EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Greg Neill on 12 Jul 2008 08:42 "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:GBVH6PLxL8dIFwSS(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk > Greg Neill wrote: >> "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:JJjEYKGpV3dIFwip(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk >>> 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, >> >> The aether is dead. Maxwell's equations haven't relied on an >> aether for over a hundred years, yet the waves persist. Or >> are you saying that diffraction, refraction, and interference >> (such as in the slit experiments) don't really happen? > > I'm not saying they don't happen only that light does not physically > consist of waves. If it does what are they waves IN. Something can have a wavelike nature and not be a wave in a medium. [snip whining about the quantum nature of reality -- just deal with it] > >> >>> SR is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory >>> is impeccable, and therefore that the MMX showed that every observer >>> has nil speed w.r.t the aether. >> >> SR does not employ an aether. Maxwell and SR stand without aether. > > I am talking about the provenance of relativity - the history - where > it came from - the mental processes which underpin it. 20 years or so > after SR was adopted physicists decided that the only thing which > matters is the maths and the maths does not have to concern itself > with anything physical. Nonsense. Physical tests of theoretical predictions have been ongoing. If the revelations of the quantum nature of things at the root of reality have caused theoreticians to despair of finding a "common sense" gear and lever model for the universe, it is not for lack of trying. While the historical basis of, and the developmental growing pains of a theory make an interesting tale, it is more important to consider current theory in its current formulation, from its postulates and assumptions, to the nature of the model it describes. > Your statement is the equivalent of saying > that a weather map does not need to concern itself with physical > processes. All that is required is something to display it on and > whether it tells you whether or not you will get wet. I'm sorry, I utterly fail to see how you got this out of my saying that SR and Electromagnetic theory does not employ an aether. Perhaps it was just a bon mot that you couldn't wait to dish up? >>> 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. >> >> Silly. Yes, silly. Empirically the speed of light is always >> measured to have the same value for inertially moving frames. >> That's as solid a foundation for a postulate as you can hope >> for. > > There is no experiment prior to 1964 which anyone who has studied the > subject would seriously claim shows that the speed of light is always > measured as c from a moving source. There certainly was none when > Einstein formulated his SR theory. The second postulate was not the > result of experiment nor of Einstein's genius, nor divine inspiration > it was simply a statement reflecting the general view at the time > among those brought up on physics dominated by Maxwell. The clue is > in his 1905 paper where he goes to some length to justify his first > postulate (because he saw that as potentially controversial) but adds > the second without comment as he was expressing the accepted view. Regardless of the timing for definitive experimental confirmation, how does this in any way change the fact that it is a correct postulate? There is a reason that they're called theories and not laws when they're introduced. > > Don't take my word for it. In the second volume of Sir Edmund > Whittaker's "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity", > published in 1953: > "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity > theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which > attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the > constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light > in a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving > relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely > accepted." Again, so what? You act as though being right were a crime. > > If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's theory is impeccable and > if you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that an > observers speed relative to the aether is always zero i.e. that an > observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether. The second > postulate is simply describing what an observer stationary w.r.t. the > aether would experience. Nonsense. That would imply that there are other inertially moving observers *not* stationary with respect to an aether, and the first postulate would then not hold. MMX and related experiments did away with the aether entirely; no substance could have the material properties demanded, and no detection was made. > >> The wave nature of light is also an empirical fact. > > The wavelike behaviour of light is certainly well documented but a > wave cannot explain the photoelectric effect So? You're complaining about the quantum nature of world again. Light entertains two aspects, namely that of particle and that of wave. This is empirically indisputable. The photoelectric effect is quite reasonably explained by the particle-like aspect of the photon. > and as I show in the > case of the double slit it does not really explain that either. Sure you do. Don't you find it odd that first year college students can perform the experiment and analyze it and the results using simple wave theory? >> That >> said waves require no aether, and neither does the modern >> formulation of Maxwell, vanishes your argument. >> >>> >>> 2/ SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that >>> physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory. >> >> Another "I don't like it so it's wrong" argument. > > >> >> [rest of maunder mercy snipped] > > Note to Danny Milano - You may note how tetchy relativists get when > you attack their religion and how little their faith is built upon. Ah, here we go. The agenda revealed. Another "Relativity is Religion" fruitcake. Too bad for the denialists that there is copious empirical support for the theory, and not a single counter example.
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Jul 2008 09:52 On Jul 12, 2:36 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Obviously your brain is not working yet and you are just saying anything in all directions. Initially an Einsteinian sitting on the 80m long flying pole may not be aware of the pole's contraction but then, if his brothers Einsteinians forget to reopen the doors of the 40m long barn "pretty quickly", the Einsteinian suddenly realizes that things are shorter and there is some horrible compression and even singing "Divine Einstein" is somehow useless: http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Androcles on 12 Jul 2008 07:34 "Danny Milano" <milanodanny(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e99577a3-3439-4bd8-8f40-0abfa68ea377(a)26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... 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. Danny Why not ask them instead of the idiot PD? Oh wait... that would too easy, right? Go on, ask a thief how a copper's mind works. Idiot.
From: Danny Milano on 12 Jul 2008 10:41 On Jul 12, 9:52 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 2:36 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > Obviously your brain is not working yet and you are just saying > anything in all directions. Initially an Einsteinian sitting on the > 80m long flying pole may not be aware of the pole's contraction but > then, if his brothers Einsteinians forget to reopen the doors of the > 40m long barn "pretty quickly", the Einsteinian suddenly realizes that > things are shorter and there is some horrible compression and even > singing "Divine Einstein" is somehow useless: It would help to think of every moment in reality as video being fed to the particle or even brain, the video is not the same. This difference in video contents could be why there is no simultaneous moment when events are separated in time or the relativity of simultaneity. However, nature has a private hotline in terms of quantum entangelment of separated parts. Such conflicts. Quantum spacetime is a great mystery and a great challenge. If you are bored with physics, delve into quantum gravity instead of beating Einstein on a daily basis. It won't make you overtake Einstein or acquire his greatness because his name is also immortalized in human history. Danny > > http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html > "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors > at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a > switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in > the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an > instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you > close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open > them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the > contracted pole shut up in your barn." > > Pentcho Valev > pva...(a)yahoo.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Danny Milano on 12 Jul 2008 10:49
On Jul 12, 7:34 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Danny Milano" <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:e99577a3-3439-4bd8-8f40-0abfa68ea377(a)26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > Danny > > Why not ask them instead of the idiot PD? > Oh wait... that would too easy, right? > Go on, ask a thief how a copper's mind works. > Idiot.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - From this newsgroup. It appears that anti-relativists seem to be zombies. They keep repeating the same arguments for many years with no flexibilities in thought. for example.. Ken Seto who has repeated the same thought for more than a decade (from newsgroup archive) and can't seem to understand experimental data or superior arguments... that is a trademark of a zombie. You may be a more clever zombie. Good. Tackle quantum spacetime or gravity as it is more challenge. Anti-relativity zombies could be useful as from time to time it is refleshing to reflect on the foundations of SR and GR to get to other approaches to merge it with quantum mechanics as in quantum gravity. Danny |