EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Eric Gisse on 12 Jul 2008 07:05 On Jul 12, 2:54 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 2:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 8:58 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time, > > > length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional > > > newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is > > > really the case? > > > No, what I said is that some *cranks* think that way, that Newtonian > > physics is fine if we would only find the right forces to include in > > Newton's equations of motion. This is based on a rather naive > > presumption that Newton's laws can fit *any* phenomenon, if the right > > parameters are put in. This turns out to be decidedly NOT the case, > > which a little bit of concentrated investigation will prove out. There > > are a number of things that are seen in nature which are *impossible* > > to generate in Newtonian mechanics, even if tricked-out. > > > PD > > It seems that anti-relativists would go to any length to > debunk time dilation, length contraction at the cost of > even weirder mechanisms. In your years of experience > with them. Do yo think anti-relativists are purely newtonian? The only consistent trait is stupidity, with a larger-than-fair share of mental illness. Its' fun playing "guess the mental illness". For example, certain people focus on the same trivial subject for literally years on end. Case in point - Steve Bell. [...] > I'd like to have rough idea of how their brains work. http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Or take an abnormal psychology course. > > Danny
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Jul 2008 07:30 On Jul 12, 12:54 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 2:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 8:58 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time, > > > length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional > > > newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is > > > really the case? > > > No, what I said is that some *cranks* think that way, that Newtonian > > physics is fine if we would only find the right forces to include in > > Newton's equations of motion. This is based on a rather naive > > presumption that Newton's laws can fit *any* phenomenon, if the right > > parameters are put in. This turns out to be decidedly NOT the case, > > which a little bit of concentrated investigation will prove out. There > > are a number of things that are seen in nature which are *impossible* > > to generate in Newtonian mechanics, even if tricked-out. > > > PD > > It seems that anti-relativists would go to any length to > debunk time dilation, length contraction at the cost of > even weirder mechanisms. In your years of experience > with them. Do yo think anti-relativists are purely newtonian? > Or do anti-relativists still believe in quantum mechanics "now you > see it, now you don't" foundations? Because if anti-relativists > are quantum followers. They could propose creatures > that can control quantum probability (call it fairies) > that can create the same predictions and observations as > time dilation, length contraction in physical stuff. This > is the only way I think they can explain the same relativistic > experiments. But if anti-relativists don't believe in fairies > and they don't think time and length can distort and just > believe in absolute space and absolute time, there seems > no way to pull off those SR, GR experimental stunts, isn't it... > unless anti-relativists are aetherists. Are they? In essence, > how many percentage approximately of anti-relativists > believe in quantum mechanics and how many percentage > approx. believe in the aether and how many percentage > believe in neither of them. I'd like to have rough idea of > how their brains work. First YOUR brain should start working. If order to be able to understand what "anti-relativist" could mean, you should just remember that Einstein's relativity is initially based on two postulates which, if true, make Einsteiniana a great science even if later developments are all wrong (because miracles like time dilation and length contraction can be deduced from the two postulates only). This implies that any serious "anti-relativist" should question, among other things, at least one of the two postulates. In accordance with this tentative definition of "anti-relativist", all Einsteinians that are making money by fiercely introducing some sort of "Lorentz violations" (most hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult are moving in that direction) are in fact anti-relativists: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles must be violated." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: John Kennaugh on 12 Jul 2008 07:34 PD wrote: >On Jul 11, 9:59�am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >wrote: >> Danny Milano 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. >> >> Of course its is. >> >> 1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that >> light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that the waves >> of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist, SR is based >> upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable, > >Whoa, hold on. The ONLY presumption made is that Maxwell's equations >still work for a quantitative description of light. It makes >*absolutely no difference* whether the conceptual model underlying the >development of those equations involved waves in an aether, or self- >supporting fields without a material substrate, or whether light also >exhibits particle properties on occasion. I am sorry but it does matter. Einstein ditched 3 apparently sensible and long established axioms of physics in SR. The basis of SR is the interpretation of the MMX in terms of Maxwell's wave in aether theory. All this nonsense which students are fed that Einstein came up with a theory which didn't need the aether is a myth. Einstein argued in favour of retaining the aether (1920 lecture). If you assume that Maxwell is merely a quantitative description of light the light is not necessarily waves in the aether (Maxwell's theory is not impeccable). Then there might not be an aether and the speed of light may be controlled by something else. The question to be addressed is "If the speed of light is not controlled by the aether then what is it controlled by and what is it constant w.r.t.?" Without an aether the source is surrounded by nothing which can take part in any physical process so the only process which can determine the speed of light is that taking place at the source and the speed of light is referenced to the source. This fits perfectly with the particulate nature of light and the no-aether concept as particles do not need a medium. The assumption of source independence in the formulation of SR had no experimental justification and was justified solely on the basis that the speed of light is controlled by the aether. " Light is a propagated wave propagated by a medium called the Aether. The velocity of a wave is a function of the medium which propagates it and its velocity can only be effected by the source if the movement of the source causes movement of the medium. Aether drag experiments, passing light close to heavy rotating flywheels has shown that they had no effect on the light passing close to them hence the speed of light cannot be effected by the speed of the source. Although the speed of light might be expected to vary with the speed of the observer Michelson and Morley had shown that not to be the case so it is a strange but indisputable fact that the velocity of light is constant independent of the velocity of the source or the observer." Einstein-Infeld: The Evolution of Physics. 1938. > (And the fact that it does >exhibit particle properties on occasion in NO way asserts that light >is in fact "really" particles and not waves, as things that are >*really* particles do not exhibit interference phenomena, Maybe other particles have a different structure to photons. >which we >*clearly* see in light. This is the whole point of particle-wave >duality -- NOT to insist that things are EITHER particles OR waves and >force a decision. The wave particle duality is a fudge to accommodate all those who were unable to face up to what experiment is saying. As I point out elsewhere experiments which are quoted to illustrate the duality do nothing of the sort: "Experiments with beams of light have been made such that both aspects - waves and particles - are observed. For interference to occur it is among other things also necessary for the beam to have available more than one path from source to detector (e.g. a screen). Interference is explained by the wave picture. When the beam intensity is sufficiently low and the detector suitable the impact of particles one by one can be observed. The energy quanta are then localised as if particles in space and time." By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. The minimum in the low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. The maximum has the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and cannot be interference for the reasons stated. There is some physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the normal intensity pattern. What physics does these days is mix the physical and the metaphysical. If I sit under an isolated tree in a thunderstorm there is a chance I might be hit by lightening. It is possible that the probability could be worked out. If I am killed however it will not be because of the probability. It will be the lightening which kills me. Unfortunately Physics today has limited its remit to prediction. It does not attempt to try and 'understand' nature, to understand what is happening. In the double slit experiment the wave model is a statistical model. Just as I am killed by the lightening not the probability that I would be, so the fringe distribution is not caused by the wave model which simply provides a statistical distribution of where the photons end up and nothing at all about which direction a particular photon will go or why. There must be a physical reason why a photon heads off in a particular direction. Photons do not check with the equations to see which direction to travel in. > Quantum objects are *neither* particles nor waves >but exhibit properties of both.) You'll note that Maxwell himself >developed his equations with a mental conceptual model of waves in >aether correct >and was able later to adjust his mental model to self- >supporting, substrateless waves, *without any change whatsoever* to >his equations. That sounds to me like modern spin. My study of history indicates that everyone was confident that the MMX would show the existence of Maxwell's aether. By the time the MMX was performed Maxwell had been dead 8 years and therefore not inclined to review his theory as the modern spin doctors would have us believe. >This is in fact the beauty of the distilled >mathematical representation of physical laws, in that it distills the >essence of what is really known about things, without the baggage of a >mental conceptual model cluttering things up. On the contrary it is a get-out which allows physics to continue without the inconvenience of having to explain physical absurdity. Physics is no longer a science trying to understand nature it is a branch of mathematics dealing with mathematical modelling and if you have a model which works some of the time and another which works in other circumstance there is no need to ask what is actually happening in terms of physical process and causality. Thus an algorithm which predicts tide times is a "physics theory" which doesn't see the moon as an essential part any more than the wave theory needs something for waves to propagate in. > Note also that the >validity of Maxwell's equations is determined by its direct, >mathematically produced development into quantitative predictions of >measurable phenomena. Since those measurements confirm the >predictions, Maxwell's *equations* are confirmed scientifically, >without comment one way or the other on any conceptual baggage that >someone might attach to the mathematically written laws. > >> and therefore that the MMX showed that every observer has nil speed >> w.r.t the aether. Einstein's second postulate simply describes what an >> observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. Now no one believes >> in the aether that interpretation of the MMX is absurd so the second >> postulate has no valid foundation and SR makes no attempt to address the >> problem that the waves which are the basis of Maxwell's theory do not >> physically exist. >> >> 2/ SR is physically absurd > >Why, no it isn't. There isn't a thing absurd about it. But we'll see >what you think is absurd.... > >> which is why physics now insists that >> physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory. >> Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According >> to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c having separated from the >> source at a speed of separation c. >> � � � � If you now change your speed so that you are travelling away >> from the source at v the frequency of the light you observe will be >> lower due to Doppler shift but according to SR the light still travels >> at c w.r.t you. >> � � � � If c hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength >> must have changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what >> the maths says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)- >> the wavelength has changed because the light is now separating from the >> source at c+v generating longer wavelengths than previous. >> � � � � The problem with this is that your change of speed has >> apparently caused a change in what is happening at the source 1 light >> year away with no possible causal mechanism. >> What is even more absurd is >> that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to avoid a 1 year delay in >> the frequency changing. > >It implies absolutely no such thing. But having read to the bottom of the page I see nowhere where you suggest an alternative. > There is a false dichotomy here >that says that if there is a change in length (either wavelength >change in Doppler effect, or length contraction, take your pick) then >one and only one of only two possibilities must be in effect: Either >a) there is something physical that is happening to the object that is >altering the object >b) it is an observational illusion. > >This is a frequent stumbling block for many novices Interpretation "Novice - someone who has not embraced the metaphysics." > and also one of >the greatest learning opportunities, for the truth is that it is >*neither* of these. Interpretation "Neither of these avoid absurdity so we'll claim it is something else and claim that you are too stupid to grasp it, without of course committing ourselves to anything specific which could be the subject of criticism". > Physical length can vary from frame to frame can it? SR 'assumes' it must in order to get the right answer. What causes it? Ah! that's an old fashioned 'physical' question and physics doesn't *do* those these days does it. Asking it labels me as totally failing to understand modern physics. >and >be a very real effect, while NEITHER requiring that something physical >happened to the object NOR relegating it to an optical illusion. We are into metaphysics then. Translation "Having used up the only two options with neither working we must still believe it happens because otherwise SR doesn't work. The doctrine is that nature is weirder than we can imagine and somehow manages it" Basically your statement says nothing whatsoever. It is hand wavy stuff which does nothing to counter my argument that SR is absurd. You don't produce an explanation all you do is hint at the fact that there might be one. >Understanding what the *definition* of physical length is, is key to >this essential point. I'm embarking on this with M Luttgens, who has >stumbled over this for years, in another topic. Basically physics is based on the assumption that SR is correct so that if length has to be redefined - you redefine length. Photons clearly have mass. Physics says they can't have because if they did SR would be wrong so mass has been redefined: "Today the mass of an object is defined as the norm of its 4-momentum." - Tom Roberts. -- John Kennaugh "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
