Prev: beautiful equation
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.1: France finds Macroscopic-Microscopic Duality with Deceleration to Acceleration Transition Analogous to Elliptic Flow of Strong Interaction Collisions and to Compression followed by Relaxation Phase of Collision
From: train on 20 Jun 2010 06:09
On Jun 20, 9:54 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:11 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > colp wrote:
> > > truth: SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age more
> > > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg.
>
> One thumbs up.
>
> > > truth: In no case does SR predict that a twin observes the other to
> > > age more quickly.
>
> Two thumbs up.
>
> > > inference: SR predicts that each twin will younger than the other at
> > > the end of the experiment.
>

Well that may be true but not the "theory" - SR predicts that the
there will be no paradox. In case of a paradox reword or rework the
system until no paradox occurs. You can use mathematics, words or a
combination.

See the theory cannot be incorrect, otherwise it would not be a
theory. For those who accept it. Those who do not accept it are er...
outside the mainstream scientific community ... that the polite way
they put it.

T


> Applaud.
>
> > All three of those are wrong.
>
> Huh!
>
> > You MUST learn what SR ACTUALLY says.
>
> <shaking my head>
>
> > That
> > requires STUDY, not wasting your time posting nonsense to the net.
>
> Self-styled physicists knows very little about the subjects in which
> they are supposed to be experts in.  <shrug>
>
> Hint:  You will become an Einstein Dingleberry if you continue to read
> books smeared with fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the
> plagiarist, and the liar.  In another words, accepting books written
> by Einstein Dingleberries will make you ever more mystified as if the
> academics are not mystified enough.  <shrug>
>
> Truly unbelievable.

From: kado on 21 Jun 2010 03:00
On Jun 19, 6:51 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message
>
> news:87999400-7cac-47bc-b8c4-fe5750451eda(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been implemented
> > experimentally, and
> > the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric twin paradox" has not
> > been
> > implemented experimentally AFAIK, but can be considered as a
> > straightforward
> > extension of the usual one.
>
> > > Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to
> > > accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based
> > > on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical
> > > experimentation!
>
> > This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm
> > various
> > predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics.
>
> I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before
> these experiments were conducted.
>
> ___________________________________
> (a) Irrelevant. There is no need for experimental verification of a theory
> to occur *before* the theory is formulated.
>
> (b) Incorrect. At least two experiments - Michelson Morley and the
> precession of Mercury - were conducted prior to the formulation of the
> theories that explained them. Of course, there were also many experiments
> conducted after the theories were derived, as is common in science.
>
>
>
snip
>
> > In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been implemented
> > experimentally, and
> > the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric twin paradox" has not
> > been
> > implemented experimentally AFAIK, but can be considered as a
> > straightforward
> > extension of the usual one.
>
> > > Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to
> > > accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based
> > > on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical
> > > experimentation!
>
> > This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm
> > various
> > predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics.
>
> I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before
> these experiments were conducted.
>
> ___________________________________
> (a) Irrelevant. There is no need for experimental verification of a theory
> to occur *before* the theory is formulated.
>
> (b) Incorrect. At least two experiments - Michelson Morley and the
> precession of Mercury - were conducted prior to the formulation of the
> theories that explained them. Of course, there were also many experiments
> conducted after the theories were derived, as is common in science.
>

So in response to your statement (b):

The MMX is not really applicable to SR, because all it did was
empirically demonstrate that there are no 'fringe effects of the
Earth moving through the ether' on the speed of light.
Although the 'discovery' of the infamous '43 arc-seconds of the
precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury' occurred
well before SR was formulate, this just pointed out that the
mathematics of the Newtonian Mechanics used by Le Verrier
did not agree with the so called actuals. AFAK, no one ever
ascertained if the actuals of Le Verrier are the true values
demonstrated by Nature, especially so when the 'planet' Pluto
had not yet been discovered. Furthermore, just like Halley in
predicting the orbit of the comet that bears his name, Le Verrier
could not have calculated in all the very small perturbations of
even the major planets in a whole year, let alone the orbits of
the minor plants that all play into the 'agitations of the center of
mass of the Solar System'. The only thing that everyone
concentrates on is the '43 arc-seconds, that is the effect, not
the cause. Furthermore, this is a GR subject, and not in the
context of SR.

> Is there a single prediction of SR that you believe to be false, and if so
> what is it?

YES. The whole of the fundamental relativistic mass increase
tenet of SR. There are a lot more, but other than the idea of
time symmetry, these have not been addressed as much as
the subject of relativist mass. (i.e., there is no current need to
get all the relativists further all bent out of shape on this
thread.)

So in response to (a):

You are just like a lot of other relativists on this newsgroup.

A relativist responds to an OP.
Another relativist responds to the same OP with a statement
that is contradictory to that of the first relativist.

So anyone that responds to either relativist must by its very
nature, be wrong in the eyes of the other relativist.

So grow up, I stand by my position that SR and GR were
conceived from gedankens, and your argument is with
your fellow relativist Tom Roberts, not me

D.Y.K.

