Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Mar 20, 8:24*am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:


Also, do you agree with PD's statement that "non-local effects do not
propagate non-locally but locally" ?

Since you put this in quotation marks, indicating a direct quote,
perhaps you could point to the post where I said that.

PD

"doug" wrote in message
et...

[...]

So we have your unsupported assertion and that takes care of a century
of evidence. If you could show this, you would. You cannot. You are
only blustering.

According to Doug if you have 3 flat tires, it doesn't mean your vehicule is
unsafe driving around.

Doug cannot understand either time dilation already handles the different
inertia a particle moving at c - epsilon will be subjected to because of its
slower interaction with its environment. Therefore deviating a particle at
this velocity already requires a stronger force and there is no need
increasing its "mass". In fact if you do, you'll be doubling the effects.

Rock Brentwood wrote:
There are other ways to attack a paradigm that don't require
falsifying it to show it's wrong. One can be wrong not just for what
one says wrong, but (far more importantly) for what one does NOT say,
that's correct.

Any time you have a paradigm shift from A - B, especially when A's
been around a long time and has gotten a huge reservoir of empirical
support; there is not ONE thing that need to be done to establish a
cohesive connection from A to B, but TWO. The first requires the
support of the kind which, as you mention, could be undermined by
falsification; but for the second -- which is almost universally
neglected -- the issue is utterly irrelevant.

The criteria all focus on the issue of what's known as the
Correspondence Limit. The most precise statement of this principle
(once you remove all the hand-wavers and sloppy "just left h-bar go to
0" or "just let c to go infinity" amateurs from the room) boils down
to stipulation of a *continuous* connection between the actual
*formal* structures underlying the two paradigms in what may be known
as theory-space.

I disagree. Strongly.

The reason a new theory B needs some relationship to the old theory A is
purely experimental: there were many experiments that supported and
confirmed A, so for B to be valid it must meet those experimental tests
(at least those within its domain). NOTHING more is needed [#]. In
particular, there need be no "*continuous* connection" between the
"formal structures" of A and B. That's an unreasonable constraint on the
structure of physical theories.

You are attempting to place constraints based on HUMAN
HISTORY onto the structure of new physical theories.
That's silly -- Nature has no cognizance of human history.
And, of course, humans have been known to get things wrong....

Indeed, it seems rather likely that some new theories of quantum gravity
could have no such continuous limit, yet be completely compatible with
the experimental record: I'm thinking specifically of theories not based
on a spacetime manifold -- a theory based on complex topological
structure at the Planck scale might well have a structure that could not
be *continuously* morphed into relativity's spacetime manifold.

[#] The existence of a continuous parameter that in some limit
takes B to A makes this easy to verify for many experiments
all in one fell swoop. But that's not the only way to do so
-- one could perform the usual comparison for each experiment,
individually.


Completeness means that ALL the structure of A should be pulled back
over into B by the suitable formulation of the INVERSE correspondence
limit.

Again I disagree. This is physics, not math, and there's no need to do
this at all. What is needed is that ALL THE EXPERIMENTS (within B's
domain) that supported and confirmed A also support and confirm B, or at
least do not refute B. That is ALL that is required. The existence of
previous theory A in no way constrains the new theory B to "be like A"
or "have a limit A" or "include all possible phenomena that are in the
domain of A" (B will have its own domain [%]). Indeed, in general, the
existence of A is completely irrelevant to the validity of B -- all that
is required for B to be valid is that B not be refuted by any experiment
within its domain.

[%] It is highly desirable that the domain of B include the
entire domain of A, but that is not required. Of course it
may well be the case that if the domain of B omits a major
portion of the domain of A, then B will not replace A in
the minds of scientists....

Again I imagine a potential future theory of quantum gravity. It could
well be perfectly valid for it to not include "ALL" aspects of GR (such
as the singularity theorems), as long as it satisfies all of the
EXPERIMENTAL TESTS of GR. Indeed, this is the hope (or even expectation)
of many physicists....


You are attempting to place constraints based on HUMAN HISTORY onto the
structure of new physical theories. That's silly -- Nature has no
cognizance of human history. And, of course, humans have been known to
get things wrong....

