EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Yuancur on 9 Aug 2008 19:09 On Aug 9, 4:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 6, 1:37 am, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > Eric, how do you measure something without reference to something > > else? > > Dear Jenny: NO! Imagine being in a speedboat which is traveling at > the same speed and direction as another identical boat. If the only > thing those two boats are allowed to "see" is the other boat, both of > them will just assume that there is no velocity, because there are no > detectable 'relative' speed and distance changes. NOTE: My use of the > word "relative" has no necessity of anything... They'll "measure" their velocity with reference to each other. Love, Jenny
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) on 9 Aug 2008 19:33 Dear Yuancur(a)gmail.com: <Yuancur(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:66355050-6c31-4ae5-95ea-45516e2bb407(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... .... >> Now is a count a measurement or not? > > I really wanted to discuss physics, not get > mired in semantics, but look up the meaning > of "measure". So according to you, a mole (or fractions thereof) is not a measure. David A. Smith
From: Androcles on 9 Aug 2008 19:47 "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc1(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:pPpnk.16762$1N1.11443(a)newsfe07.iad... | Dear Yuancur(a)gmail.com: | | <Yuancur(a)gmail.com> wrote in message | news:66355050-6c31-4ae5-95ea-45516e2bb407(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... | ... | >> Now is a count a measurement or not? | > | > I really wanted to discuss physics, not get | > mired in semantics, but look up the meaning | > of "measure". | | So according to you, a mole (or fractions thereof) is not a | measure. | | David A. Smith | Not much wrong with counting, Smiffy. Clocks do it perfectly. They measure oscillations. Oscillations don't change as a function of velocity, whatever the crank Einstein thinks.
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) on 9 Aug 2008 20:04 Dear Yuancur(a)gmail.com: <Yuancur(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b036f849-f510-4458-842c-69b8a112e684(a)d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... On Aug 9, 4:08 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > <Yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > DZLC wrote: > >> Do you know that special relativity applies to > >> inertial frames? Do you see the thread title? > >> Why do you cloud the issue with that which > >> is explicitly excluded? > > > If the velocity of light is c in inertial frames, don't > > you think that we can calculate that the velocity > > of light is not c in accelerating frames? > > Read. > The. > Thread. > Title. > Do you think that the velocity of light not being c > in accelerating frames is an experimental argument > against SR? No. > Or do you think that the velocity of light not being > c in accelerating frames is an experimental in > favour of SR? No. Maxwell at best. >> > Don't you think that such a result can be >> > calculated entirely within SR? > >> No, in general it cannot. > And yet, I read , in the FAQ at > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html>_____________________________> In SR... ...it is still possible to use co-ordinate> systems corresponding to accelerating or rotating> frames of reference just as it is possible to solve> ordinary mechanics problems in curvilinear> co-ordinate systems.... Note that the speed of> light is rarely constant in non-inertial frames> and this has been known to cause confusion.> _______________________________>> As I recall, there's even an horizon issue here.> If I accelerate fast enough, an horizon develops> behind me from beyond which light cannot ever> reach me, unless I slow my acceleration.>>All classical SR as far as I know.So you choose to ignore "in general" relating to acceleration,and you choose to ignore "non local" relating to c.David A. Smith
From: Yuancur on 9 Aug 2008 20:49
On Aug 9, 7:04 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Yuan...(a)gmail.com: > > <Yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > On Aug 9, 4:08 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> > wrote: > > > > > <Yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > DZLC wrote: > > >> Do you know that special relativity applies to > > >> inertial frames? Do you see the thread title? > > >> Why do you cloud the issue with that which > > >> is explicitly excluded? > > > > If the velocity of light is c in inertial frames, don't > > > you think that we can calculate that the velocity > > > of light is not c in accelerating frames? > > > Read. > > The. > > Thread. > > Title. > > Do you think that the velocity of light not being c > > in accelerating frames is an experimental argument > > against SR? > > No. > Then why do you ask why I " cloud the issue with that which is explicitly excluded"? Nothing in the title excludes discussing experimental arguments about special relativity in accelerating frames. > > Or do you think that the velocity of light not being > > c in accelerating frames is an experimental in > > favour of SR? > > No. Maxwell at best. > The classical test of a scientific theory is that it makes verifiable predictions. In this case, SR predicted that the velocity of light is not c in accelerating frame and experiments have been performed that confirm that prediction. From this, you conclude that such a verified prediction is not in favour of SR. Forgive me if I find that strange. > >> > Don't you think that such a result can be > >> > calculated entirely within SR? > > >> No, in general it cannot. > > And yet, I read , in the FAQ at > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html>_____________________________> In SR... ...it is still possible to use co-ordinate> systems corresponding to accelerating or rotating> frames of reference just as it is possible to solve> ordinary mechanics problems in curvilinear> co-ordinate systems.... Note that the speed of> light is rarely constant in non-inertial frames> and this has been known to cause confusion.> _______________________________>> As I recall, there's even an horizon issue here.> If I accelerate fast enough, an horizon develops> behind me from beyond which light cannot ever> reach me, unless I slow my acceleration.>>All classical SR as far as I know. > So you choose to ignore "in general" relating to acceleration, I did not. We were discussing: "If the velocity of light is c in inertial frames, don't you think that we can calculate that the velocity of light is not c in accelerating frames"? You say that in general it cannot be calculated I pointed out that the writer of the FAQ says: "the speed of light is rarely constant in non-inertial frames"? Why do you think he wrote that, if it's not calculable and if those calculations *in general* showed that the speed of light *was* constant?? > and you choose to ignore "non local" relating to c. I did not, I wrote: ______________________ What "locally" means here seems to mean is that the variations are small, because the rotation rate is slow. I believe that they are measurable. _______________________ Love, Jenny |