🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 16, 5:00 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 1:23 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ETHERISTS:
>
> >http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf
> > The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
> > Stephan J.G. Gift
> > "The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
> > speed of light is
> > constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer,
> > is shown
> > to be invalid. (...) For a stationary observer O, the stationary light
> > source S emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given
> > by Fo=c/Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again
> > based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving
> > observer is (c + v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light
> > propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a
> > frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by
> > fA = (c+v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result
> > invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid
> > theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years.
> > It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance
> > principle long pointed out by Ives, and return to the Lorentz-Maxwell
> > ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by Erlichson."
>
>     Ives was wrong. He made a prediction about circular optical
> cavities. I chapters in a book he wrote about relativity. I
> immediately found several errors.
>      I remember the circular cavity argument best. Ives claimed that a
> circular cavity would not show the Sagnac effect They make fiber optic
> compasses now that use the Sagnac effect. These are circular, and they
> work. There are also some theoretical errors to be used in his
> "circular cavity" model. Ives made several other errors.

Can you specify any paper in which Ives made such a big error? I don't
recall a Sagnac paper on a "circular cavity" but I do remember that he
was keen on showing that all kinds of variations of Sagnac devices do
work.

>      I also remember his emotional rant against Einstein and all his
> followers. It was a lot like yours. He spent a lot of time railing
> against those blind followers of Einstein. This did not belong in a
> technical summary. So in addition to the scientific errors, he proved
> he was not objective.

What percentage of physicists do *not* make any errors and *is*
objective?

Harald