EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Danny Milano on 10 Jul 2008 09:44 On Jul 10, 8:50 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2:18 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...(a)gmail.com> wrote in > sci.physics.relativity: > > > > > > > On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by > > > Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It > > > is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The > > > following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can > > > someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it > > > wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR > > > is really wrong. > > > Salaam alekum! > > > This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only > > substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In > > fact Relativity got rid of the aether. > > > You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be > > talking in a prely philosopical way. > > > I would ask you > > > WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR? > > > What experiments would tell you the difference between the different > > theories? > > Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity. > Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light > but you can still save relativity by introducing, ad hoc, miracles - > time dilation, length contraction etc. So in Einstein zombie world a > single experiment can confirm two incompatible theories and > Einsteinians subtract the number of such experiments from the > "enormous" number of experiments that gloriously confirm Divine > Albert's Divine Theory and refute the emission theory. Up until > recently the Pound-Rebka experiment belonged to the latter group but > now Einsteinians suspect that this experiment, like the Michelson- > Morley experiment, confirms the emission theory as well. A > dispassionate and disinterested analysis would show that Pound-Rebka > unambiguously confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes > Divine Albert's Divine Theory. > > Pentcho Valev > pva...(a)yahoo.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Whether time indeed dilate or length indeed contract or whether hidden newtonian principle is at work without directly altering time and length is a major points for scrutiny. I just found Eric Baird unique in that one doesn't commonly encounter an anti-relativist publishing a book. The full title of his book is "Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special Relatity". Baird believes General Relativity or curved spacetime could be true yet in a small point of it, flat spacetime doesn't work because it's curved spacetime all the way to the planck horizon. Well. At least Baird believes in general relativity. But then isn't it that General Relativity had been inspired by Special Relativity. I read in Wheeler "Black hole..." that Einstein imagined time dilation occured in different height and he thoght what if the different time dilation could cause gravity itself. So SR leads to GR although Eric Baird believes GR could be cooked up entirely without SR. Hmm... the book is dense, have to read it if I have more time. See: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Curved-Spacetime-without-relativity/dp/0955706807/ref=ed_oe_p Better yet. Why don't you write a book yourself. Danny
From: Danny Milano on 10 Jul 2008 09:48 On Jul 10, 9:44 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 8:50 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 2:18 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...(a)gmail.com> wrote in > > sci.physics.relativity: > > > > On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by > > > > Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It > > > > is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The > > > > following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can > > > > someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it > > > > wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR > > > > is really wrong. > > > > Salaam alekum! > > > > This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only > > > substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In > > > fact Relativity got rid of the aether. > > > > You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be > > > talking in a prely philosopical way. > > > > I would ask you > > > > WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR? > > > > What experiments would tell you the difference between the different > > > theories? > > > Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity. > > Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light > > but you can still save relativity by introducing, ad hoc, miracles - > > time dilation, length contraction etc. So in Einstein zombie world a > > single experiment can confirm two incompatible theories and > > Einsteinians subtract the number of such experiments from the > > "enormous" number of experiments that gloriously confirm Divine > > Albert's Divine Theory and refute the emission theory. Up until > > recently the Pound-Rebka experiment belonged to the latter group but > > now Einsteinians suspect that this experiment, like the Michelson- > > Morley experiment, confirms the emission theory as well. A > > dispassionate and disinterested analysis would show that Pound-Rebka > > unambiguously confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes > > Divine Albert's Divine Theory. > > > Pentcho Valev > > pva...(a)yahoo.com- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Whether time indeed dilate or length indeed contract or > whether hidden newtonian principle is at work without > directly altering time and length is a major points for > scrutiny. I just found Eric Baird unique in that one > doesn't commonly encounter an anti-relativist > publishing a book. The full title of his book is > "Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special > Relatity". Baird believes General Relativity or > curved spacetime could be true yet in a small > point of it, flat spacetime doesn't work because > it's curved spacetime all the way to the planck horizon. > Well. At least Baird believes in general relativity. But > then isn't it that General Relativity had been inspired > by Special Relativity. I read in Wheeler "Black hole..." > that Einstein imagined time dilation occured in > different height and he thoght what if the different > time dilation could cause gravity itself. So SR leads > to GR although Eric Baird believes GR could be > cooked up entirely without SR. Hmm... the book > is dense, have to read it if I have more time. See: > > http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Curved-Spacetime-without-relativity/... > > Better yet. Why don't you write a book yourself. > > Danny- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Duh. I wonder if it is possible for General Relativity to exist without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) inherent in the theory, anyone? Danny
