EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 10 Jul 2008 11:43 On Jul 10, 10:35 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Sorry, no. > First try to realize that the deduction of time > dilation, length contraction and all idiotic "paradoxes" is in fact > REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, There is absolutely nothing illogical or inconsistent or paradoxical about time dilation or length contraction. I haven't got the foggiest idea what you think is illogical or inconsistent or paradoxical. > 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)? 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? PD > > Pentcho Valev > pva...(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 10 Jul 2008 11:51 On Jul 10, 3:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > We've talked about this. The bug is definitely squashed. Your short- > term memory seems to be loose somewhere. Zombie know: no bug no problem. Zombie clever very clever. > > > or the 80m-long-pole-trapped-inside-40m-long-barn > > paradox? > > We've talked about this, too. It's a 36m-long-pole-inside-a-40m-long- > barn and that doesn't sound so paradoxical. Zombie know: 80m in 40m difficult. Master say possible but zombie know difficult. Zombie clever very clever. Zobbie know: 36m in 40m possible. Easy. Good. Zombie clever very clever. > > I think only Einsteiniana can produce such wisdom: > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html > > > 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: Spaceman on 10 Jul 2008 11:52 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. and yet.. you have none. so. Case closed, You have whoppin' 0 physical cause for effects. :) > If you think that it is, then please explain to me what material thing > bonking up against a material thing is responsible for the moon > staying in orbit around the sun. The differences in "pressure" of the particles you refuse to look for and instead chalk it up to "math alone" as the cause. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: Spaceman on 10 Jul 2008 11:54 PD wrote: <snipped I love it when they resort to the insults only and have nothing that "proves my thoughts wrong" At least I always give an example that prove them wrong and then I call them morons. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Jul 2008 12:01
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. > It's interesting that special relativity has been around for more than a hundred years--as much of a "law" of physics an any other law. It has been confirmed literally thousands of experiments and observations, is essential in the designs of advance technology, such as particle accelerators. What's to question about it? Granted, the person in the street doesn't understand it, but many of the less scientifically educated can't tell you the difference between an atom and a molecule either. So authors like Eric Baird, take advantage of the situation and make some money! As far as I can tell Baird does NOT understand relativity at all. Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Einsteins original 1905 papers are accessible... give'm a read. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ |