EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 11 Aug 2008 15:55 On Aug 9, 8:04 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 > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear David: Good luck out-running light! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 11 Aug 2008 16:00 On Aug 9, 11:26 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > 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 Dear Jenny: If the arguments and explanations are based on Einstein, all of them are wrong. I've proved it! NoEinstein Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
From: NoEinstein on 11 Aug 2008 16:04 On Aug 10, 12:37 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Jenny: My X, Y, Z interferometer can detect the speed and the velocity of the Earth without making any OUTSIDE observations. But one must make inside observations to count the fringe shifts. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 11 Aug 2008 16:05 On Aug 10, 12:37 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Jenny: My X, Y, Z interferometer can detect the speed and the velocity of the Earth without making any OUTSIDE observations. But one must make inside observations to count the fringe shifts. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 11 Aug 2008 16:08
On Aug 10, 7:13 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > 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". > > Hi Jenny, > You are talking to the "relativists" that actualy do not really understand > relativity, they merely worship it and have learned all the "catch" phrases > such as acceleration is absolute and time is not etc. > They have been brainwashed to accept these phrases and can't realize > the problems no matter how many times you ask them to say "no reference" > they will just twist around the original statement until you get sick of it > and > they say something else wrong that you will try and get them to realize. > You will be in a never ending loop of them ignoring any questions > you ask specifically like such. > So just remember to have fun, and don't forget to call them Einstein > dingleberries once in a while. > :) > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Spaceman: Amen! NoEinstein |