🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 28, 11:06 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> Jeckyl wrote:
> > "John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Those who were certain that the earth was centre of the solar system were
> >> equally happy and complacent. Are you suggesting they were right, that
> >> they should leave it to someone else?
>
> > A better analogy is that you think we shuld go *back* to and earth centric
> > theory because it worked (sortof) and just needed a bit more work on it
>
> > Ballistic theories are refuted.  There is no point complaining about how
> > (perhaps) they may have not gotten the attention they deserved in the past.
>
> I would re-phrase this. His point is that PERHAPS if ballistic theories
> had been given more attention then they MIGHT have been developed to the
> point where they COULD provide an equally good, or perhaps better,
> description of the world than relativity.
>
> My reaction to that: put up or shut up.
>
> Basically there's no hope of getting someone who is competent and
> knowledgeable to spend the multi-year effort it would take, until and
> unless someone shows that there is at least a small chance that such an
> effort might pay off. Right now it looks to me like there is exactly
> ZERO chance that such an effort would be useful.
>
> If Kennaugh wants to galvanize someone into action, then he must show
> how it is possible for a ballistic theory to "mimic" the fantastically
> accurate results of SR.

Roberts Roberts this would be tantamount to showing, in Big Brother's
world, how it is possible for an alternative mathematics to mimic the
fantastically accurate result 2+2=5:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Roberts Roberts do you see those "fantastically accurate results" in
your cleverer brothers' texts:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen
der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can
find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of
Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's
derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational
potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com