From: kado on 21 Jun 2010 05:43
On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> k...(a)nventure.com wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to
> >>> accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based
> >>> on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical
> >>> experimentation!
> >> This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm various
> >> predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics.
>
> > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before
> > these experiments were conducted.
>
> That does not matter. This is PHYSICS, not history. And Einstein did know of
> several experiments that were inconsistent with the then-current notions of aether.
>

Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments
that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are
true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether
are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under
discussion.
>
snip
>
> Writings in ancient texts are IRRELEVANT. What matters in physics is the
> correspondence between theory and experiment. Ancient texts have been boiled
> down to the essential theory underlying them; this is usually necessary in
> science. Science is the formulation of models of nature, and refining and
> improving them via experiments; it is NOT the study of ancient texts.

What is important is that while physics is not about history, the
historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in
the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences.

1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the
meanings of the words.
2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are
not the whole truths.
3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have.

Furthermore, the are:

1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and
situations, but not so under other conditions and situations.
2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue
from another.
3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more
probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'.
4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon
which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the
time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view.

So a little language (meaning of the words), history and
philosophy lesson seems to be in order.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as
distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings.

Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true
knowledge and understandings of the true nature and
workings of the Natural universe.

In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause,
for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that
scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the
true nature and workings of the universe.

Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is
a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY.

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate
truths.
Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and
theology
The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category
of physics in the old days) deal with the natural.
Metaphysics address the unnatural.
Theology pertains to the super natural.

Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles,
laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated
by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are
based.

The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the
Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during
these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the
Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding
maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual
endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is:

Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT,
occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans),
and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does
not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or
me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's,
the human knower's, etc.,) understanding.

So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his
thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories.

However, there is one very important point missed by all the
ancient and modern theorists,

The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g.,
Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and
Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac
Newton) followed places the human above God and/or
Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of
man cannot be true.

Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the
of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In
other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of
schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic.

It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the
universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the
universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a
geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric
universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human
observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is
no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on
with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR
plausible.

All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript
titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths."

There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that
all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and
against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man.
Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make
mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly
attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and
accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the
philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia.

D. Y. Kadoshima
From: sci.math on 21 Jun 2010 07:04
On Jun 21, 2:43 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > k...(a)nventure.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>> Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to
> > >>> accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based
> > >>> on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical
> > >>> experimentation!
> > >> This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm various
> > >> predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics.
>
> > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before
> > > these experiments were conducted.
>
> > That does not matter. This is PHYSICS, not history. And Einstein did know of
> > several experiments that were inconsistent with the then-current notions of aether.
>
> Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments
> that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are
> true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether
> are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under
> discussion.
>
>
>
> snip
>
> > Writings in ancient texts are IRRELEVANT. What matters in physics is the
> > correspondence between theory and experiment. Ancient texts have been boiled
> > down to the essential theory underlying them; this is usually necessary in
> > science. Science is the formulation of models of nature, and refining and
> > improving them via experiments; it is NOT the study of ancient texts.
>
> What is important is that while physics is not about history, the
> historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in
> the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences.
>
> 1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the
>     meanings of the words.
> 2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are
>     not the whole truths.
> 3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have.
>
> Furthermore, the are:
>
> 1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and
>    situations, but not so under other conditions and situations.
> 2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue
>     from another.
> 3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more
>     probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'.
> 4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon
>     which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the
>     time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view.
>
> So a little language (meaning of the words),  history and
> philosophy lesson seems to be in order.
>
> Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as
> distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings.
>
> Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true
> knowledge and understandings of the true nature and
> workings of the Natural universe.
>
> In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause,
> for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that
> scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the
> true nature and workings of the universe.
>
> Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is
> a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY.
>
> Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate
> truths.
> Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and
> theology
> The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category
> of physics in the old days) deal with the natural.
> Metaphysics address the unnatural.
> Theology pertains to the super natural.
>
> Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles,
> laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated
> by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are
> based.
>
> The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the
> Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during
> these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the
> Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding
> maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual
> endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is:
>
> Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT,
> occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans),
> and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does
> not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or
> me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's,
> the human knower's, etc.,) understanding.
>
> So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his
> thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories.
>
> However, there is one very important point missed by all the
> ancient and modern theorists,
>
> The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g.,
> Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and
> Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac
> Newton) followed places the human above God and/or
> Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of
> man cannot be true.
>
> Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the
> of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In
> other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of
> schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic.
>
> It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the
> universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the
> universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a
> geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric
> universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human
> observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is
> no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on
> with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR
> plausible.
>
> All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript
> titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths."
>
> There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that
> all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and
> against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man.
> Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make
> mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly
> attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and
> accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the
> philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia.
>
> D. Y. Kadoshima

Dear D. Y. Kadoshim:

If what you say is true then these two websites I have linked to are
twins:

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmmv0i
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmmv0i

Because learning is symmetric, but why do my columns not line up
perfectly?

Who is keeping the knowledge out of place? Is it Google?

