EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: bsr3997 on 10 Aug 2008 22:57 On Aug 10, 7:00 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 10, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > With respect to what? > > > The observers reference frame... if you deny that, then you deny > > any and all observation. Have you learned anything in the thread > > "Jenny"? > > Now let's sum up the conversation; > ____________________________ > Jenny's question: > Isn't comparison, the very substance of the experiment? > How do you measure something without reference to something > else? > > Eric's response: > Acceleration is absolute - no reference required. > > Jenny's response (attempting to draw out the realization that > comparison is the very substance of experiment): > I'm standing on the Earth, how do you measure my acceleration? > > Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to anything else > > Sam: > I can determine that the earth is rotating... > pendulum _ > ________________________________ > > Notice that all your examples have involved *referencing* things to > other things. > > In this case, my motion to the pendulum's motion. > > In order to show that comparison is not the very substance of > experiment, you have to come up with something other than comparing > "me" to "not me". > > Love, > > Jenny > > . Given a stick you can measure it with a tape measure. You just reference one end of the stick to the other by means of the tape. It is all self contained. You do not have to refer to any coordinate system. You can measure the stick with the tape directly and get the same answer regardless of the state of motion of the stick. Where the tape is at rest with respect to the stick the measurement will always come out the same. This may not be what you mean by "no reference point" but I am quite sure it is what others here meant. Bruce
From: Yuancur on 11 Aug 2008 00:00 On Aug 10, 9:57 pm, "bsr3...(a)my-deja.com" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > Given a stick you can measure it with a tape measure. > This may not be what you mean by "no reference point" but I am quite > sure it is what others here meant. > In response to someone's statement that "All measurements require a point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL". Eric had responded "No, they don't". It seems to me that he's wrong - but nobody seems to agree with me. The "others" certainly didn't jump in to correct him. The question I asked Eric was: Eric, how do you measure something without reference to something else? That's a pretty straight forward question. My contention is that you can't. In your example, you measure a stick by reference to a tape measure, which tends to support my contention. What the "others" mean is not clear to me. So far three respondents have failed to give a singlecounter example and yet continue to maintain that I'm wrong. As far as I can tell they are A 4th (5th?)year physics student. A retired Researcher at Iowa State. A maintainer of the newsgroup FAQ. I'm just a dumb girl. I'm often wrong, but I have to be shown that I'm wrong. Love, Jenny
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Aug 2008 00:09 Yuancur(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 10, 9:57 pm, "bsr3...(a)my-deja.com" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> Given a stick you can measure it with a tape measure. > >> This may not be what you mean by "no reference point" but I am quite >> sure it is what others here meant. >> > > In response to someone's statement that "All measurements require > a point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL". > > Eric had responded "No, they don't". > > It seems to me that he's wrong - but nobody seems to agree with me. > The "others" certainly didn't jump in to correct him. Your use of "point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL" are a bit differently than most people. Scientist typically think in terms of reference standard... many measurements do not require them for a useful degree of accuracy. What's your point in this thread anyway?
From: Yuancur on 11 Aug 2008 00:58 On Aug 10, 11:09 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > On Aug 10, 9:57 pm, "bsr3...(a)my-deja.com" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> Given a stick you can measure it with a tape measure. > > >> This may not be what you mean by "no reference point" but I am quite > >> sure it is what others here meant. > > > In response to someone's statement that "All measurements require > > a point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL". > > > Eric had responded "No, they don't". > > > It seems to me that he's wrong - but nobody seems to agree with me. > > The "others" certainly didn't jump in to correct him. > > Your use of "point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL" > are a bit differently than most people. Scientist typically think in > terms of reference standard... many measurements do not require them > for a useful degree of accuracy. > > What's your point in this thread anyway? "point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL" were not my choice of words. Did you notice the quotation marks and the words "someone's statement"? I didn't use those words, but I think that I did "understand" them. The poster meant that all experiments require some sort of reference. In medicine, for example, some take a test pill, others a placebo. The results are compared. Examples abound. Counter examples? - who knows, nobody has presented one. My original point was that you can't measure something without reference to something else. I explained that in my last post, but you've snipped it out of your response. If you had read that post properly, you wouldn't have had to ask your question. There are several other things that can be noted in this subthread. Firstly, Eric disagreed as a knee jerk reaction because of who *wrote*, not because of what was *written*. I wanted to make Eric aware that what he was saying was bad science. Secondly, nobody corrected Eric. Eric was arguing with a "crackpot". So I suppose he must be right - no matter what he writes. Thirdly, I disagreed with Eric, so I was agreeing with a "crackpot". So I suppose I must be wrong - no matter what I write. Fourthly, people will argue for days, without actually trying to *understand* or even *read* what the other party is writing. Fifthly, this forum is more political than scientific. All the argument was against my simple Physics 101 statement, " you can't measure something without reference to something else". I've been arguing that point for 5 days and not one person has agreed with me. People don't actually argue against what you say. They argue against what you would have said if you were wrong. I'm not even going to get into into a discussion of what happens around here when someone actually wants to discuss something creative. Love, Jenny
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Aug 2008 01:28
Yuancur(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 10, 11:09 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: >>> On Aug 10, 9:57 pm, "bsr3...(a)my-deja.com" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >>>> Given a stick you can measure it with a tape measure. >>>> This may not be what you mean by "no reference point" but I am quite >>>> sure it is what others here meant. >>> In response to someone's statement that "All measurements require >>> a point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL". >>> Eric had responded "No, they don't". >>> It seems to me that he's wrong - but nobody seems to agree with me. >>> The "others" certainly didn't jump in to correct him. >> Your use of "point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL" >> are a bit differently than most people. Scientist typically think in >> terms of reference standard... many measurements do not require them >> for a useful degree of accuracy. >> >> What's your point in this thread anyway? > > "point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL" were not my > choice of words. Did you notice the quotation marks and the words > "someone's statement"? > > I didn't use those words, but I think that I did "understand" them. > > The poster meant that all experiments require some sort of reference. > In medicine, for example, some take a test pill, others a placebo. The > results are compared. Examples abound. Counter examples? - who knows, > nobody has presented one. > > My original point was that you can't measure something without > reference to something > else. I explained that in my last post, but you've snipped it out of > your response. > > If you had read that post properly, you wouldn't have had to ask your > question. > > There are several other things that can be noted in this subthread. > > > Firstly, Eric disagreed as a knee jerk reaction because of who > *wrote*, not because of what was *written*. > > I wanted to make Eric aware that what he was saying was bad science. > > Secondly, nobody corrected Eric. Eric was arguing with a "crackpot". > So I suppose he must be right - no matter what he writes. > > > Thirdly, I disagreed with Eric, so I was agreeing with a "crackpot". > So I suppose I must be wrong - no matter what I write. > > Fourthly, people will argue for days, without actually trying to > *understand* or even *read* what the other party is writing. > > Fifthly, this forum is more political than scientific. > > All the argument was against my simple Physics 101 statement, > " you can't measure something without reference to something > else". > > I've been arguing that point for 5 days and not one person has agreed > with me. > > People don't actually argue against what you say. They argue against > what you would have said if you were wrong. > > I'm not even going to get into into a discussion of what happens > around here when someone actually wants to discuss something creative. > > > Love, > > Jenny > I would suggest, Jenny, or whom ever you are, that you might want to work on your communications skills. Do you find fault in the Physics FAQ reference detailing the experimental basis of Special Relativity? http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html August is your month to post. |