EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Yuancur on 9 Aug 2008 21:05 On Aug 9, 6:33 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 > > 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. Let's figure it out. I gave my definition of measure: 1. Quantity as ascertained by comparison with a standard. 2. A reference standard or sample used for the quantitative comparison of properties: I wrote: ________________ A count is only becomes a measurement when it is related to a reference standard i.e " to a point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL " _________________ A mole consists of a specific number of molecules. It's a reference standard, with a whole history (150 years) and methodology associated therewith. So counting in moles is, by definition, related to a reference standard. So, according to me, a mole (or fractions thereof) *is* a measure. Are you beginning to understand? Love, Jenny
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) on 9 Aug 2008 23:07 Dear Yuancur(a)gmail.com: <Yuancur(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f324b0e0-7fc3-4786-b5ce-a780f5355670(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... 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 .... >> > 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. SR specifically assumes constant c. Second postulate enumates this. The first postulate subsumes Maxwell as "laws of physics". > 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. Forgiven. >> >> > Don't you think that such a result can be >> >> > calculated entirely within SR? > >> >> No, in general it cannot. .... >> So you choose to ignore "in general" relating >> to acceleration, > > I did not. .... >> and you choose to ignore "non local" relating to c. > > I did not, I can't keep up with your obfuscations on this topic. Good luck to you. David A. Smith
From: Yuancur on 9 Aug 2008 23:26 On Aug 9, 10:07 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > <Yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > . > >> No. Maxwell at best. > > The classical test of a scientific theory is that > > it makes verifiable predictions. > > SR specifically assumes constant c. Second postulate enumates > this. The first postulate subsumes Maxwell as "laws of physics". > SR assumes constant c in *inertial* frames. > I can't keep up with your obfuscations on this topic. It's quite simple. The classical test of a scientific theory is that it makes verifiable predictions. SR has light with value c in all *inertial* frames. SR predicts that light has different velocities in *accelerating* frames. Those differing velocities have been observed. Those observations are experimental arguments in favour of relativity. The surface of the Earth is an accelerating frame. We can always find a small enough ("local") region such that accelerating frames are not measurably distinguishable from inertial frames. This is not obfuscation. Believe me, if I wanted to confuse you, I could. I could see that you were having trouble understanding what I wrote, which is why I referred you to the FAQ, which contains all this information. Love, Jenny
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Aug 2008 08:29 Yuancur(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 9, 2:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >>> I'm standing on the Earth, how do you measure my acceleration? >>> Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to anything else. >> CLOSED LAB >> >> You said standing on earth, so I know that the earth moon >> system is in free fall around the Sun... but I can't see >> the sum moon or stars. >> >> I can determine that the earth is rotating... >> pendulum >> gyroscope >> > > The pendulum does what, and how do you know? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum > > > >> I can determine tidal flexing caused by at least two >> bodies... > > How do you determine the tidal flexing? Scientific GPS Monitoring--assuming you can use GNSS signals. If not, differential accelerometer. > > Love, > > Jenny
From: Yuancur on 10 Aug 2008 12:37
On Aug 10, 7:29 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > >>> I'm standing on the Earth, how do you measure my acceleration? > >>> Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to anything else. > >> You said standing on earth, so I know that the earth moon > >> system is in free fall around the Sun... but I can't see > >> the sum moon or stars. > > >> I can determine that the earth is rotating... > >> pendulum > >> gyroscope > > > The pendulum does what, and how do you know? > > See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum > I know how Foucaults pendulum works. How do you use it without referencing it to something else? e.g. some marks on the floor.or wall. Remember the conditions? Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to anything else. > >> I can determine tidal flexing caused by at least two > >> bodies... > > > How do you determine the tidal flexing? > > Scientific GPS Monitoring--assuming you can use GNSS signals. You mean by refrrence to various satellites? Remember the conditions? Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to anything else. Love, Jenny |