EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Greg Neill on 10 Jul 2008 12:45 "Spaceman" <spaceman(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message news:l46dneB2ieMTp-vVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d(a)comcast.com > 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. James doesn't have a mass/energy problem with a billion flywheels clusttering up space. I would have thought he'd at least put in a word about how everything flying about out there (from spacecraft to asteroids, to comets, to cosmic rays) manages to get anywhere without being obstructed pulverized by the clockwork. James would like to roll back science 2000 or so years and reintroduce the crystal spheres holding the planets in place. James is an epicycle man for a New Age.
From: Spaceman on 10 Jul 2008 13:11 Greg Neill wrote: > "Spaceman" <spaceman(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message > news:l46dneB2ieMTp-vVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d(a)comcast.com >> 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. > > James doesn't have a mass/energy problem with a > billion flywheels clusttering up space. I would have > thought he'd at least put in a word about how everything > flying about out there (from spacecraft to asteroids, to > comets, to cosmic rays) manages to get anywhere without > being obstructed pulverized by the clockwork. > > James would like to roll back science 2000 or so years > and reintroduce the crystal spheres holding the planets > in place. James is an epicycle man for a New Age. Complete twist and diversion noted since you can't understand the conservation of energy involved in a multi flywheel system. LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: PD on 10 Jul 2008 15:48 On Jul 10, 10:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > 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. That's what YOU say. Note that Newton did not offer that for gravity. Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun that delivers the energy from the sun. > 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. Oh, actually, it has been looked for. It was proposed (and developed much better than you could) by a fella named LeSage. And it was looked for seriously. However, there are certain unavoidable consequences of such a model (they are called testable predictions, and testable predictions are the bread and butter of science) and those did not match up against experimental observations. There appears to be no way to save the LeSage model with modifications so that your "particles" idea works. I'm sure you can look up LeSage and the models that were entertained in that spirit, and what befell them. Got any other ideas, smart guy? :) PD
From: PD on 10 Jul 2008 15:49 On Jul 10, 10:54 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > PD wrote: > > <snipped > > I love it when they resort to the insults only > and have nothing that "proves my thoughts wrong" I was talking about your thoughts. > At least I always give an example that prove them wrong > and then I call them morons. > :) > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman
From: PD on 10 Jul 2008 15:51
On Jul 10, 11:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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/2d2a006c7d50... > 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? Yes, that's perfectly consistent with what I just told you. Now, you are apparently still flummoxed with putting this next to c'=c, thinking there is a contradiction. There isn't. c'=c applies in *SPECIAL* relativity, where tidal effects of gravity are negligible over the distances concerned. That's why it's called *SPECIAL* relativity, because it applies in special cases. PD |