EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 10 Jul 2008 22:59 On Jul 10, 6:41 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Danny: I have disproved both SR and GR. If interested, read the following links. NoEinstein Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# > > 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. > > 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 > > * transverse redshifts > > * longitudinal Doppler relationships > > * the lightspeed limit in particle accelerators > > * the searchlight effect (shared with dragged-light > models and NM) > > * "velocity addition" behaviour (shared with dragged-light models and > NM) > > * particle tracklengths > > * muon detection > > * particle lifetimes in accelerator storage rings / > centrifuge time dilation / orbiting clocks > > * the failure of competing theories > > ... we'll be looking at all of these, along with a > couple of important background issues. > > 16.2: ... E=mc^2 > > For a long time it seemed to be received wisdom that > the E=mc^2 result was unique to special relativity, We > were told that if special relativity wasn't true then > nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons wouldn't work, and > without SR's prediction of E=mc^2, nuclear fusion > wouldn't operate as it does. Without special > relativity, the Sun wouldn't shine. > > 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. > > Whiile it's historically understandable that the > equation wasn't widely recognised and embraced until > Einstein came along, its less clear why so many > brilliant physicists with outstanding math skills > continued to insist for so long that the equation > somehow provides cornpelling evidence for the special > theory. Since the math is so straightforward, how were > so many clever physics people caught out? We might have > expected that enough time had passed since 1905 for us > to have checked the math dependencies, not iced the > parallel compatibility with NK and (in a respectable > field of scientific study), made a high-profile > retraction so that we didn't continue to pass > misinformation onto students. But perhaps "E=mc^2 > proves special relativity" was just too convenient a > tale for people to want to give it up, regardless of > what the Mathematics really said. > > 16.3: *Classical Theory" vs. Special Relativity > > When we read about experiments that compared the > predictions of SR against those of "Classical Theory", > we can come away thinking that we've been told how SR's > Predictions stack up against most earlier theories (for > instance, Newtonian theory). > > This isn't usually the case. When we look at what's > meant by "Classical Theory', in this context, we find > that it's a sort of hybrid. It's a pairing of two sets > of incompatible assumptions and math that have the > advantage for experimenters of (a) being well known and > standardised, and (b) making optical predictions that > are so exceptionally bad that by comparison special > relativity (and almost any other theory) looks very > good indeed. > > Did "Classical Theory" ever really exist? > > In the context of SR-testing, "Classical Theory" refers > to a mixture of two sets of conflicting assumptions > that didn't work together before SR/LET: "Classical > Theory" uses Newtonian mechanics for the equations of > motion for solid bodies, but for light, CT is > equivalent to assuming an absolute, fixed, "flat" > aether stationary in the laboratory frame. The energy > and momentum relationships of these two different parts > are, of course, irreconcilable ... NM requires the > Doppler relationship to be (c-v)/c, but " Classical > Theory" gives cl(c+v). These aren't compatible. They > never were. If they were, we wouldn't have needed > special relativity. > > There doesn't seem to be any single theory that > attempted to combine these two predictions before > LET/SR, or at least, there doesn't seem to have been > anyone prepared to lend their name to one, and in a > subject where people love having things named after > themselves, this should make us suspicious. If > "Classical Theory" doesn't mean "pre-SR theory", then > where did it come from? The phrase appears in > Einstein's explanations of the basis of special > relativity, as a convenient form of words to refer to > two appa rently diverging predictions that special > relativity then reconciled by applying Lorentz effects: > to Einstein, "Classical Theory" represented > incompatible aspects of earlier theories that didn't > work together, but that could be reconciled using > special relativity. > > When we're look for a historical counterpart to > Classical Theory there doesn't seem to be anything that > would have made these optical predictions unless we go > all the way back to preGalileo, pre-Newton times, and > posit an absolute aether that permeates space and is > locked to the state of a stationary Earth. That would > give us the "Classical Theory" prediction of "no > transverse redshift" for a laboratory stationary with > respect to the Earth. But every other decrepit old > theory that we can dig up seems to pre dict at least > some sort of transverse redshift effect, sometimes > weaker than SR, sometimes stronger than SR, and > sometimes swinging wildly between the two depending on > the Earth's motion. The one idea that didn't seem to be > considered to be credible during the Eighteenth Century > was the idea that lightspeed was fixed with respect to > the observer, which is presumably why Michelson had so > much grief with his colleagues over his "failed" > aether-drift experiment. > > SO, why do we persist in carrying out these "SR vs. > Classical Theory" comparisons if they don't demonstrate > very much? Well, to a cynic, Classical Theory is an > excellent reference to test against, because its > predictions are about as bad as we can get. If we set > aside the theories that predicted time-variant effects, > no other old predictions seem to be quite as bad at to > CT when it comes to predicting real Doppler shifts, and > this makes "CT vs. Theory X" experiments very much > easier to carry out and analyse . Test theory authors > love CT because it meshes well with the chain of > arguments that Einstein used when explaining the > special theory, and experimenters design tests around > the test theories that are available legitimate process > - as long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking that > that the results represent a realistic comparison of > how special relativitys predictions really compared to > those of its predecessors. > > 16.4:- "Transverse" redshifts > > Special relativity tells us that if an object moves > through our laboratory, and we carefully point a > highly-directional detector at right angles to its path > (measured with a "laboratory" set,square), the signal > that manages to register on the detector should be > redshifted (section 6.7). > > But the popular "educational" notion that this sort of > redshift outcome is something unique to special > relativity is as best misleading, and at worst ... it's > simply wrong. The equations of newtonian mechanics (or > even the basic equations for audio, properly applied to > the case of a stationary source) don't just predict > redshifts in this situation, they'll often predict > "aberration redshifts" that are stronger than their SR > counterparts (section 6.4), so in a physical sense, the > appearance of redshifts in t his situation isn't just > not unique, it's not even particularly unusual. In > fact, the thing that would be unusual with this sort of > experimental setup would be a theory that didn't > predict some sort of redshift. > > Although we tend to regard special relativity's > transverse predictions as conceptually unique, > experimenters have to know when supposed differences > between theories generate physically unambiguous > differences in the readings taken by actual hardware, > and when the differences are more a matter of > interpretation. This distinction isn't always obvious > from the relativity literature. > > Einstein's special theory requires these sorts of > "pre-SR" redshifts to exist for its own internal > consistency. The theory must predict the same physical > outcome regardless of which inertia] reference frame we > choose to use for our calculations, so the emitter is > entitled to claim that c is globally fixed for them > (Einstein 1905, 7), and this means that they're > entitled to claim that our relative motion makes us > time-dilated, giving our view of the emitter's signal a > Lorentz blueshift ... so in order for u s to be able to > instead see a Lorentz redshift, propagation-based > effects in this situation - light moving at a constant > speed in the emitter's frame, and arriving at us at an > apparent 90 degrees - must, by default, generate a > Lorentz-squared redshift to allow the same final SR > outcome. This is the right answer (see Calculations 3). > > So to fully understand the logical consistency of SR in > this situation requires us to know that similar or > stronger redshifts would appear in the same apparatus > under other light-propagation models. Since different > SR "views" can explain the same redshift component as > the result of (a) conventional aberration effects, (b) > time dilation, or (c) a combination of the two (we're > allowed to try ... > > read more »
From: Spaceman on 10 Jul 2008 23:21 PD wrote: > On Jul 10, 10:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: >> PD wrote: >>> You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things >>> bonking up against material things -- that is not the only thing >>> that counts as a "physical cause". >> >> LOL >> poor PD. >> You just proved you don't have physical causes. >> you need physical material to produce physical causes. > > That's what YOU say. Note that Newton did not offer that for gravity. > Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun > that delivers the energy from the sun. Newton never said he had the cause of gravity. So plasma is not a physical material? You truly know nothing about space! LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: Sue... on 11 Jul 2008 00:08 On Jul 10, 3:48 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun > that delivers the energy from the sun. Have you ever noticed that a cable television company delivers more light energy to its subscribers not by evacuating the intervening space but rather by filling it with copper or glass? Just a little something to ponder while you review the virtues of emptyness. Propagation in a dielectric medium http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html Sue... > > PD
From: Danny Milano on 11 Jul 2008 08:24 On Jul 11, 10:28 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 3:11 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 6:37 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 10, 2:25 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 3:51 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 10, 11:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 5:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 10:35 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Consider the frequency shift > > > > > > > > > f' = f(1 + gh/c^2) > > > > > > > > > confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka. Is it in agreement with > > > > > > > > Einstein's 1911 equation: > > > > > > > > > c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) > > > > > > > > > and therefore with the equivalent equation: > > > > > > > > > c' = c + v > > > > > > > > > given by Newton's emission theory of light? If it is, is it then in > > > > > > > > disagreement with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)? > > > > > > > > No, it's not. You have this goofball notion that the special > > > > > > > relativity postulate (c'=c) is claimed to apply EVERYWHERE and in ALL > > > > > > > CIRCUMSTANCES. It applies over distances where tidal forces due to > > > > > > > gravity are small compared to measurement precision; i.e. in domains > > > > > > > that are locally inertial. This is why it is called the *special* > > > > > > > theory of relativity, because it (and its postulates) apply in a > > > > > > > *special domain*. Attempts to extrapolate