From: Eric Gisse on 10 Jul 2008 09:52 On Jul 10, 2:41 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by > Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It > is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The > following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can > someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it > wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR > is really wrong. There is zero chance that he knows why relativity is wrong. Baird does not understand relativity yet published a textbook on it anyway, and explicitly did not seek out corrections from those who are learned in the field. > > Baird said: > > "16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity > > We're told that the experimental evidence for special > relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable > doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all > this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results > reckoned to support the special theory include: > > * E=mc^2 He simplifies, probably because he doesn't know better. > > * transverse redshifts Incorrect terminology - again, doesn't know better. Its' transverse Doppler shift. [bla bla bla] > > And while this was a good story to tell credulous > schoolchildren, it was essentially pseudoscience. The > idea that E=mc^2 "belongs" to SR doesn't hold up to > basic mathematical analysis, and to Einstein's credit > he went on to argue for the wider validity of the > result by publishing further papers that derived the > relationship (or a good approximation of it) from more > general arguments outside special relativity. We also > found in section 2.5 (with working supplied in the > Appendices, Calculations 2), that E=mc^ 2 is an exact > result of NM, if we ignore standard teaching and go > directly to the core mathematics. Not only is the > NM-based derivation of E=mc2 reasonably > straightforward, it's shorter than its SR counterpart, > and it's also part of every hypothetical model in > section 13. This argument is so worthless that not only is it so stupid that it doesn't need anything past rolled eyes, but it manages to invalidate the rest of the post based on sheer stupidity. Anyone who can write this - I don't know or care if its you or just you quoting the idiot - isn't worth listening to. [snip]
From: Pentcho Valev on 10 Jul 2008 10:06 On Jul 10, 3:16 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 7:50 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 2:18 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...(a)gmail.com> wrote in > > sci.physics.relativity: > > > > On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by > > > > Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It > > > > is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The > > > > following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can > > > > someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it > > > > wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR > > > > is really wrong. > > > > Salaam alekum! > > > > This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only > > > substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In > > > fact Relativity got rid of the aether. > > > > You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be > > > talking in a prely philosopical way. > > > > I would ask you > > > > WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR? > > > > What experiments would tell you the difference between the different > > > theories? > > > Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity. > > Michelson-Morley in no way contradicts special relativity. You might > say it contradicts special relativity if you take out time dilation > and length contraction, but then again, that ain't special relativity, > is it? If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK? > > Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light > > The emission theory of light is consistent with Michelson-Morley, but > the emission theory of light is inconsistent with OTHER experimental > results. It is not proper to consider experiments in isolation when > evaluating the evidence in support of or against a theory. In all those cases "the emission theory" can be reduced to a single equation, c'=c+v, showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the light source. It can be shown (but the discussion cannot be held on this forum) that an exact equation cannot be confirmed by some experiments and refuted by others, unless something is wrong with the experiments. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Spaceman on 10 Jul 2008 10:07
Danny Milano wrote: <snipped for brevity> > Which of these relationships is better than the other > at describing the universe we live in? > > The honest answer seems to be: we still don't know. Well, it depends, do you wish to use rubber rulers and clocks that malfunction that also can create time travel, wormholes, point particle energy, 0 and particle vacuum curvature. or would you rather use that good old single standards of time and distances and find out what is really occuring and find real physical causes for effects instead of math models that have no actual "physical" causes at all? :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman |