+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Requiem for Relativity

  1. Link to Post #1
    Canada Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    8th May 2014
    Location
    Laval
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 times in 33 posts

    Default Requiem for Relativity

    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."- Albert Einstein (anti-relativity.com).

    Relativity is regarded as proven by experiment (of course, by fools who say nothing can be proven). But the real story is very different.

    The ether was not disproven by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 and subsequent replications, because they were not done as properly as they should have been (and acheived slightly positive results instead of null ones). Case Western's Dayton Miller, '25-'26, used highly sensitive equipment and higher altitudes (on Mt. Wilson), where the ether would be more likely detected, instead of in a basement as the earlier experiments were done, his experimentation was more extensive, and used very meticulous and thorough controls for any possible random, thermal, or mechanical effects that might skew results. His results were positive. Critiques of his work after his decease were fraudulent so attempts to debunk him failed. Georges Sagnac had also achieved positive results in 1913 as did Maurice Allais in 1997, and Ruyong Wang in 2002, all of which disproved the constancy of the speed of light.

    The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit is supposed to be a confirmation of the theory. The equation that accounted for Mercury’s orbit had been published 17 years earlier. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his GR derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber’s article was reprinted in Annalen der Physik (the journal that had published Einstein’s relativity articles). The editors felt Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber’s priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber’s formula had been published in Mach’s Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied.

    Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber’s assumption was wrong, so he studied the question. He pointed out that the formula is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a target for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber’s method “made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.” Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber’s derivation was “wrong through and through.”

    So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations and found to his amazement that they had “3 separate contributions to the perihelion, 2 of which add, and one of which cancels, part of the other 2, and you wind up with just the right multiplier.” So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression, “knowing the answer,” Einstein had “jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.”

    The experiment concerning deflection of light by the Sun done by Eddington was fraudulent, a fact accepted even by the mainstream, but subsequent experiments for it are said to have confirmed it, which is totally false. Light deflection due to the sun was already described. Theimer (1977, p. 142, cited in gsjournal.net) stated: "A gravitational deflection of light was already predicted by Newton and was calculated in 1801 by the astronomer Johann von Soldner. His value amounted to only half that of Einstein's. In 1911 the value predicted by Einstein was the same as that of von Soldner. It was not until 1917 that he changed it to twice the value." Philip Lenard first received notification in 1921 of the publication by von Soldner in 1801 and he therefore republished it in 1921 in Annalen der Physik. In his preface Lenard remarks that Soldner, without the assumptions of GR, had calculated the deflection of light due to gravity and found a value that agreed with the results of observations of the eclipse of the sun in 1919. An effect that is explained by several theories can not be claimed by any of these theories as compelling evidence of their validity. An effect that has already been described cannot be subsequently claimed as the special performance of a later-developed theory, and its empirical support of the later theory is in no way compelling. Just as a nebula or dust disk around other solar systems is no confirmation of either the planetismal hypothesis nor solar fission since they are part of both theories. Also, the predictions of GR and Newton's theory differ only by small amounts (Penguin Dictionary of Physics).

    The Hafele-Keating experiment, using atomic clocks and GPS satellites, is seen as irrefutable evidence of time dilation and therefore relativity. But how the GPS satellites stay synchronized has nothing to do with the experiment, it was one of the most botched experiments of all time, and the results were so tampered with that it could be considered fraudulent. Engineer A.G. Kelly of HDS Energy in Celbridge, County Kildare, Ireland, obtained the original 1971 test report from the United States Naval Observatory, on which the 1972 article was based, and discovered that the original results actually did not support the result computed in the 1972 article. The portable cesium-beam clocks that were carried varied in time so badly that some of them could vary more than the total supposed results during the time of the test. The most stable of the 4 clocks, no. 447, by itself constituting a better experiment than all the clocks together, indicated, as an overall result of the test, zero kinematic time accumulation. In addition, the expectations of the experiment were based on a 3d reference point called "proper time", which takes relativity out of the equation because it is analogous to adding a hidden ether (universal reference frame).

    The GPS satellites are supposedly adjusted according to the Sagnac Effect and the gravitational calculation supposedly proven by Pound-Rebka, but neither factor require relativity and have nothing to do with time dilation. (Anti-Relativity.Com)

    Here are excerpts from the article by Kelly (Hafele & Keating Tests - Did They Prove Anything? A. G. Kelly, PhD - dipmat.unipg.it):

    "Abstract. The original test results were not published by Hafele & Keating in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results which are here published for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.
    1. Introduction
    Hafele and Keating (1972) [1] (hereafter referred to as H & K) carried out experiments that purported to confirm the Theory of Special Relativity. The evidence provided was derived from the differences in time recorded by cesium clocks transported in aeroplanes, eastward and westward, around the Earth.
    H & K avoided giving the actual test results in their paper; they gave figures that were radically altered from those results. These altered results gave the impression that they were consistent with the theory. The original test results are reproduced for the first time in this paper; these do not confirm the theory. The corrections made by H & K to the raw data are shown to be totally unjustified.
    It is also shown that the clocks used were not of sufficient stability to prove anything. The magnitude of the random alterations in performance, during the air transportation, were such as to make any result useless.
    7. Conclusions
    The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K to give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the eastward and the westward tests."

    Frame-dragging, which says space is elastic, which can't be since only matter can be eleastic, is expected in GR but effects from it and tests for it are contraversial (see Tests of General Relativity-Wikipedia; there are 12 references).

    The Hulse–Taylor binary pulsar system is also considered as a confirmation of GR but there are competing theories that agree with the data (Ron Cowen, 2013, Nature.Com).

    The expansion of the universe is as well regarded as confirmation of relativity but, of course, such expansion is not even possible, and contrary to what is usually said, it was never discovered, it was only invented, and is part of what makes the Big Bang something that can't be taken seriously.

    And in 2006 the European Space Agency conducted rotating superconductor experiments which showed an effect 100 million trillion times larger than predicted by general relativity.

    Furthermore, if the GR method is correct, it should apply everywhere, not just in the solar system. But Van Flandern points to a conflict outside our solar system: binary stars with highly unequal masses. Their orbits behave in ways contraryto the Einstein model.

    And G.O. Mueller (Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of Relativity, gsjournal.net) documents around 130 serious errors in special relativity alone.

    Moreover, University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the clock at rest. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one object is moving in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows then that clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A, which is nonsensical.

    And here is the summary of a Rolf Schock article in Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 1981, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp. 285-296, The inconsistency of the theory of relativity (philpapers.org):

    "It is here shown that the relativistic doctrine of the relativity of simultaneity is untenable and that both the special and general theories of relativity are inconsistent. It is also shown that the theories can perhaps be made consistent, but excessively weak, through the reintroduction of absolute space and a weakening of the Lorentz transformations. Non-relativistic hypotheses for some events thought to require relativity are suggested. Finally, some conjectures are made on how so wrong a theory could have been accepted by so many for so long."

    In 1933, Fritz Zwicky concocted "dark matter", a substance with occult propertys causing things to behave strangely, in order to explain galaxys rotating far faster than predicted by GR. It has never been observed.

    And the ether was supported by Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Larmor, Tesla, and even Einstein, who said:


    " According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." (Ether and the Theory of Relativity, 1920, wikisource).


    But, naturally, space without matter in any rational theory is unthinkable, which is another reason the Big Bang is so ludicrous.


    And P.A.M. Dirac stated that the quantum vacuum may be the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate ether (Is there an ether? Nature, 1951).

    Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chairman in physics at Stanford, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:


    "It is ironic [we might say "contradictory"] that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed... The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity... The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." (A Different Universe, 2005, cited in Ether Theories-Wikipedia).

    So some relativists see the ether as compatible with relativity, but ether theorists don't. In any case, relativity contradicts QM and ether theory does not. And GR was certainly was not creative and is probably just as erroneous as SR.

    See also Requiem for Relativity (by Michael Strauss, 2004) and Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, 1982).
    Last edited by Paul; 15th May 2014 at 16:15.

  2. Link to Post #2
    Ireland Avalon Member Snoweagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th July 2010
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Age
    63
    Posts
    977
    Thanks
    5,206
    Thanked 3,446 times in 876 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    Awesome post, thanks.

    bump: See also Requiem for Relativity (by Michael Strauss, 2004) and Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, 1982).

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Snoweagle For This Post:

    Sierra (13th May 2014)

  4. Link to Post #3
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    20,216
    Thanks
    66,443
    Thanked 256,398 times in 18,657 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    ------

    Mod Note by Bill:

    @ Pilote Tempête -- your recently started threads all feature extensively quoted material from other writers. As in any work of scholarship, please be sure to quote the links you are copying from so that readers can know the source material. Many thanks.

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Atlas (12th May 2014), Davidallany (15th May 2014), rgray222 (12th May 2014), Snoweagle (11th May 2014)

  6. Link to Post #4
    Canada Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    8th May 2014
    Location
    Laval
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 times in 33 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    There's 3 links I forgot, but I just added them.

  7. Link to Post #5
    Scotland Avalon Member panpravda's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th March 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    196
    Thanked 217 times in 46 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    Pilote Tempête: In support of the purpose of your thread, I'll offer a link to the non-free (sorry!) book "Exploding a Myth" by Prof Jeremy Dunning-Davies (ret), in which he explains the real origins of Einstein's now questionable postulates, while also expressing his concern that scientific theories are not treated as they should be, as theories, but instead, they are perceived and taught as already proven science fact.

    Also, I will mention Stephen Crothers, the brilliant Australian mathematician and his explanation of Einstein's unworkable E=mc^2 in these YT videos (part 1) & (part 2).

    Max Planck said ... "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
    "Those who find themselves burdened with knowing the truth,
    should realise they were not given that knowledge for their personal advantage."

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to panpravda For This Post:

    guayabal (11th May 2014), Jake (11th May 2014), Pilote Tempête (11th May 2014), Sierra (13th May 2014), Snoweagle (11th May 2014)

  9. Link to Post #6
    Canada Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    8th May 2014
    Location
    Laval
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 times in 33 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    Thanks for that panpravda. Scientific theories treated, perceived, and taught as already proven science fact is part of the hypocrisy n fanaticism of orthodoxy, which is based on the rejection of reason n 2 false n contradictory premises: that we can't know anything, n orthodoxy, which is strict adherence to convention, is always right.

  10. Link to Post #7
    Canada Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    8th May 2014
    Location
    Laval
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 108 times in 33 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    Unfortunately, Jeremy Dunning-Davies uses "conventional wisdom" irrationaly so he abuses the language, uses the mainstream's terminolgy, n damages his point, since "wisdom" doesn't mean "opinion", "point of view", nor "belief" , n most conventional opinion is the exact opposite of wisdom, so the usual case is conventional lack of wisdom, n it should read n he should say "conventional opinion" , view, or belief.

  11. Link to Post #8
    Malta Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th July 2011
    Age
    53
    Posts
    79
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 313 times in 67 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    Good effort !!

  12. Link to Post #9
    Avalon Member mosquito's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th April 2011
    Location
    swonK kcuF
    Age
    60
    Posts
    1,509
    Thanks
    11,258
    Thanked 7,723 times in 1,371 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    Also read "The Science Delusion" by Rupert Sheldrake, he covers a lot of science's holy cows, looks at the history of the theories, how they have been adopted and accepted without question and often without evidence.

    I recently saw a lecture he gave, in which he talked about the speed of light and how it appeared to have decreased quite dramatically between 1928 and 1940 (I think). He visited the Royal observatory in Greenwich and spoke with the head metrologist about it, who was rather embarrassed that the cat had been let out of the bag. His excuse for why this happened was that it was "intellectual phase-synching" !!

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mosquito For This Post:

    Frederick Jackson (12th May 2014), Sierra (13th May 2014)

  14. Link to Post #10
    Mexico Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    7th November 2013
    Location
    Puerto Vallarta
    Posts
    282
    Thanks
    1,314
    Thanked 877 times in 243 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    Pilote, thanks so much for the thread and for all the information provided. I have long struggled with the problems inherent to SR (as an amateur; I only have a BS in physics) which I felt were fundamental. The example you give of the moving clocks is the crux of it. Indeed if things are relative, then the twin paradox has no solution. (Very silly attempts to fix the dilemma have been made as no doubt you are aware.) Many years ago a colleague of mine (a PhD physicist) exhorted me to read Einstein's original SR paper and to tell him what I thought of it. I told him I thought it was fishy. For one, there was always an implicit reference to an absolute time or space standard which did not seem to fit with the whole idea of relativity. My friend told me that Dirac (I think it was Dirac) took a number of years wrestling with the idea of SR before agreeing that maybe there was something to it. It is strange that for something so simple as SR it should have taken such a brilliant mind so long to come to terms with the theory. It was as though he had finally mind ***ked himself into believing in it.

    But however much I wanted to dismiss SR there was always the "experimental evidence", particularly involving the clocks on artificial earth satellites. Now knowing that these experiments are suspect is a relief to me. GR is another thing. The only opinion I formed is that it would not have been possible to formulate without the work of Riemann and others on non Euclidean geometries.

    In either case it always galled me when a lay person would hail Einstein as "revolutionizing" physics. I always saw both SR and GR as small corrections to Newtonian physics. It was not the launching of a great new paradigm in my mind.
    Last edited by Frederick Jackson; 12th May 2014 at 02:35.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Frederick Jackson For This Post:

    Sierra (13th May 2014)

  16. Link to Post #11
    Avalon Member Carmody's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th August 2010
    Location
    Winning The Galactic Lottery
    Posts
    11,354
    Thanks
    17,542
    Thanked 81,792 times in 10,185 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    If..you go back to some of the more original stories and tales of 'other sciences' one will tend to end up, conclusionally speaking, in a conspiracy mindset. One where the more esoteric science was and is well ahead of what you see out there in the world of public science. Ie, lighter than air craft at a minimum... the 18h the century, no less. Never mind esoterica in the fables and the texts of ancient times.

    'conspiracy minded' as we find evidence of penetration of esoteric groups, into academia, politics, science, corporate, military and law.

    What we find, is them having a hand in subtly blocking the true depth of the sciences. Misdirects, controls, a veritable plethora of techniques and promotions. For example, to call something a 'fact' and 'law(s)' of physics.

    When a real scientist understands that all is theory, there are no facts - only one paradox as an origin point...and to never inject the word 'law' (social disobedience penalty construct) onto theory.
    Last edited by Carmody; 12th May 2014 at 03:07.
    Interdimensional Civil Servant

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Carmody For This Post:

    Frederick Jackson (12th May 2014), giovonni (12th May 2014), Sierra (13th May 2014)

  18. Link to Post #12
    United States Avalon Member rgray222's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th September 2010
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks
    2,822
    Thanked 7,285 times in 945 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    Einstein has set the cosmic speed limit for mankind and it has become widely accepted. The belief that macroscopic objects will never have the ability to travel at or faster than light is a premise made by man before we even understand physics.

    Quantum mechanics is hardly understood and those that profess to have a basic knowledge (and they are few) are amazed at the possibilities that are beginning to emerge. NASA discovered electromagnetic portals in 2012 and the theories regarding bending space (wormholes) have been proven (at least theoretically) for decades.

    Once science accepted Einsteins theory it stopped the dreamers from moving forward and slowed the progress of 'science' by 100 years. In a few decades relativity will be out the window and the speed of light will be ancient history. The only speed limit on man is the one he is willing to accept.

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rgray222 For This Post:

    animovado (13th May 2014), giovonni (12th May 2014), yelik (13th May 2014)

  20. Link to Post #13
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 128,856 times in 20,633 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    Quote Posted by Pilote Tempête (here)
    So some relativists see the ether as compatible with relativity, but ether theorists don't. In any case, relativity contradicts QM and ether theory does not. And GR was certainly was not creative and is probably just as erroneous as SR.

    See also Requiem for Relativity (by Michael Strauss, 2004) and Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, 1982).
    The question I would ask next is how it came to be that such a theory, with so many grievous flaws, came to hold such respect, with Einstein himself elevated to such esteem at the pinnacle of 20th century physics.

    My hunch is that it was a covering up of the real physics that was being (re)discovered at that time, a coverup that continues to this day.

  21. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    giovonni (12th May 2014), PurpleLama (12th May 2014), Sierra (13th May 2014), Snoweagle (12th May 2014), yelik (13th May 2014)

  22. Link to Post #14
    Ireland Avalon Member Snoweagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th July 2010
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Age
    63
    Posts
    977
    Thanks
    5,206
    Thanked 3,446 times in 876 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by Pilote Tempête (here)
    So some relativists see the ether as compatible with relativity, but ether theorists don't. In any case, relativity contradicts QM and ether theory does not. And GR was certainly was not creative and is probably just as erroneous as SR.

    See also Requiem for Relativity (by Michael Strauss, 2004) and Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, 1982).
    The question I would ask next is how it came to be that such a theory, with so many grievous flaws, came to hold such respect, with Einstein himself elevated to such esteem at the pinnacle of 20th century physics.

    My hunch is that it was a covering up of the real physics that was being (re)discovered at that time, a coverup that continues to this day.
    Your hunch answered your own question, Paul.

    Einstein's greatest skill was a "reader" or researcher, maybe a theorist if he were alive today. During the tail end of the 19th century communications were, by today's, standards, archaic (slow). Einsteins employment was as a librarian, so the works of the pioneering engineers crossed his desk for classification, amongst other things librarians do. In this role he had privy to the leading works of the time and also the facility to introduce works of one pioneer to those of others. This created the pedestal on which Einstein stood or stands in history. His introductions provided momentum. This did not go unnoticed by the bankers either, (I suggest they promoted this single source of collation) whom were involved with developing advantages of their own via the applications these new innovations provided.

    The outcome of this distribution of science through this single source, the source with bankers backing, put science and engineering on steroids to manifest an acceleration in "benefits to mankind of science" by provision of electricity, chemistry and such like in our daily lives. The bankers were rich.

    The real science was covered up. Fact.
    The bankers were Switz and German freemasons. These were protectors of the ancient knowledge. They also HAVE the original superconductors taken from the pyramid of Khufu, the Australian pyramids and are investing heavily now in mid Atlantic to retrieve treasures from the site of Atlantis, just as they had done off the coast of Cuba a few years back. Nor forgetting the Bush ranch in South America. The cover up continues. (CERN is also a cover up to the true intentions of the device).

    Physicists today are absolutely brilliant in my opinion, totally worthless science which they made work with e=mc2. Awesome really imho There is no place in the cosmos for e=mc2.

    The energy of the cosmos is entirely based on wavelength and frequency. The ONLY particle of importance is the NEUTRON. The science of these three begets all else.

    Your hunch is absolutely correct, though I perceive the door to this science will open slowly, ever so slowly due to the risks involved, and is being disseminated into education now in a controlled way as this new technology enters the domestic domain, which it is. Universities such as Manchester in the UK and Hamburg University are just two providing access to this science though student candidates are carefully selected during the initial access courses before assimilation.

  23. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Snoweagle For This Post:

    Frederick Jackson (12th May 2014), Hervé (12th May 2014), Paul (12th May 2014), Sierra (13th May 2014), yelik (13th May 2014)

  24. Link to Post #15
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    59
    Posts
    86
    Thanks
    944
    Thanked 190 times in 66 posts

    Default Re: Requiem for Relativity

    Quote Posted by Pilote Tempête (here)
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."- Albert Einstein (anti-relativity.com).

    Relativity is regarded as proven by experiment (of course, by fools who say nothing can be proven). But the real story is very different.
    Sorry, at least many claims in that article are wrong. For example, Miller's experiment failed to prove the postulated aether-drift, furthermore the Sagnac-Experiment of 1913 did not disprove SR.

    Quote Sagnac thought this experiment confirmed the existence of the aether, and he’s partly right. A shift in the interference pattern is exactly what the aether model predicts. Sagnac also thought the experiment disproved relativity, and that’s where he’s wrong. A shift in the pattern is also predicted by special relativity, as Max von Laue predicted two years before Sagnac performed his experiment.

    What Sagnac failed to understand is that special relativity applies to frames of reference that are not rotating, so it doesn’t predict that light’s trip around the loop is the same in both directions when the device is rotating.
    https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2...-no/index.html


    Quote Posted by Pilote Tempête (here)
    ... and the gravitational calculation supposedly proven by Pound-Rebka, but neither factor require relativity and have nothing to do with time dilation.
    Just another unfounded claim. The Pound-Rebka experiment was confirmed numerous times.

    Quote In 1960 physicists finally verified Einstein’s 1911 prediction that gravity could change light’s frequency. Understanding the effect is essential to modern navigational technology.
    https://physics.aps.org/story/v16/st1

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts