thinking it's our job to provide the evidence whereas, since he's the one making the extraordinary claim, he has to provide the extraordinary evidence.

But of course you're not going to get that. His only evidence is deliberately misleading papers. He admits to no knowledge of his own on the subject. No, he's in it to get a reaction from us, and he is getting richly rewarded it seems. I'm guilty of it myself.