IOW: your "theory-space" need not be some sort of
"continuous structure". Nor does it need to be any
particular type of mathematical category. AFAICT it need
have no particular structure whatsoever, and different
theories can be completely unrelated to each other, as
long as they meet the requirements of being a scientific
theory.

Rather than considering "theory-space", think "phenomena space", and
Venn diagrams on it that represent the domains of validity for various
physical theories. B and A should overlap considerably, and preferably B
should include A. This, of course, does not represent any sort of
underlying theoretical relationship between A and B, because in general
there need be none. It is quite possible that A simply got things wrong,
but was "lucky" and just happened to be able to meet the experimental
tests of its day.

For example, in the light of GR this last seems to the the
case for Newtonian Gravitation. Indeed, such "luck" has
been outrageously common in the history of physics....


Tom Roberts

Rock Brentwood wrote:
On Mar 17, 6:28 pm, Igor wrote:
Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?-

[...]

You posted this twice. I responded to the other one.


Tom Roberts

Phil Bouchard wrote:
"doug" wrote in message
et...

[...]

So we have your unsupported assertion and that takes care of a century
of evidence. If you could show this, you would. You cannot. You are
only blustering.

According to Doug if you have 3 flat tires, it doesn't mean your vehicule
is
unsafe driving around.

Non sequitur. Doug never mentioned vehicles nor tires.


Doug cannot understand either time dilation already handles the different
inertia a particle moving at c - epsilon will be subjected to because of
its
slower interaction with its environment. Therefore deviating a particle
at
this velocity already requires a stronger force and there is no need
increasing its "mass". In fact if you do, you'll be doubling the effects.

Phil does not understand conservation laws, such as
energy or momentum.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...

Non sequitur. Doug never mentioned vehicles nor tires.

Greg can't recognize parables.

Phil does not understand conservation laws, such as
energy or momentum.

Inertia is the resistance against a change in its motion.

"doug" wrote in message
et...

[...]

Your stupidity is not a scientific arguement. You have only shown you
have no clue what relativity is. You have presented no evidence of any
problems just your dislikes. Those do not get you anywhere in science.
CS maybe but not science.

You guys are skipping calculus and jumping straight to pride and glory by
following Einstein's, his miracles and propheties. I proved 99% of what I
said and bring on your particle accelerator measurements because your
equations can be easily replace since time dilation will affect acceleration
as much as "increasing" the mass.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
"doug" wrote in message
et...

[...]

Your stupidity is not a scientific arguement. You have only shown you
have no clue what relativity is. You have presented no evidence of any
problems just your dislikes. Those do not get you anywhere in science.
CS maybe but not science.

You guys are skipping calculus and jumping straight to pride and glory by
following Einstein's, his miracles and propheties. I proved 99% of what I
said and bring on your particle accelerator measurements because your
equations can be easily replace since time dilation will affect
acceleration
as much as "increasing" the mass.

What color is the sky in your world, Phil? You seem to
have done a lot of things there that never happened here
in the real world.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
et...

[...]


So we have your unsupported assertion and that takes care of a century
of evidence. If you could show this, you would. You cannot. You are
only blustering.


According to Doug if you have 3 flat tires, it doesn't mean your vehicule is
unsafe driving around.

Doug cannot understand either time dilation already handles the different
inertia a particle moving at c - epsilon will be subjected to because of its
slower interaction with its environment.

Nice assertion but you cannot support it with any math showing how it
agrees with experiments. Until then, you are just dreaming and blustering.

Therefore deviating a particle at
this velocity already requires a stronger force and there is no need
increasing its "mass". In fact if you do, you'll be doubling the effects.


We have seen lots of words from you but that is not a scientific theory.
You have nothing so far. There is nothing to believe in from you.
Relativity has a century of experiments behind it. Any new theory must
explain ALL of them. So far you have failed to explain ANY of them.
No one will take you seriously until you have done some work.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...

Non sequitur. Doug never mentioned vehicles nor tires.


Greg can't recognize parables.

So phil has a theory with three flat tires but he does
not see a problem with that.


Phil does not understand conservation laws, such as
energy or momentum.


Inertia is the resistance against a change in its motion.

It is good that phil is showing that Greg is correct.