EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 10, 3:00*pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:27*am, Danny Milano wrote:

On Jul 10, 8:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano wrote: Hi, I recently came across a very interesting *book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.

Salaam alekum!

This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
fact Relativity got rid of the aether.

You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
talking in a prely philosopical way.

I would ask you

WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?

What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
theories?

You know what. I think you have got a rather large file somewhere. You
have an editor along the lines of the Honeywell Buzzword Generator.
You write under a large number of aliases. I do not believe that, or
any other contribution advances our understanding one iota.

What is antirelativity? It is largely a cover for Roswell and the fact
that a large amount of money was squandered. This on top of putting a
large number of red herrings into aerodynamic research.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...igravity&meta=

Hence my introduction. Reputable physicists were NEVER consulted, just
as no repuable arabist was consulted over Iraq. Antirelativity can
thus be summed up.

No Physics, no Arabic.

* - Ian Parker

What? No. I'm not Eric Baird. It's just that there is a whole universe
of difference if Special Relativity is true or a newtonian ad hoc
model
is true. If SR minkowski block spacetime is right. We could be
living in an imaginary universe where any rule is possible dictated
by math. If newtonian model triumps then there is physical
mechanism and physical cause for everything with thermodynamics
statistical fashion possibly explaining even quantum "probabilities".

SR or not. That is the question. Eric Baird has thought of it for
decades. He is the Czar of the antirelativists. I wonder if anyone
has discussed with him previously and knew where he got it
wrong because I can't analyze it right now.

Danny

A couple of comments:
1. It is a misconception that SR is nothing but mathematical
constructs and does not carry the same "physical" basis as Newtonian
physics does. Newtonian physics is no less a mathematical construct
than SR. For example, Newton explicitly offered no mechanism for
gravity, despite being able to write down a general rule for the
strength of that mechanism, and in fact he was quite flummoxed by the
notion of reaching across empty space to influence something without a
tangible mediator. Conversely, SR does offer a physical meaning for
its findings -- just not the little-things-banging-on-little-things
picture you might have imagined it should be.

2. The author suggests that a better developed Newtonian model would
account for all of the experimental findings that presently agree with
relativity. That may be so, and the best avenue for demonstrating that
is to actually develop a coherent theory with all the direct causal
factors you think are needed to actually account for all of the things
observed. Included in this should be why successive increments of
kinetic energy added to a particle in flight never raises the velocity
higher than c, just as an example.

What else? Should the "better developed Newtonian model" include
breathtaking paradoxes such as the bug-simultaneously-squashed-and-not-
squashed paradox or the 80m-long-pole-trapped-inside-40m-long-barn
paradox? I think only Einsteiniana can produce such wisdom:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 10, 8:32*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:00*pm, PD wrote:



On Jul 10, 7:27*am, Danny Milano wrote:

On Jul 10, 8:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano wrote: Hi, I recently came across a very interesting *book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.

Salaam alekum!

This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
fact Relativity got rid of the aether.

You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
talking in a prely philosopical way.

I would ask you

WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?

What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
theories?

You know what. I think you have got a rather large file somewhere. You
have an editor along the lines of the Honeywell Buzzword Generator.
You write under a large number of aliases. I do not believe that, or
any other contribution advances our understanding one iota.

What is antirelativity? It is largely a cover for Roswell and the fact
that a large amount of money was squandered. This on top of putting a
large number of red herrings into aerodynamic research.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...igravity&meta=

Hence my introduction. Reputable physicists were NEVER consulted, just
as no repuable arabist was consulted over Iraq. Antirelativity can
thus be summed up.

No Physics, no Arabic.

* - Ian Parker

What? No. I'm not Eric Baird. It's just that there is a whole universe
of difference if Special Relativity is true or a newtonian ad hoc
model
is true. If SR minkowski block spacetime is right. We could be
living in an imaginary universe where any rule is possible dictated
by math. If newtonian model triumps then there is physical
mechanism and physical cause for everything with thermodynamics
statistical fashion possibly explaining even quantum "probabilities".

SR or not. That is the question. Eric Baird has thought of it for
decades. He is the Czar of the antirelativists. I wonder if anyone
has discussed with him previously and knew where he got it
wrong because I can't analyze it right now.

Danny

A couple of comments:
1. It is a misconception that SR is nothing but mathematical
constructs and does not carry the same "physical" basis as Newtonian
physics does. Newtonian physics is no less a mathematical construct
than SR. For example, Newton explicitly offered no mechanism for
gravity, despite being able to write down a general rule for the
strength of that mechanism, and in fact he was quite flummoxed by the
notion of reaching across empty space to influence something without a
tangible mediator. Conversely, SR does offer a physical meaning for
its findings -- just not the little-things-banging-on-little-things
picture you might have imagined it should be.

2. The author suggests that a better developed Newtonian model would
account for all of the experimental findings that presently agree with
relativity. That may be so, and the best avenue for demonstrating that
is to actually develop a coherent theory with all the direct causal
factors you think are needed to actually account for all of the things
observed. Included in this should be why successive increments of
kinetic energy added to a particle in flight never raises the velocity
higher than c, just as an example.

What else? Should the "better developed Newtonian model" include
breathtaking paradoxes such as the bug-simultaneously-squashed-and-not-
squashed paradox

We've talked about this. The bug is definitely squashed. Your short-
term memory seems to be loose somewhere.

or the 80m-long-pole-trapped-inside-40m-long-barn
paradox?

We've talked about this, too. It's a 36m-long-pole-inside-a-40m-long-
barn and that doesn't sound so paradoxical. Why you would want to take
the length from one frame and juxtapose it against the length in
another frame is beyond me.

I think only Einsteiniana can produce such wisdom:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 10, 3:40*pm, PD wrote:
We've talked about this. The bug is definitely squashed. Your short-
term memory seems to be loose somewhere.

Zombie know: no bug no problem. Zombie clever very clever.


or the 80m-long-pole-trapped-inside-40m-long-barn
paradox?

We've talked about this, too. It's a 36m-long-pole-inside-a-40m-long-
barn and that doesn't sound so paradoxical.

Zombie know: 80m in 40m difficult. Master say possible but zombie know
difficult. Zombie clever very clever. Zobbie know: 36m in 40m
possible. Easy. Good. Zombie clever very clever.

I think only Einsteiniana can produce such wisdom:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 10, 10:51*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:40*pm, PD wrote:

We've talked about this. The bug is definitely squashed. Your short-
term memory seems to be loose somewhere.

Zombie know: no bug no problem. Zombie clever very clever.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I realize that the moment you get confused, you think that a magician
has just pulled a trick to confuse you. But there isn't really any
trick, and here the magician is showing you exactly how the trick is
done, and you STILL think it's magic.




or the 80m-long-pole-trapped-inside-40m-long-barn
paradox?

We've talked about this, too. It's a 36m-long-pole-inside-a-40m-long-
barn and that doesn't sound so paradoxical.

Zombie know: 80m in 40m difficult. Master say possible but zombie know
difficult. Zombie clever very clever. Zobbie know: 36m in 40m
possible. Easy. Good. Zombie clever very clever.

I think only Einsteiniana can produce such wisdom:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Pentcho Valev