EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Greg Neill on 10 Jul 2008 12:06 "Spaceman" <spaceman(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message news:98adnS9MN8_JrevVnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)comcast.com > 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. Strange how all those particles don't slow down the planets in their orbits like so much treacle, yet they can hold a planet in that same orbit. Strange how the pressure of all those particles holding the Earth in orbit remains when the Moon is eclipsed. Strange how light isn't refracted by all those particles. Strange how James thinks he can just chant "magic particles" without considering the implications first. Strange how James keeps harping on his "math as cause" routine, when no one has ever claimed this. He'd like to think that it is so, so it must be so.
From: Spaceman on 10 Jul 2008 12:10 Greg Neill wrote: > Strange how all those particles don't slow down the > planets in their orbits like so much treacle, yet > they can hold a planet in that same orbit. Strange how the pressure is expanding the universe as more of those strange particles are being created. :) > Strange how the pressure of all those particles > holding the Earth in orbit remains when the Moon > is eclipsed. Not strange at all, You think particles can not surround things huh? Poor Greg. totally off on that one. LOL > Strange how light isn't refracted by all those particles. Strange how light curves because of those particles. Strange how Greg loves to be strange and yet not know it. He would rather have "abstract numbers alone" do all that strange stuff. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman :)
From: Pentcho Valev on 10 Jul 2008 12:14 On Jul 10, 5:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 10:35 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? This is irrelevant. Consider Master Tom Roberts' teaching: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2d2a006c7d508022 Pentcho Valev: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)." That is, if in a gravitational field an observer at rest (relative to the light source) measures the speed of light to be: c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer will measure: c' = c + v where v=gh/c is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception). Is that OK? Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Greg Neill on 10 Jul 2008 12:31 "Spaceman" <spaceman(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message news:pYidnTXz2v_CqevVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d(a)comcast.com > Greg Neill wrote: >> Strange how all those particles don't slow down the >> planets in their orbits like so much treacle, yet >> they can hold a planet in that same orbit. > > Strange how the pressure is expanding the universe > as more of those strange particles are being created. Citation? I think James just made that up (Lying again). Note how he doesn't address the glaring energy conservation issues. >> Strange how the pressure of all those particles >> holding the Earth in orbit remains when the Moon >> is eclipsed. > > Not strange at all, > You think particles can not surround things huh? James does not understand force vectors or conservation laws. > Poor Greg. > totally off on that one. > LOL > > >> Strange how light isn't refracted by all those particles. > > Strange how light curves because of those particles. Strange how James can blithely state something without comprehending the implications. Like the required mass density of particles necessary to perform the momentum transfers that would be required to move the planets the way they do, and the implications that would have for the extent of light refraction, frictional losses, dynamical friction, and so on. Could it be that James just doesn't know what the heck he's talking about? > > Strange how Greg loves to be strange and yet not know it. > He would rather have "abstract numbers alone" do all that strange > stuff. And once again James runs back to his cherished "math as cause" stance. He still can't figure out the difference between a model of a thing and the thing itself.
From: Spaceman on 10 Jul 2008 12:36
Greg Neill wrote: > "Spaceman" <spaceman(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message > news:pYidnTXz2v_CqevVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d(a)comcast.com >> Greg Neill wrote: >>> Strange how all those particles don't slow down the >>> planets in their orbits like so much treacle, yet >>> they can hold a planet in that same orbit. >> >> Strange how the pressure is expanding the universe >> as more of those strange particles are being created. > > Citation? I think James just made that up (Lying again). > Note how he doesn't address the glaring energy conservation > issues. Greg can't understand that a billion flywheels will spin longer than 1 will, once they are all up to speed. And he says I can not "get" the conseration of energy. LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman |