What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On 9/18/2011 11:44 AM, maxwell wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:49 am, wrote:
On Sep 13, 10:32 am, wrote:



Precisely so for elephants but this does not extend to accelerators.
We do not 'see' muons (or any sub-atomic objects. We construct
machines according to a theory of how these machines will interact
with these objects. So, what is your theory that tells you that the
relative speed of the machine vs. muon will effect the results?

Actually, it isn't really true that machines are constructed according
to how some theory dictates how the machine will interact with the
objects.

Muons are charged particles, and as such they behave just like ALL
charged objects, and there is a whole class of observations associated
with how charged particles interact with matter, and detectors are
designed to amplify the signal associated with that.http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2...les-matter.pdf

Other than that, you really don't have to make much in the way of
assumptions about the behavior of muons. For example, it is sometimes
claimed that you have to assume that muons travel slower than c in
order to measure what speed they travel. That's just plain wrong. If
you don't know how fast something is traveling, you just note the time
they cross a starting line and the time they cross a finish line, and
you subtract those times, and you can measure the distance between
start and finish lines at any time. There is no assumption about c
required at all.

Your example of 'measuring' velocity is an example of extrapolating
human-scale thinking down to the atomic scale or smaller. As you know,
we do not 'observe' sub-atomic particles without interfering with
their motion (HUP) so your example is wrong for muons. As I said, you
are just making analogous statements without any experimental evidence
- what I would expect from a mathematician but I expect better from a
physicist.

The interference from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is
calculable. In most circumstances, it is a negligible effect. If one
were to take your statement to be absolute -- that it is impossible to
measure the motion of subatomic particles -- then sixty years of
particle tracking detectors in particle accelerator experiments would
have been a profound and willful waste of time. And yet, it is certainly
possible to track the trajectories of particles well enough to
reconstruct an invariant mass with very high precision. See for example,
the discovery of the J/psi particle by Burt Richter and Sam Ting.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...er-lecture.pdf
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/listings/rpp...t-J-psi-1S.pdf

PD wrote in
:

[...]

As an example of this, GSS cites relativistic quantum mechanics, and
says that the sole difference between it and nonrelativistic quantum
mechanics is relativistic mass and mass-energy equivalence. Nothing
could be further from the truth. I would be interested in hearing how
it is, according to GSS, the prediction of positrons (electron
antiparticles with opposite *charge*) can be derived from mass-energy
equivalence, or how the manifest covariance of the QED Lagrangian
comes from relativistic mass.

If GSS knows what a Lagrangian is, I'd be impressed.

On Sep 18, 6:48 pm, PD wrote:
On 9/18/2011 6:35 AM, GSS wrote:
.....
It is generally believed that main applications of the theory of
Relativity a High Energy Physics, Particle Accelerators and
Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. All these applications are based on
the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the associated notion of
dynamic or relativistic mass. However, it is true that the mass-energy
equivalence is an independent concept not based on the *false
assumptions* of Relativity.

It is a common tactic, and a fallacious one, by amateurs and hacks to
say that the acceptance of relativity hinges on a single prediction or a
single conceptual lynchpin, and that if it can be shown that this one
key statement is either suspect or is replicated in another theory, then
the whole structure of relativity collapses in a dust heap.

Yes it is true that the second postulate of SR is the 'single
conceptual lynchpin' of Relativity. Once you prove or show
experimentally that the second postulate is wrong or invalid, then
"the whole structure of relativity collapses in a dust heap."

This unfortunately is only an indication that the critic neither
appreciates the scope of relativity, nor the scope of its application.
There is no such single weak spot or keystone prediction.

Kindly make a little effort to appreciate that, once you discard the
second postulate of SR as wrong,

(a) Einstein's arbitrary definition that *the 'time' required by light
to travel from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B
to A* will be rendered invalid, thereby removing the e-synchronization
procedure. This will also invalidate the notion of relative time and
restore the Newtonian absolute notion of time.
(b) Notions of *time dilation* and *length contraction* will vanish.
(c) The Lorentz transformation will no longer remain valid for any
physical measurements.
(d) Any skeleton of SR that still remains will be just a farce.

I hope you can appreciate this fact.

GSS

On Sep 19, 8:34*am, ASS wrote:
snip imbecilities

ASS

Gurcharn,

1. There are modern formulations of SR that do not employ the second
postulate.
2. SR is one of the most tested theories and it passed all tests.
3. Amongst the tests, the ones on light speed isotropy are amongst the
strictest.
4. You are an imbecile and you will die one.

On 9/19/11 8:34 AM, GSS wrote:
Yes it is true that the second postulate of SR is the 'single
conceptual lynchpin' of Relativity. Once you prove or show
experimentally that the second postulate is wrong or invalid, then
"the whole structure of relativity collapses in a dust heap."

That will be hard to do, given that all measurements of the
speed of light are consistent with it being c.

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?

3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...#one-way_tests

Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and
find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of
theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These
theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is
isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only
in an æther frame. In all of these theories the effects of slow clock
transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of
light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results
for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in
which these theories are called “Edwards frames”).

Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated. Places
an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.

Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731–734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the Earth and separated by a 21-km
fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them. They
put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s.

Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), pg 241.
Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965).
Isaak et al., Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), pg 255.
Uses a rotating Mössbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an upper
limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s.

Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252.
Uses a rotating source and fixed Mössbauer detector to place an upper
limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/s.

Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), pg 1767.
A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent with SR.

T.W. Cole, “Astronomical Tests for the Presence of an Ether”, Mon. Not.
R. Astr. Soc. (1976), 175 93P-96P.
Several VLBI tests sensitive to first-order effects of an æther are
described. No æther is detected, with a sensitivity of 70 m/s.

Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of
propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.
A “one-way” test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in glass
and the return ray in air. The interferometer is by design particularly
robust against mechanical perturbations, and temperature controlled. The
limit on the anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| On 9/19/11 8:34 AM, GSS wrote:
| Yes it is true that the second postulate of SR is the 'single
| conceptual lynchpin' of Relativity. Once you prove or show
| experimentally that the second postulate is wrong or invalid, then
| "the whole structure of relativity collapses in a dust heap."
|
| That will be hard to do, given that all measurements of the
| speed of light are consistent with it being c.

The squirming wormlet is a ridiculous lying ******* and a troll.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img31.gif

In article , says...

On 9/17/2011 11:24 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:




So what you're trying to get away with here with this "world line" crap is that the accelerations cannot be made
insignificant by long durations of constant v?

Just crap.

Just saying "just crap" doesn't remove the kink from the world line.


Be as determined as you like, along with hoards of the scientific community, but you have been fools all these
years and that's a simple fact.

If you wish to believe so, being as determined as you like and all.

The point, remember, is not to convince you of anything. After all, one
can't convince a mule or a lawn ornament, and there really isn't much
point in trying, even if the mule or the lawn ornament is daring you to try.


Observer A and B move with constant v to each other.

Time dilates the same to each other.

Whose clock "is" running slower?

We can add C, D, E..................... too if you like. There is no absolute FofR after all. Anyone can be the
stationary one.

"Androcles" wrote in message ...


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| On 9/19/11 8:34 AM, GSS wrote:
| Yes it is true that the second postulate of SR is the 'single
| conceptual lynchpin' of Relativity. Once you prove or show
| experimentally that the second postulate is wrong or invalid, then
| "the whole structure of relativity collapses in a dust heap."
|
| That will be hard to do, given that all measurements of the
| speed of light are consistent with it being c.

The squirming wormlet is a ridiculous lying ******* and a troll.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img31.gif

That doesn't say anything contrary to the speed of light being c. It
doesn't really say anything meaningful until you say what the other symbols
mean. But you wouldn't understand as you know no next to nothing of
physics and maths.

Mike Varney aka "Inertial" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote
| |GSS wrote:
| Yes it is true that the second postulate of SR is the 'single
| conceptual lynchpin' of Relativity. Once you prove or show
| experimentally that the second postulate is wrong or invalid, then
| "the whole structure of relativity collapses in a dust heap."
|
"Sam Wormley" wrote:
| That will be hard to do, given that all measurements of the
| speed of light are consistent with it being c.

Andro wrote:
The squirming wormlet is a ridiculous lying ******* and a troll.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img31.gif

Varney wrote:
That doesn't say anything contrary to the speed of light being c. It
doesn't really say anything meaningful until you say what the other
symbols mean. But you wouldn't understand as you know no next to nothing
of physics and maths.

hanson wrote:
OMG, Varney, you pood sucker. Your fat ass is Andro's now.
He'll beat the Einstein Dingleberries off your trou de queue, now.
Einstein's Equation in Andro's link says:
x' = t *( c-v). ... Rewrite that as
x'/t = c - v and then as
c = x'/t + v ...

IOW, Varney.. Einstein says that c depends on t, x' and v..
each one being a variable and giving c a different value.

Now like anything else in SR, you can interpret that in
any way you wish... which first and foremost says that
=====SR is short for STUPID RANT and ====
===== GR is just a GULLIBLE RECITAL ====

which you too could eventually see, if you can escape
from the now century old brainwashing that Einstein's
kikedom has subjected you to... Till then, thanks for
the laughs, Varney... ahahahaha.... ahahahanson

"hanson" wrote in message ...


Mike Varney aka "Inertial" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote
| |GSS wrote:
| Yes it is true that the second postulate of SR is the 'single
| conceptual lynchpin' of Relativity. Once you prove or show
| experimentally that the second postulate is wrong or invalid, then
| "the whole structure of relativity collapses in a dust heap."
|
"Sam Wormley" wrote:
| That will be hard to do, given that all measurements of the
| speed of light are consistent with it being c.

Andro wrote:
The squirming wormlet is a ridiculous lying ******* and a troll.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img31.gif

Varney wrote:
That doesn't say anything contrary to the speed of light being c. It
doesn't really say anything meaningful until you say what the other
symbols mean. But you wouldn't understand as you know no next to
nothing of physics and maths.

hanson wrote:
OMG, Varney,

I'm not Varney

Bye