EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 11 Jul 2008 08:32 On Jul 10, 9:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 > You seem to have convinced only yourself. But, as you said yourself, the only thing that matters is what you think of yourself, NoEinstein.
From: Sue... on 11 Jul 2008 08:46 On Jul 11, 8:31 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? "Spacenut" is not smart enough to say that. Einstein said it. << I shall turn to those problems which are related to the development which I have << Already Newton recognized that the law of inertia is unsatisfactory in a context so far unmentioned in this exposition, namely that it gives no real cause for the special physical position of the states of motion of the inertial frames relative to all other states of motion. It makes the observable material bodies responsible for the gravitational behaviour of a material point, yet indicates no material cause for the inertial behaviour of the material point but devises the cause for it (absolute space or inertial ether). This is not logically inadmissible although it is unsatisfactory. >> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html How big is 10^32 ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html http://jerz.setonhill.edu/images/boom.jpg > 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? If he knew how to read he might offer. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6 ....but that would be the blind photon leading the blind photon. :o) > > > You truly know nothing about space! Sigh... Do we have to see mindreading act again? http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Sue... > > LOL > > > -- > > James M Driscoll Jr > > Spaceman
From: PD on 11 Jul 2008 08:50 On Jul 10, 5:25 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? No. GR is still based on the signature of the metric (+++- or ---+, depending on your convention) and time dilation and length contraction are a necessary result of that. It's interesting in fact that Baird attempts to come up with an alternate explanation for these effects while still allowing for GR. This is a little like treating a patient with lung cancer who has symptoms of shortness of breath and abdominal pain by prescribing an asthma inhaler and an antacid -- it is treating the symptoms without any understanding whatsoever of the root cause. > > About the muon reaching the ground due to newtonian > mechanism in contrast to SR explanation about time > dilation or the atmospheric length contraction from the > point of view of the muon. What do you think of Baird > newtonian interpretation explanation in the initial post > which I'll quote again (what's his fatal flaw with regards > to the muon shower reaching ground NM interpretation?): > > Baird said: > > " > 16:10 Muon Showers > > Similar arguments apply when we try to assess evidence > from "cosmic ray" detectors. High energy cosmic rays > hitting the upper parts of the Earth's atmosphere > create showers of short-lived "daughter particles" that > survive for an incredibly short amount of time before > decaying - their lifetimes are so short that even if > they were travelling at the speed of light, we might > think that they still shouldn't be able to reach the > Earth's surface before decaying. > > But ground-based detectors do report the detection of > muon showers, and there are two main ways that we can > interpret this result: > > SR-based interpretation > > According to special relativity, we should explain the > detectors' result by saying that since we "know" that > nothing can travel faster than background lightspeed, > the rations' ability to reach the ground shows that > their decay-times must have been extended, and we > interpret this as demonstrating that the special > theory's time-dilation effects are physically real. We > say that the muons move at a very high proportion of > the speed of light and are time-dilated, and if it > wasn't It for this time-dilation effect , they wouldn't > be able to reach the detectors. > > Or ... we could adopt the muon's point of view, and > suggest that the muon is stationary and the Earth is > moving towards it at nearly the speed of light. In this > second SR description, all of the approaching Earth's > atmosphere is able to pass by the muon in time even > though its speed is less than c, because the moving > atmosphere's depth is Lorentz-contracted. These two > different SR explanations (length-contraction and time > dilation) are interchangeable. > > NM-based interpretation > > But is the success of the SR mtion calculations > significant? Is it significantly different to the > calculations weld have made using earlier theory? When > we compare the tracklengths predicted by SR and NM, > starting from theory-neutral properties, the final > results seem to be identical (section 16.9): for a > given agreed momentum, the mtion's decay point > according to SR would seem to be precisely the same as > the NM prediction - the two models don't disagree on > where the muon decays, they disagree as to whether it > achieves that penetration by travelling at more or less > than background lightspeed, which is more difficult to > establish. > > Fast or ultrafast? > > Muon bursts seem to be associated with Cerenkov > radiation - the optical equivalent of a supersonic > shockwave - but since lightspeed is slower in air than > in a vacuum, using the Cerenkov effect to show that the > innuons are moving faster than lightspeed in air > doesn't show that they're also moving faster than the > official background speed of light, in a vacuum. > > So how do we find the real speed of the muons, given > that we don't have advance warning of when a cosmic ray > is going to strike? With additional airborne muion > detectors we can try to cornpare the detection times in > the air and on the ground, but interpreting this data > neutrally could be difficult: one such experiment > seemed to indicate that the muons were travelling at > more than than Cvacuum (Clay/Crouch 1974), but > subsequent experiments seem to have supported the > opposite position. > > Frorn here on, things get muddy. Given that we know > that the record of SR-trained theorists trying to > interpret non-SR theory isn't exactly faultless, it's > difficult to know exactly how to treat this situation > ... but there's one thing here that we can be sure of. > When SR textbooks tell us that ground-level muon > detection gives us unambiguous evidence for special > relativity, and tell us that these muons couldn't reach > the ground unless SR was correct, and couldn't bay, > been predicted by earlier theories ... those statements > are wrong" Baird and Androcles both say that it is possible the muons are superluminal and we would have no way of knowing. This is an unfortunate example of experimental ignorance. Muon counters are not in fact just arrival indicators. In fact, most such experiments involve a tower of scintillator hodoscopes, with layers displaced vertically by several feet, if not tens of feet. Thus, when a muon passes through, it creates a signal in the topmost layer, then in the next layer down, then in the next layer down, and so on. Because the speed of light is roughly a ns per foot, we can then simply watch the timing of the signals from the layers as the muon passes through them, just like a double-gate speed trap on the highway. [In desperation, Androcles has suggested that the hodoscopes are gated so that ONLY signals that are around c are accepted. This is not the case. He then suggested in even further desperation that the first layer slows the muon from well above c to just under c, and the muon then proceeds with the same speed through the other layers. However, the energy deposited in the top layer is identical with the energy deposited in subsequent layers, which would be a neat trick if the layers did to the muon what he suggests. In final desperation, Androcles says that mysterious things happen and that it's much easier to believe in that weirdness than in the weirdness of time dilation.] Moreover, Baird again focuses on one seminal experiment and completely fails to look at follow-up experiments that confirm the effect in a completely different context. Physicists *create* beams of muons and send them either down straight beamlines (the muon beamline at Fermilab, for example) or around storage rings (the g-2 experiment, for example). In this case, we know clearly both the creation point and the decay point, and in fact we can directly time the duration between creation and decay. Time dilation is spectacularly confirmed. [Androcles in desperation says that cosmic muons are wild, feral muons and that beamline muons are domesticated muons, and it's obvious that they would behave completely differently from each other.] PD
From: Spaceman on 11 Jul 2008 09:46 Sue... wrote: > Actually I am a masochist and that is why I encourage you > to take up hocky so I can see BOTH teams kick your teeth in. Oh so you have to feel like you are better than anyone else all the time. Poor girl. that is sad. > If you ever get serious: If you were serious people might learn something instead of just learning that you have a lot of links to post. Discussion is nto about links. Links merely back up discussion, but it seems you are missing the discussion parts all the time. that is also sad. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: Spaceman on 11 Jul 2008 09:47
PD wrote: > Not so full. Do you know what how many atoms per cubic inch are in > that plasma? Do you know how stupid it is to talk about atoms only in the plasma when I said nothing about atoms at all? Do you even know what I said anymore at all? You sure prove to all that you don't. -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman |