Am 05.06.2013 18:25, schrieb Koobee Wublee:
Does anyone object to Richard Feynman’s definition of scientific
method?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Well, Feynman was very sure of himself in every single speech and
discussion, but please don’t let that intimidate you. If you think
Feynman is wrong on the process leading to scientific methods, please
do explain how. If not, please continue.shrug

Applying scientific methods to special relativity (SR), one finds all
experiments have not falsified this hypothesis, and the feat is
exactly why self-styled physicists worship SR.shrug

Self-styled physicists then proceed to preach the value of SR and urge
everyone to study. However, studying is what they have not done. If
so, they would have realized the Voigt transform, Larmor’s transform,
and infinite others do also satisfy in every single experimental
result that validates SR including satisfying the null results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. If the self-styled physicists have
studied beyond the textbooks, they would have realized these
transformations other than SR say the absolute frame of reference must
exist which make them the antitheses to SR.shrug




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M...ztransform.svg

This a Minkowski diagramm of a light cone.

If c is constant, than the term 'space' must refer to the light-cone and
not to what is called x.

We see things in our own past light cone and cannot see into the
direction called x.

Since with a Lorentz transform the 'real' direction of x changes, that
direction is not 'real' neither.

So 'space' is just an observation and that is relative. Movement does
not make trains shorter or seconds longer, but enable a view into a
different world.

The flaw of SRT is, that it depends on a preferred 'inertial' FoR. This
does not exist and we have acceleration as mayor influence on time, not
movement.

This is proven by experiments like that at the Harvard towers. Or the so
called Pioneer anomaly could be understood that way.

The 'twin paradox' could be solved that way, too, since the effect of
'time-dilation' is compensated by 'time-contraction' then (because of
deceleration).

Next flaw is the speedlimit of c, since the angle 45° (in the diagram)
refers to c and the direction x to infinite velocity.

We cannot see infinite velocity (because light moves with c). But this
does not mean, such relation do not exist.

We have in fact a spectrum of velocity, from zero to infinity. Zero is
the feature of a mass and infinity the feature of a static field. Both
combined make an atom.

Since the direction x is relative, this would mean, that matter is
'relative', too.


TH