EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 10 Jul 2008 10:45 On Jul 10, 9:25 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I wonder if you have discussed with Baird before in the past. I > just found his book at amazon and got it since there is not > much anti-SRists who publish books. I guess if he is cut off. > The rest of the anti-relativists here fall like domino since his > treatise encompassed all the anti-relativists here. I wish that were true, but it turns out there's a million ways to be wrong, and Baird is just wrong a couple hundred of those ways. It isn't all that unusual for antirelativists to publish their own books. Self-publishing is easy (though not all that cheap) with the help of print-on-demand micropublishers like Chocolate Tree Books, which is the one that produced Eric's book. (So far, CTB has produced exactly two books.) There are actually some quite lavishly produced books by all manner of cranks, including one I saw recently that must have cost a million dollars to make that was an anti-evolution diatribe funded by a religious order. Other examples of antirelativistic books: Ken Seto's Model Mechanics -- he can no longer afford the web page where he used to sell his book. David Thompson's Secrets of the Aether -- http://www.16pi2.com/ Einsteinhoax -- http://users.isp.com/retic/physics/index.htm PD PD
From: Eric Gisse on 10 Jul 2008 10:57 On Jul 10, 6:25 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [snip] Its' unfortunate you bought his book. I'd ask for a refund.
From: Greg Neill on 10 Jul 2008 11:18 "Spaceman" <spaceman(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message news:1p6dnbbJbez5huvVnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d(a)comcast.com > PD wrote: >> Spaceman has no idea what these "true physical causes" are, but he >> has faith that if we find them and plug them into Newtonian >> mechanics, everything will work fine. See my comments about the >> structure of Newtonian mechanics and your response as well. Spaceman >> is much more willing to believe in little pink fairies if they make >> Newtonian physics work, than to believe in relativity. Just because >> he can. And no one can make him believe otherwise. (And so, in his >> mind, he "wins".) > > PD, > You have math as a cause only, if you actually thought for yourself > instead of as a read only memory text file , you would see such. James still doesn't know the difference between a mathematical model and what it models. James doesn't (won't?) understand that the observations come before the math. James doesn't like the idea of a world that might behave differently from his kindergarten understanding of it and fervent wishes of how things should be, so he denies all empirical evidence to the contrary.
From: PD on 10 Jul 2008 11:31 On Jul 10, 10:18 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message > > news:1p6dnbbJbez5huvVnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d(a)comcast.com > > > PD wrote: > >> Spaceman has no idea what these "true physical causes" are, but he > >> has faith that if we find them and plug them into Newtonian > >> mechanics, everything will work fine. See my comments about the > >> structure of Newtonian mechanics and your response as well. Spaceman > >> is much more willing to believe in little pink fairies if they make > >> Newtonian physics work, than to believe in relativity. Just because > >> he can. And no one can make him believe otherwise. (And so, in his > >> mind, he "wins".) > > > PD, > > You have math as a cause only, if you actually thought for yourself > > instead of as a read only memory text file , you would see such. > > James still doesn't know the difference between a > mathematical model and what it models. James doesn't > (won't?) understand that the observations come before > the math. James doesn't like the idea of a world that > might behave differently from his kindergarten > understanding of it and fervent wishes of how things > should be, so he denies all empirical evidence to the > contrary. What he says is that a physical model must satisfy certain criteria, otherwise they just cannot be right. He has a favorite physical model that he probably knows is inconsistent with observation, but it meets the criteria he has in his head, and so this means it must be right. And if the observations don't agree with the model, then the problem is just that we're missing some piece of the model, some Newtonian force or something, that will make it all work out. He doesn't believe in chucking a model if it conflicts with experimental evidence, especially a model he likes. He'd rather doubt the evidence. As far as he's concerned, any model other than his doesn't meet those certain criteria, and so they're automatically removed from consideration, even if they agree with the data. PD
From: Pentcho Valev on 10 Jul 2008 11:35
On Jul 10, 4:25 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 9:06 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? > > No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle > of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly, > SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson- > Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO > postulates mentioned. It is still OK. First try to realize that the deduction of time dilation, length contraction and all idiotic "paradoxes" is in fact REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, then reject accodingly Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and you obtain what I say above. > If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the > theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead. 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)? Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com |