EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Spaceman on 11 Aug 2008 13:09 Yuancur(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 11, 1:58 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> On Aug 10, 11:00 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>> I'm just a dumb girl. I'm often wrong, but I have to be shown that >>> I'm wrong. >> >> >> Stop lying about your gender. I've sensed for a long time that >> you're not what you claim to be, and you've just proved it. >> > > LOL! > > My husband thinks I'm female, he got a laugh out of that one. > > Did you notice that when people have been shown to be wrong they try > to change the subject and, if not succesful at that, they go away. > > Now, back to the topic, if you have an example of how to measure > something without referencing it to something else, let me know. > > Eric, Dave and Sam have all gone away rather than give an example of > what they claim. > > Don't you think they would have given an example if they could?. > > And why would they make claims that they can't back up? > > Is that the New Scientific Method? Hi Jenny, It is not new, it has been the sad case for over 100 yrs now. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Aug 2008 13:23 Yuancur(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 11, 12:28 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >>> 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. > >> 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.... >> >> August is your month to post. > > That's a neat change of subject. > > As for my communication skills, which part of what I wrote didn't you > understand? > > What you first responded to was my asking: > "I'm standing on the Earth, how do you measure my acceleration? > Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to anything else". > > A very simple pair of sentences. > > Your response that you could determine that the Earth was rotating by > using a pendulum as a reference obviously did'nt fit the bill. > > Is there any specific section of the FAQ that gives > an example of measuring something without reference to something > else? > > As for my "finding fault" with the FAQ, I'm sure that it's fine. > > Your question is phrased in such a way as to suggest that you think > that I might "disagree" with FAQ. This being a thread about Experimental "arguments" relating to special relativity, I'm wondering why you are asking the questions you are. Framing the same improves communication. -Sam > > I don't know why you might think that, since my only reference to any > FAQ has been to quote from one in support of my position. > > Is there anything I wrote that suggests that I find fault with SR? > > Love, > > Jenny > > > > > > > > > >
From: NoEinstein on 11 Aug 2008 15:40 On Aug 9, 6:53 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > Dear Jenny: When I discovered that M-M lacked a CONTROL, Lorentz's "rubber rulers" got thrown out the window. The so-called Lorentz transformation is so much a part of SR and GR, but both of those have been disproved by yours truly. Also, I have learned via reasoning and experiment that the energy progression in accelerating toward 'c' is LINEAR rather than exponential. That invalidates Coriolis's KE = 1/2mv^2which Einstein used as the basis for his E = mc^2. I've also invalidated Newton's g = 32.174 feet per second SQUARED. The SQUARED is an inappropriate modification of the UNITS of the various results. And that SQUARED has wrongly implied that acceleration is a exponential increase in velocity, not a linear increase. My correct way of writing the acceleration due to gravity is: g = 32.174 feet per second EACH second. That correctly implies an additive, linear increase in velocity. Talking about SR and GR is a habit of long standing for many, but I have shot both of those all to hell! NoEinstein > > 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? > > Or do you think that the velocity of light not being c in accelerating > frames > is an experimental in favour of SR? > > > > 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. > > > > Don't you think that SR, like Newtonian > > > Mechanics, can be applied to accelerating > > > frames? > > > Only special ones. > > Maybe look at the FAQ > > > > When I wrote "But surely the times of travel > > > do vary, because of the Earth's rotation", > > > Uncle Al disagreed and replied "Know > > > something empirical before you offer opinion". > > > > Do you agree with me that "times of travel do > > > vary, because of the Earth's rotation", or do > > > you agree with with Uncle Al? > > > The "times of travel" are measured in the same frame. One > > process changes, they would all change the same, locally. No > > variation should be detectable, *locally*. > > 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. > > > > Do you agree that the surface of the Earth is > > > an accelerating frame? > > > Yes. Weak, but yes. > > > > If no, how do you explain Sagnac? > > > Not local. Not SR. Not experirmental argument against SR. > > Who said it was "an experirmental argument against SR". > > > > If yes, why are you disagreeing with me and > > > not Uncle AL? > > > You don't know where you are standing when you make your claims. > > You answered (grudgingly) "weak, but yes" > > Either you agree with what I say or you don't. > > It seems that you agree with me (albeit weakly),. > > Where I'm standing (or whether or not I know where I'm standing) > is not relevant to the issue. > > Love, > > Jenny- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 11 Aug 2008 15:44 On Aug 9, 7:09 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > 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 Dear Jenny: Detecting "nothing" isn't the same as measuring velocity. M-M detected nothing, but the Earth's velocity is easily detected with my correctly designed X, Y, Z interferometer. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 11 Aug 2008 15:52
On Aug 9, 7:47 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote in messagenews:pPpnk.16762$1N1.11443(a)newsfe07.iad... > | 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. > | > | 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. Androcles: The so-called "relativistic" slowing of time (clocks) that has been verified experimentally is actually caused by the clocks banging into the ether which passes through the skin of the plane or space shuttle. That flowing ether puts a small. gravity-like side pressure on the atoms or gears and makes the clock go slower. Variations in space-time, ah la Einstein, have nothing to do with it. Where have you been for so long, fellow? I haven't been seeing any of your replies. NoEinstein |