|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in
sci.physics.relativity: 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? Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity. Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light but you can still save relativity by introducing, ad hoc, miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. So in Einstein zombie world a single experiment can confirm two incompatible theories and Einsteinians subtract the number of such experiments from the "enormous" number of experiments that gloriously confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory and refute the emission theory. Up until recently the Pound-Rebka experiment belonged to the latter group but now Einsteinians suspect that this experiment, like the Michelson- Morley experiment, confirms the emission theory as well. A dispassionate and disinterested analysis would show that Pound-Rebka unambiguously confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
On Jul 10, 7:50*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in sci.physics.relativity: 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? Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity. Michelson-Morley in no way contradicts special relativity. You might say it contradicts special relativity if you take out time dilation and length contraction, but then again, that ain't special relativity, is it? Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light The emission theory of light is consistent with Michelson-Morley, but the emission theory of light is inconsistent with OTHER experimental results. It is not proper to consider experiments in isolation when evaluating the evidence in support of or against a theory. but you can still save relativity by introducing, ad hoc, miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. So in Einstein zombie world a single experiment can confirm two incompatible theories and Einsteinians subtract the number of such experiments from the "enormous" number of experiments that gloriously confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory and refute the emission theory. Up until recently the Pound-Rebka experiment belonged to the latter group but now Einsteinians suspect that this experiment, like the Michelson- Morley experiment, confirms the emission theory as well. A dispassionate and disinterested analysis would show that Pound-Rebka unambiguously confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
On Jul 10, 8:50*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in sci.physics.relativity: 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? Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity. Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light but you can still save relativity by introducing, ad hoc, miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. So in Einstein zombie world a single experiment can confirm two incompatible theories and Einsteinians subtract the number of such experiments from the "enormous" number of experiments that gloriously confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory and refute the emission theory. Up until recently the Pound-Rebka experiment belonged to the latter group but now Einsteinians suspect that this experiment, like the Michelson- Morley experiment, confirms the emission theory as well. A dispassionate and disinterested analysis would show that Pound-Rebka unambiguously confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Pentcho Valev - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Whether time indeed dilate or length indeed contract or whether hidden newtonian principle is at work without directly altering time and length is a major points for scrutiny. I just found Eric Baird unique in that one doesn't commonly encounter an anti-relativist publishing a book. The full title of his book is "Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special Relatity". Baird believes General Relativity or curved spacetime could be true yet in a small point of it, flat spacetime doesn't work because it's curved spacetime all the way to the planck horizon. Well. At least Baird believes in general relativity. But then isn't it that General Relativity had been inspired by Special Relativity. I read in Wheeler "Black hole..." that Einstein imagined time dilation occured in different height and he thoght what if the different time dilation could cause gravity itself. So SR leads to GR although Eric Baird believes GR could be cooked up entirely without SR. Hmm... the book is dense, have to read it if I have more time. See: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Cur...07/ref=ed_oe_p Better yet. Why don't you write a book yourself. Danny |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
On Jul 10, 9:44*pm, Danny Milano wrote:
On Jul 10, 8:50*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in sci.physics.relativity: 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? Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity. Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light but you can still save relativity by introducing, ad hoc, miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. So in Einstein zombie world a single experiment can confirm two incompatible theories and Einsteinians subtract the number of such experiments from the "enormous" number of experiments that gloriously confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory and refute the emission theory. Up until recently the Pound-Rebka experiment belonged to the latter group but now Einsteinians suspect that this experiment, like the Michelson- Morley experiment, confirms the emission theory as well. A dispassionate and disinterested analysis would show that Pound-Rebka unambiguously confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Pentcho Valev - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Whether time indeed dilate or length indeed contract or whether hidden newtonian principle is at work without directly altering time and length is a major points for scrutiny. I just found Eric Baird unique in that one doesn't commonly encounter an anti-relativist publishing a book. The full title of his book is "Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special Relatity". Baird believes General Relativity or curved spacetime could be true yet in a small point of it, flat spacetime doesn't work because it's curved spacetime all the way to the planck horizon. Well. At least Baird believes in general relativity. But then isn't it that General Relativity had been inspired by Special Relativity. I read in Wheeler "Black hole..." that Einstein imagined time dilation occured in different height and he thoght what if the different time dilation could cause gravity itself. So SR leads to GR although Eric Baird believes GR could be cooked up entirely without SR. Hmm... the book is dense, have to read it if I have more time. See: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Cur...ut-relativity/... Better yet. Why don't you write a book yourself. Danny- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Duh. I wonder if it is possible for General Relativity to exist without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) inherent in the theory, anyone? Danny |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
On Jul 10, 3:16*pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:50*am, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in sci.physics.relativity: 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? Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity. Michelson-Morley in no way contradicts special relativity. You might say it contradicts special relativity if you take out time dilation and length contraction, but then again, that ain't special relativity, is it? If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK? Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light The emission theory of light is consistent with Michelson-Morley, but the emission theory of light is inconsistent with OTHER experimental results. It is not proper to consider experiments in isolation when evaluating the evidence in support of or against a theory. In all those cases "the emission theory" can be reduced to a single equation, c'=c+v, showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the light source. It can be shown (but the discussion cannot be held on this forum) that an exact equation cannot be confirmed by some experiments and refuted by others, unless something is wrong with the experiments. Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
On Jul 10, 9:06*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:16*pm, PD wrote: On Jul 10, 7:50*am, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Jul 10, 2:18*pm, Ian Parker wrote in sci.physics.relativity: 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? Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity. Michelson-Morley in no way contradicts special relativity. You might say it contradicts special relativity if you take out time dilation and length contraction, but then again, that ain't special relativity, is it? If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK? No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly, SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson- Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO postulates mentioned. Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light The emission theory of light is consistent with Michelson-Morley, but the emission theory of light is inconsistent with OTHER experimental results. It is not proper to consider experiments in isolation when evaluating the evidence in support of or against a theory. In all those cases "the emission theory" can be reduced to a single equation, c'=c+v, showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the light source. Yes, and the implications of such a theory have been thoroughly explored in the literature. It can be shown (but the discussion cannot be held on this forum) Why not? that an exact equation cannot be confirmed by some experiments and refuted by others, unless something is wrong with the experiments. If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead. It is the crank who insists that because the theory is right, there must be something wrong with the experiments. Now, on occasion, a single experimental result is shown to be faulty. But that's why experiments are reproduced and complementary experiments performed. If two or three *independent* experiments corroborate each others' findings, then there is a high confidence value in the result of those experiments. And if those findings are contrary to a model's predictions, then the model is dead as burnt toast. This is *precisely* what happened to emission theory over the last several decades. PD |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
On Jul 10, 3:44*pm, Danny Milano wrote:
Whether time indeed dilate or length indeed contract or whether hidden newtonian principle is at work without directly altering time and length is a major points for scrutiny. I just found Eric Baird unique in that one doesn't commonly encounter an anti-relativist publishing a book. The full title of his book is "Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special Relatity". Baird believes General Relativity or curved spacetime could be true yet in a small point of it, flat spacetime doesn't work because it's curved spacetime all the way to the planck horizon. Well. At least Baird believes in general relativity. But then isn't it that General Relativity had been inspired by Special Relativity. I read in Wheeler "Black hole..." that Einstein imagined time dilation occured in different height and he thoght what if the different time dilation could cause gravity itself. So SR leads to GR although Eric Baird believes GR could be cooked up entirely without SR. Hmm... the book is dense, have to read it if I have more time. General relativity is an INCONSISTENCY, that is, a theory where assertions are accompanied by their negations. It keeps Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) but at the same time has implicitly introduced its antithesis, the true equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light. An instructive, although somewhat misleading, description of this malignant theoretical construction (an inconsistency is much more dangerous than a false theory) is given by Newton-Smith (W. H. Newton-Smith, The rationality of science, Routledge, London, 1981, p. 229): "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let ‘q’ be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive the sentence ‘p and not-p’. From this ‘p’ follows. And from ‘p’ it follows that ‘p or q’ (if ‘p’ is true then ‘p or q’ will be true no matter whether ‘q’ is true or not). Equally, it follows from ‘p and not-p’ that ‘not-p’. But ‘not-p’ together with ‘p or q’ entails ‘q’. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory’s language and its negation." The deduction performed by Newton-Smith is unacceptable to a physicist since « from ‘p’ it follows that ‘p or q’ » is not a relevant physical argument (see http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf ). Still the central idea – that the lowest degree of verisimilitude should be given to an inconsistency – is correct. Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
On Jul 10, 4:25*pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:06*am, Pentcho Valev wrote: If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK? No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly, SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson- Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO postulates mentioned. It is still OK. First try to realize that the deduction of time dilation, length contraction and all idiotic "paradoxes" is in fact REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, then reject accodingly Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and you obtain what I say above. If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead. 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)? Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
On Jul 10, 10:35*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:25*pm, PD wrote: On Jul 10, 9:06*am, Pentcho Valev wrote: If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK? No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly, SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson- Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO postulates mentioned. It is still OK. Sorry, no. First try to realize that the deduction of time dilation, length contraction and all idiotic "paradoxes" is in fact REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, There is absolutely nothing illogical or inconsistent or paradoxical about time dilation or length contraction. I haven't got the foggiest idea what you think is illogical or inconsistent or paradoxical. then reject accodingly Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and you obtain what I say above. If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead. 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? PD Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
On Jul 10, 5:43*pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:35*am, Pentcho Valev 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.ph...2a006c7d508022 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 measu 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? Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BAEZ AND SMOLIN WILL DEFORM SPECIAL RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | December 5th 07 01:12 AM |
FOREVER SPECIAL RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 5 | September 22nd 07 02:24 PM |
SPECIAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT THE LIGHT POSTULATE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 9 | June 25th 07 12:44 PM |
RELATIVITY - The Special, the General, and the Causal Theory | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 1 | March 9th 07 08:16 PM |