them out to general and > > > > > > > absolute statements leads you mistakenly to the apparent > > > > > > > contradictions you cite above. Have you been laboring all these years > > > > > > > under the impression that there is a contradiction when you do not > > > > > > > know what "special" in "special relativity" means? > > > > > > > This is irrelevant. Consider Master Tom Roberts' teaching: > > > > > > >http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2d2a006c7d50... > > > > > > Pentcho Valev: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A > > > > > > GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? > > > > > > Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the > > > > > > measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume > > > > > > you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even > > > > > > for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant > > > > > > gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)." > > > > > > > That is, if in a gravitational field an observer at rest (relative to > > > > > > the light source) measures the speed of light to be: > > > > > > > c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) > > > > > > > then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer > > > > > > will measure: > > > > > > > c' = c + v > > > > > > > where v=gh/c is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment > > > > > > of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception). Is that > > > > > > OK? > > > > > > Yes, that's perfectly consistent with what I just told you. > > > > > Now, you are apparently still flummoxed with putting this next to > > > > > c'=c, thinking there is a contradiction. > > > > > There isn't. > > > > > c'=c applies in *SPECIAL* relativity, where tidal effects of gravity > > > > > are negligible over the distances concerned. > > > > > That's why it's called *SPECIAL* relativity, because it applies in > > > > > special cases. > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Hi PD, > > > > > Do you think it is possible for General Relativity to exist > > > > without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) > > > > inherent in the theory? > > > > Do you think you are capable of having a meaningful discussion of > > > general relativity when you are unable to differentiate between > > > special and general relativity? > > > > [...]- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > General Relativity is about curved spacetime causing as one > > side effect, gravity. > > You miss the point. Gravity _IS_ curvature in general relativity. > > > Special Relativity is a tiny region of spacetime > > which we assume flat. > > No more than a surface is assumed flat if you look really close at > it. > > > Eric Baird book theorized that it is > > possible GR is possible without SR. That's why I asked if > > it is possible for General Relativity to exist without time > > dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) inherent > > in the theory? > > Baird is an idiot, so "no". And you still don't get it - things like > time dilation and length contraction are fundamental predictions of > the theory of _SPECIAL RELATIVITY_ that are not true in general > relativity. Time dilation, length contraction may be fundamental predictions of Special Relativity but in General Relativity, spacetime is automatically curved. It is inherent in the metric. And a curved metric automatically implies that time dilates, length distorts which caused gravity. In other words, when you curve the metric, time and length is distorted and this can cause dilation and distortion as in the time dilation near the singularity in the black hole as well as spagettization in it which is extreme behavior of the metric. About Baird. I don't know why he suggests General Relativity could be true yet Special Relativity could not be true. I mean. Since General Relativity has inherent time dilation and length distortion (I didn't say contraction) due to the curved metric. It won't take much effort for nature to endow the universe with time dilation, length contraction to occur in flat spacetime. I know SR implies observer dependent time, length distortion and GR implies actual distortions as seen from different reference frames (as in gravitational time dilation near a planet where all ships would notice it as similiar in contrast to SR observer dependent fashion). Agree? Danny > > > When we deal with macro object like solar > > system and galaxies. GR rule, this means time dilation > > and length contraction doesn't apply and only valid in > > the tiny region of spacetime or the minkowski metric > > and not in the GR manifold, right. > > No, it means the situation gets _more_ complicated, not less. Re: > Shapiro delay, gravitational time dilation, etc. > > > > > > > Danny- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 11 Jul 2008 08:31
On Jul 10, 10:21 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Jul 10, 10:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: > >> PD wrote: > >>> You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things > >>> bonking up against material things -- that is not the only thing > >>> that counts as a "physical cause". > > >> LOL > >> poor PD. > >> You just proved you don't have physical causes. > >> you need physical material to produce physical causes. > > > That's what YOU say. Note that Newton did not offer that for gravity. > > Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun > > that delivers the energy from the sun. > > Newton never said he had the cause of gravity. > So plasma is not a physical material? Why yes it is. Newton knew nothing about it, but yes, plasma is a physical material. Are you saying that plasma is what's responsible for gravity? Now, please note that, at the location of the Earth, the flow of plasma AWAY from the sun is 10,000,000 times greater than the flow of plasma TOWARD the sun. So explain again, Spaceman, how that plasma is responsible for the gravitational pull TOWARD the sun? > You truly know nothing about space! > LOL > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman |