WHO IS WELCOME TO TRY TO KILL SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009043...e-america.html
"Even the best of science "total stories" are theories still waiting
to be replaced or altered massively, even repudiated: like Newton's
theory of universal gravitation, and Darwin's theory of evolution, and
Einstein's special theory of relativity. Everyone's welcome to try to
kill them - by the strict rules, that is; not by politico-
journalistic, statistical-shake-and-bake gunplay....Scientists modify
existing theories and then destroy parts of them, without reducing the
whole."

Clearly not just "everyone" is welcome to try to kill special
relativity: those who do not know how to "modify existing theories and
then destroy parts of them, without reducing the whole", that is,
those who do not know how to get rid of Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate without abandoning time dilation, length contraction,
Minkowski spacetime and similar idiocies, are not welcome at all. For
the moment only Paul Davies, Sir Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking, Neil
Turok, Lee Smolin and Joao Magueijo are welcome to try to kill special
relativity because only they know how to do so "without reducing the
whole":

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists....What he, Hawking and others such as
Neil Turok, professor of maths and physics at Cambridge, are now
looking at is the idea that our universe is just one of an infinite
number of universes, with different laws of nature operating in each."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered
Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his
own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's
insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative
motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same,
no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences
of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-
legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are
relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS
OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Se...lden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
a constant speed for all observers..."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent
clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in
particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the
same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations
of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical
consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies
all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed
up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes
using the word "relative."......"Perhaps relativity is too restrictive
for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to
drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 30, 11:14*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Special Relativity has known limits, so it is already "dead", and has
been since 1911 or so. Where it applies, if someone can "kill" it
there, there is a Nobel Prize waiting for that person.

Which you know, but you are just trolling again.

David A. Smith

"dlzc" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 11:14 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Special Relativity has known limits, so it is already "dead", and has
been since 1911 or so. Where it applies, if someone can "kill" it
there, there is a Nobel Prize waiting for that person.

Which you know, but you are just trolling again.

David A. Smith
----------------------------------------------------------
Don't be silly.

Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif


What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?


Your answer goes he

__________________________________________________ ______

Other answers have been:

According to the illiterate crank "Peter Webb"


Its two equations.
__________________________________________________ ______

According to the novice mitch (or mitchs perkins)

because +v / -v cancel out?
__________________________________________________ ______
According to the Pillock Shawn Pollock (aka mathkills):

Mikelzon Morrly, whatever.
What Einstein does is basically modify Galilean relativity as follows

X'=A(X-vt)
yes you [Androcles] are an ass (presumably because I asked the question)

__________________________________________________ ______
According to glird the tord:

Both x and x' are in the domain of the function x |- x' such that x' =
x-vt
__________________________________________________ ______

According to Idiot Ian Parker:

We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory.
__________________________________________________ ______
According to Cretin

Easy: he did NOT say that.
According to cretin van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
__________________________________________________ ______
According to xxein (not a true dingleberry):
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
__________________________________________________ ______
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
__________________________________________________ ______
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:

" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."

According to Imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
__________________________________________________ ______
According to Cretin Dork Bruere

I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote.
__________________________________________________ ______
According to Lying Little **** Matthew Johnson

And even the question is wrong! For he never said any such thing.
This should be painfully obvious from what he _did_ say,
namely, that the vacuum speed of light is a constant of nature,
invariant under all admissable [sic] transformations between
inertial reference frames.

Apparently LLS Matthew Johnson has rewritten Einstein's paper.

A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial".

According to LLS Matthew Johnson, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
__________________________________________________ ______
According to Chief ****** Uncle Stooopid Schwartz:

"c+v appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it. [sic]
According to Chief ****** Uncle Stooopid, Einstein did not write the
equation he wrote.
__________________________________________________ ______
According to Dolt "Spirit of Truth"

that math is correct but WRONG
__________________________________________________ ______

Scene:
River.
Current, 4 m/s. Swimmers, 3 /ms and -3 m/s.
River bank.
3+4 = 7 is "not the speed of anything w.r.t. anything",
"it's a closing speed." -- Ben Green Jr. Ph.D. physics 1956
__________________________________________________ ______


Note: some names may be the aliases of a crank or cranks unknown.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip 85 lines of crap]

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment

empirical idiot

Were there to be internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning
inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) that would
automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and
arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is
equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.

Particle accelerators, free electron lasers, large color TV CRT tubes,
heavy element chemistry...

idiot

Pentcho Valev


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Androcles wrote in message ...


What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?



He never said that at all. If you want to believe the travel time is
different, fine. But where is your evidence that spacetime is not
isotropic?

"Igor" wrote in message
...

Androcles wrote in message ...


What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?



He never said that at all.

Thank you.
Web page updated.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/QUESTION.htm

Dear Uncle Al, perhaps you remember our (sporadic, ok)
exchanges here in Usenet, mainly on (very interesting)
chemistry topics, which I regret for not having continued.

However, I'm here now to ask some enlightening on what
you said below.

Uncle Al ha scritto (wrote):

[snip]

Were there to be internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning
inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) that would
automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and
arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is
equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.

I think I understand your English, but not enough math & physics
involved above. Could you please clarify (in whichever manner you
like, if possible) such contradictions, maybe pointing me out some
relevant examples?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Thanks.
Angelo

"Angelo" wrote in message
...
Dear Uncle Al, perhaps you remember our (sporadic, ok)
exchanges here in Usenet, mainly on (very interesting)
chemistry topics, which I regret for not having continued.

However, I'm here now to ask some enlightening on what
you said below.

Uncle Al ha scritto (wrote):

[snip]

Were there to be internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning
inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) that would
automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and
arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is
equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You do realise he's totally off his rocker?




I think I understand your English, but not enough math & physics
involved above. Could you please clarify (in whichever manner you
like, if possible) such contradictions, maybe pointing me out some
relevant examples?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Thanks.
Angelo

On May 3, 4:02*pm, Angelo wrote:
Dear Uncle Al, perhaps you remember our (sporadic, ok)
exchanges here in Usenet, mainly on (very interesting)
chemistry topics, which I regret for not having continued.

However, I'm here now to ask some enlightening on what
you said below.

Uncle Al ha scritto (wrote):

[snip]

Were there to be internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning
inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) that would
automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and
arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is
equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.

I think I understand your English, but not enough math & physics
involved above. Could you please clarify (in whichever manner you
like, if possible) such contradictions, maybe pointing me out some
relevant examples?

I don't normally screw up what Uncle Al can
better screw up all by himself but the business
of exploring the chiral anti gravity properties of
stockings worn inside out surely makes immense
demands on his time. ;-)

I think this might be the sort of expression he
was referring to:

... the four-dimensional space-time continuum
of the theory of relativity, in its most essential
formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship
to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean
geometrical space. In order to give due prominence
to this relationship, however, we must replace
the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary
magnitude

sqrt(-1)

ct proportional to it. Under these conditions,
the natural laws satisfying the demands of the
(special) theory of relativity assume mathematical
forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly
the same role as the three space co-ordinates.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number

Sue...


Thanks.
Angelo

Sue... ha scritto (wrote):

On May 3, 4:02*pm, Angelo wrote:
Dear Uncle Al, perhaps you remember our (sporadic, ok)
exchanges here in Usenet, mainly on (very interesting)
chemistry topics, which I regret for not having continued.

However, I'm here now to ask some enlightening on what
you said below.

Uncle Al ha scritto (wrote):

[snip]

Were there to be internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning
inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) that would
automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and
arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is
equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.

I think I understand your English, but not enough math & physics
involved above. Could you please clarify (in whichever manner you
like, if possible) such contradictions, maybe pointing me out some
relevant examples?

I don't normally screw up what Uncle Al can
better screw up all by himself but the business
of exploring the chiral anti gravity properties of
stockings worn inside out surely makes immense
demands on his time. ;-)

Not sure to perfectly understand the above (my fault,
of course), but I think to have caught the overall
meaning. BTW, it seems to me, and (if so) appreciate,
that you are luring about 'screwing' and 'wearing inside out'
in connection with 'chirality' ;-) , OTHO cannot comment
on 'gravity', too poor physics knowledge on my side.
And last but not least, no pun intended for Uncle Al.

I think this might be the sort of expression he
was referring to:

... the four-dimensional space-time continuum
of the theory of relativity, in its most essential
formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship
to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean
geometrical space. In order to give due prominence
to this relationship, however, we must replace
the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary
magnitude

sqrt(-1)

ct proportional to it. Under these conditions,
the natural laws satisfying the demands of the
(special) theory of relativity assume mathematical
forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly
the same role as the three space co-ordinates.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number

OK, it appears to me that you've clarified more
the physical side (thanks) than the mathematical
one, in particular the connection with number theory,
theory of real numbers, and arithmetic.

Sue...

Thanks again,
Angelo