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmmv0i

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmmv0

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmmv

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmm

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPm

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MP

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-M

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwo

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RS

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2R

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BD

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/B

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171707457530345201

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017170745753034520

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171707457530345

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017170745753034

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171707457530

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017170745753

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171707457

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017170745


http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074


http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171707


http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017170


http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717


http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017


http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/

http://www.google.com/notebook/public

http://www.google.com/notebook/publi

http://www.google.com/notebook/publ

http://www.google.com/notebook/pub

http://www.google.com/notebook/pu

http://www.google.com/notebook/p

http://www.google.com/notebook/

http://www.google.com/notebook

http://www.google.com/noteboo

http://www.google.com/notebo

http://www.google.com/noteb

http://www.google.com/note

http://www.google.com/not

http://www.google.com/no

http://www.google.com/n

http://www.google.com/

http://www.google.com

http://www.google.co

http://www.google.c

http://www.google.

http://www.google

http://www.googl

http://www.goog

http://www.goo

http://www.go

http://www.g

http://www.

http://www

http://ww

http://w

http://

http:/

http:

http

htt

ht

h
From: Peter Webb on 21 Jun 2010 08:19

<kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message
news:2a25798c-d697-442b-8759-1c21779569b3(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 6:51 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message
>
> news:87999400-7cac-47bc-b8c4-fe5750451eda(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been implemented
> > experimentally, and
> > the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric twin paradox" has not
> > been
> > implemented experimentally AFAIK, but can be considered as a
> > straightforward
> > extension of the usual one.
>
> > > Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to
> > > accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based
> > > on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical
> > > experimentation!
>
> > This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm
> > various
> > predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics.
>
> I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before
> these experiments were conducted.
>
> ___________________________________
> (a) Irrelevant. There is no need for experimental verification of a theory
> to occur *before* the theory is formulated.
>
> (b) Incorrect. At least two experiments - Michelson Morley and the
> precession of Mercury - were conducted prior to the formulation of the
> theories that explained them. Of course, there were also many experiments
> conducted after the theories were derived, as is common in science.
>
>
>
snip
>
> > In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been implemented
> > experimentally, and
> > the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric twin paradox" has not
> > been
> > implemented experimentally AFAIK, but can be considered as a
> > straightforward
> > extension of the usual one.
>
> > > Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to
> > > accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based
> > > on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical
> > > experimentation!
>
> > This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm
> > various
> > predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics.
>
> I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before
> these experiments were conducted.
>
> ___________________________________
> (a) Irrelevant. There is no need for experimental verification of a theory
> to occur *before* the theory is formulated.
>
> (b) Incorrect. At least two experiments - Michelson Morley and the
> precession of Mercury - were conducted prior to the formulation of the
> theories that explained them. Of course, there were also many experiments
> conducted after the theories were derived, as is common in science.
>

So in response to your statement (b):

The MMX is not really applicable to SR, because all it did was
empirically demonstrate that there are no 'fringe effects of the
Earth moving through the ether' on the speed of light.

________________________________
Wrong. The MMX did not demonstrate this at all. It demonstrated that either
Newtonian physics or Maxwell's equations were wrong. As it turned out, it
was Newtonian physics.


Although the 'discovery' of the infamous '43 arc-seconds of the
precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury' occurred
well before SR was formulate, this just pointed out that the
mathematics of the Newtonian Mechanics used by Le Verrier
did not agree with the so called actuals.

__________________________________
Ummmm ... the precession of the perihelion of Mercury was confirmation of
GR, not SR. Try and get the most basic statements as to the history and the
physics correct.


AFAK, no one ever
________________________________
If "AFAK" is suposed to mean "as far as you know", then we can pretty much
dismiss anything you say after this point as your own private fantasy.

ascertained if the actuals of Le Verrier are the true values
demonstrated by Nature, especially so when the 'planet' Pluto
had not yet been discovered. Furthermore, just like Halley in
predicting the orbit of the comet that bears his name, Le Verrier
could not have calculated in all the very small perturbations of
even the major planets in a whole year, let alone the orbits of
the minor plants that all play into the 'agitations of the center of
mass of the Solar System'. The only thing that everyone
concentrates on is the '43 arc-seconds, that is the effect, not
the cause. Furthermore, this is a GR subject, and not in the
context of SR.

> Is there a single prediction of SR that you believe to be false, and if so
> what is it?

YES. The whole of the fundamental relativistic mass increase
tenet of SR.

_________________________________
There is no "tenet" in this area. And I actually asked for a prediction, not
just something you don't understand.

Mass is treated differently in SR than in Newton. In SR, mass doesn't really
appear on its own, it is manifest through momentum and energy.

However, the momentum of a particle of some mass m travelling at 0.9c is a
lot more than the 0.9m predicted by Newton. And similarly for energy. And by
exactly the amount predicted by SR, to 10 decimal places.

These results are extremely well confirmed experimentally.

What exactly is your problem with them?


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: beautiful equation
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.1: France finds Macroscopic-Microscopic Duality with Deceleration to Acceleration Transition Analogous to Elliptic Flow of Strong Interaction Collisions and to Compression followed by Relaxation Phase of Collision