From: Danny Milano on 12 Jul 2008 07:54 On Jul 12, 7:30 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 12:54 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 8:58 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time, > > > > length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional > > > > newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is > > > > really the case? > > > > No, what I said is that some *cranks* think that way, that Newtonian > > > physics is fine if we would only find the right forces to include in > > > Newton's equations of motion. This is based on a rather naive > > > presumption that Newton's laws can fit *any* phenomenon, if the right > > > parameters are put in. This turns out to be decidedly NOT the case, > > > which a little bit of concentrated investigation will prove out. There > > > are a number of things that are seen in nature which are *impossible* > > > to generate in Newtonian mechanics, even if tricked-out. > > > > PD > > > It seems that anti-relativists would go to any length to > > debunk time dilation, length contraction at the cost of > > even weirder mechanisms. In your years of experience > > with them. Do yo think anti-relativists are purely newtonian? > > Or do anti-relativists still believe in quantum mechanics "now you > > see it, now you don't" foundations? Because if anti-relativists > > are quantum followers. They could propose creatures > > that can control quantum probability (call it fairies) > > that can create the same predictions and observations as > > time dilation, length contraction in physical stuff. This > > is the only way I think they can explain the same relativistic > > experiments. But if anti-relativists don't believe in fairies > > and they don't think time and length can distort and just > > believe in absolute space and absolute time, there seems > > no way to pull off those SR, GR experimental stunts, isn't it... > > unless anti-relativists are aetherists. Are they? In essence, > > how many percentage approximately of anti-relativists > > believe in quantum mechanics and how many percentage > > approx. believe in the aether and how many percentage > > believe in neither of them. I'd like to have rough idea of > > how their brains work. > > First YOUR brain should start working. If order to be able to > understand what "anti-relativist" could mean, you should just remember > that Einstein's relativity is initially based on two postulates which, > if true, make Einsteiniana a great science even if later developments > are all wrong (because miracles like time dilation and length > contraction can be deduced from the two postulates only). This implies > that any serious "anti-relativist" should question, among other > things, at least one of the two postulates. In accordance with this > tentative definition of "anti-relativist", all Einsteinians that are > making money by fiercely introducing some sort of "Lorentz > violations" (most hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult are moving in > that direction) are in fact anti-relativists: > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf > Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz > invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that > Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of > observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the > speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles > must be violated." > > Pentcho Valev > pva...(a)yahoo.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well. Even if Lorentz violations were detected. It means it is just a special case of it. I mean, the fact still remains that time is capable of dilating and length is capable of contracting. Then special relativity would become a subset of a new theory with even more "miracles" that may finally encompass quantum gravity or quantum spacetime. What you are saying seem to be that when Lorentz violations were finally detected. All experiments that showed time dilation, length contraction would be shown to be illusions?? Hmm... Danny
From: Danny Milano on 12 Jul 2008 08:36
On Jul 11, 10:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Danny Milano wrote: > > On Jul 11, 8:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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 ... > > >> read more »- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > The geometric aspect of spacetime gives an intuitive explanation > > of time dilation, length contruction in a minkowski sense. This > > means that should newtonian interpretation were one day > > proven to be true. It's like nature works like epicycles where > > newtonian mechanics would have a unique personalized > > plan for reality yet it can be described easily by minkowski > > math. It's as if someone is playing trick on us by altering > > newtonian mechanics to make the 4D math tallies with reality. > > > This may seem odd. But when we design robots, we make > > it conform to human reality. This means that it is possible > > that newtonian mechanics were modified to conform to > > SR math. Meaning it may appear that time dilation, length > > contraction is real yet it is a purely a newtonian trick. > > > But what you seem to be saying above is that experimental > > setup can now be done to distinguish between pure time > > dilation, length contraction where time and length can > > indeed distort in different inertial frames versus it being > > just an equipment output in an ad hoc newtonian mechanics? > > > But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time, > > length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional > > newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is > > really the case? > > > Danny > > Hint: Most relativists will only use relativity when it > supports relativity, if relativity is showing relativity as wrong, > it is simply ignored and that is how relativity works > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > . > :)- Hide quoted text - > James, When you can fly at say 95% the speed of light. Does your time dilate or your length contract? It never does in your own first person view or reference frame. Relativity didn't say it does. It only says that other observers in other inertial frames would see your time dilate and your length contract but it doesn't really occur in your first person view. I want to know if you are aware of this important fact? It would indeed to be weird if our time can dilate or length can contract unless one is in a strong gravity field which is another matter. At least in Special Relativity this doesn't occur to you in the first person. Danny |