The speed of light is NOT constant

Status
Not open for further replies.
The minor flaw in your argument is that general relativity includes special relativity as a limiting case. Every time GR has been tested it passes the test, while other rival theories seem to fall one by one. If GR is true, then SR has to be true too. BTW if you want proof then you have to do mathematics, not physics. Science never proves anything, and never claims to. It is only journalists and the public who demand proof, which shows they don't actually understand what they are asking.

One day GR will fail a test, and a new theory will be needed. This new theory will almost certainly include GR as a limiting case, so in turn will include SR too.

To be honest, I wish GR were not true because I don't like the idea of physics being hijacked by geometers but I can't argue with experimental data. You might wish SR were not true. The experiments say you are wrong.
 
7n7is, there is merit in your thinking. In science, the general approach is to observe, produce a hypothesis for the observation and then test the hypothesis via experiment.

The scientific approach never produces PROOF.

It only produces evidence which supports or destroys a hypothesis. That is one of the reasons scientists speak of "theory". Theory does not mean "not fact", it means "most acceptable model".

To weaken a given hypothesis will require just ONE repeatable experimental observation which departs from the proposed model, even if there are numerous other experiments which confirm the hypothesis.

The outlier result will point to the fact that the hypothesis is incomplete and needs revising, assuming the experiments have been correctly done.

On the speed of light (c): There is no PROOF, only evidence, that it is constant in a given medium at this time.

Hope this helps.
Ryan, Chemical Synthesis Ph.D.
 
General Relativity has nothing to do with Special Relativity and has nothing to do with relativity in general. It was called this by Einstein and his followers to help cover up Einstein's plagiarism and use mystification to try to cover up the logical absurdities. Einstein wasn't the first to propose that a beam of light bent in a gravitational field. Soldner did that long before Einstein, so did Isaac Newton. Einstein plagiarized Gerber's and Hilbert's mathematics when working on GR, too.

Special Relativity has nothing to do with relativity, either. Its based on the wrong assumption that aether drift experiments measure an absolute velocity based on the wrong assumption that the aether is at absolute rest. Lorentz published in 1895 that the aether is NOT at absolute rest based on his theory. Also, undergraduate physics experiments prove gravity is NOT curved space since the path of a falling object or projectile in a gravitaional field is affected by its velocity. If it was curved space, all projectiles would follow the same path in spite of its velocity which doesn't happen. Eric Baird explains gravity with his aether density gradient theory, ie. the properties of the aether vary with gravitational potential. This explains the difference in speed of light with gravitational potential and the gravitational time dilation effect.

Stellar aberration experiments with binary stars also proves that the earth is moving through the transmitting medium of light, ie. the aether exists and the pre-Einsteinian aether theories are right and Einstein is wrong.
 
There is no point in continuing this discussion. Learn some physics, even if you disagree with it. Find out what a geodesic is, and see how in flat space it naturally includes SR. Find out how gravitational bending of light predicted by GR (confirmed by experiment) is different from the naive classical value.

I have nothing more to say.

That suggestion has been made repeatedly in the past. Mr. is has steadfastly refused to learn basic physics. It is doubtful that one more entreaty will cause him to do so. He is quite adept, however, to finding links to crank sites. Occasionally to real ones where the material is poorly (if at all) understood.

Repeatedly and deliberately posting false information is a violation of forum rules.
 
Didn't Einstien write about this something about waves and particle,effects of gravity. I think Mr Bohr(sp) had a little to add to it. As I barely understand transistors and electricity, I will leave this discussion to the people with brains and sit quietly in the margins...

Quietly listening, Elwood
 
7n7is, this stuff keeps you awake at nights doesn't it. That's really too bad. So the speed of light is not constant, so what? How does any of this affect your life or those around you in any meaningful way? How is the pursuit of this going to help you in your life? Right, it's not. It's just a distraction.

The sun came up this morning didn't it. Yup.
 
Freezer magnets == evidence for Special Relativity?

this looks like fun - I ordered his book

http://johnwarthur.com/The Fundamentals of Electromagnetic Theory Revisited Web Version 080820a.pdf

2.10.2 Significance of Magnetism in the Theory of Special Relativity
Text books on special relativity usually cite a familiar list of ‘relativistic corrections’ which have been
duly confirmed experimentally, furnishing evidence in favor of the theory. In some of these books,
magnetism is then shown to arise as a consequence of the theory, but very few, if any, ever mention
magnetism as being the only basic evidence for the theory of special relativity that we can observe in
everyday situations. All relativistic ‘corrections’, being typically of order (v/c)2, are very small at
ordinary velocities. Here v is the velocity of, say, a moving particle or other frame of reference, and
by ‘ordinary velocities’, we mean velocities such that v/c is no greater than about 10-5. The key
difference that makes magnetism so readily observable at ‘ordinary’ velocities is that while the electric
force between bodies filled with electrically neutral matter vanishes, the relativistic correction does not
do so when they maintain a current. The magnetic force can therefore be observed quite readily when
it is not masked by the presence of a net electric force which would be many orders of magnitude
greater. While we can indeed encounter very large magnetic forces, this is due to the fact that the
underlying electric forces, if unbalanced, would be quite enormous by comparison!
A much more subtle point is that Ampere’s force law, Equation (11), does not obey Newtonian
relativity as the forces exerted by one infinitesimal current element (or moving charge) upon another

are not generally equal and opposite. This can be readily seen from Equation (11) for the case of two
current elements, one parallel to the spatial vector r12 separating them while the other is perpendicular
to it. The force acting on the perpendicular element is zero while the force acting on the parallel
element is not, so that they evidently cannot be equal and opposite. To an observer at rest, therefore,
there is a nonzero net force acting on the pair even in the absence of any external influence. How well
forgotten is this inconvenient fact! Inconvenient, though, only because its explanation draws us into
special relativity, something all but advanced textbooks on electromagnetic theory generally seek to
avoid.
Surprising as this kind of behavior may seem even today, the whole supposition that the force between
charges varies with their velocities flies in the face on Newtonian relativity, as we can make the forces
come and go depending on the motion of the observer. The variable element, the magnetic force, is
therefore at the very heart of special relativity and not just one of the consequences of it.
2.10.3 Magnetism as Evidence for the Theory of Special Relativity?
Magnetism is has been part of the everyday world for centuries. It is in fact so commonplace that we
do not even recognize it as evidence for the theory of special relativity, like Monsieur Jourdain in
Molière’s play [43], who was greatly surprised, and impressed, to discover he had been speaking prose
all his life. The main evidence generally cited in support of special relativity is the Michelson-Morley
experiment together with the aberration of starlight pointing to the constancy of the speed of light and
the absence of an ether, and Fizeau’s experiment on the speed of light in moving liquids (see Section
5.4 below). In view of what we have just discussed in the preceding section, it is a pity, therefore, that
we rarely see statements such as:
Because we know that magnetic poles do not exist, magnetism must be explained in terms of
existing forces. Since the theory of special relativity applied to the electric force would give
rise to a force identical to the magnetic force, we must consider the observation of
magnetism as prima facie evidence supporting the theory of special relativity.
Rather, we see it stated the other way round, with magnetism being treated as an application rather
than being placed along with the other evidence. This, however, is simply part of the legacy, a result of
how the subject developed.

© IEEE 2008, Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Volume 50, No 1, February 2008
 
Last edited:
Yes, in the apparent absence of magnetic monopoles, magnetism is good evidence for SR. This is not as widely known as it should be. Maybe it is because most engineers, and many scientists, learn about electricity and magnetism as two different but related things when in fact they are one thing - electromagnetism. What we call a magnetic field is just an electric field distorted by a Lorentz transformation (or vice versa).

Permanent magnets use spin, an outcome of relativistic quantum mechanics, for which there is no classical analogue at all. Spin is a bit like angular momentum, except that you may have to turn right around twice to get back to where you were.
 
Herbert Dingle pointed out that the so called relative motion between a conductor and magnet that Einstein used as an example of relative motion in his famous 1905 article isn't really relative motion. If you move the conductor in a magnetic field you get an instantaneous change in current. If you move the magnet, the changing magnetic field (electromagnetic wave) has to travel at the speed of light to reach the conductor before there is a change in current in the conductor.

dingle shep - Google Search



Also, look up stellar aberration from binary stars like I told you to. It shows there is a prefered electromagnetic frame of reference, ie. aether.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.