Why is SR still controversial?

On Jul 15, 8:29*am, "Sue..." wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?

It isn't. SR is a well established theory with a definite domain of
applicability, and within that domain there is no controversy
whatsoever: there is not a single reproducible experiment that is in
conflict with its predictions within its domain.

The key to understanding special relativity is
Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:

* * All inertial frames are totally equivalent
* * for the performance of all physical experiments.

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames.

So...
Is Hafele and Keating ~within the domain of applicability~ * ?
Is it a proof, disproof or falsifacataion of SR? http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm

Sue you are rarely relevant but this time you are.

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 15, 3:06 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 15, 8:29 am, "Sue..." wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:



On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?

It isn't. SR is a well established theory with a definite domain of
applicability, and within that domain there is no controversy
whatsoever: there is not a single reproducible experiment that is in
conflict with its predictions within its domain.

The key to understanding special relativity is
Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:

All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames.

So...
Is Hafele and Keating ~within the domain of applicability~ ?
Is it a proof, disproof or falsifacataion of SR?http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm

Sue you are rarely relevant but this time you are.

That may mean some of things "deemed" irrelvant
were actually outside of someone tunnel vision.

In the far-field macroatomic realm the speed of
light propagation is independent of both emitter
and absorber. It is established by the
eps and mu of free-space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Correct?

Sue...


Pentcho Valev

On Jul 15, 11:29*am, "Sue..." wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:06 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jul 15, 8:29 am, "Sue..." wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?

It isn't. SR is a well established theory with a definite domain of
applicability, and within that domain there is no controversy
whatsoever: there is not a single reproducible experiment that is in
conflict with its predictions within its domain.

The key to understanding special relativity is
Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:

* * All inertial frames are totally equivalent
* * for the performance of all physical experiments.

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames.

So...
Is Hafele and Keating ~within the domain of applicability~ * ?
Is it a proof, disproof or falsifacataion of SR? http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm

Sue you are rarely relevant but this time you are.

That may mean some of things "deemed" irrelvant
were actually outside of someone tunnel vision.

In the far-field macroatomic realm the speed of
light propagation is independent of both emitter
and absorber. *It is established by the
eps and mu of free-space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Correct?

The reference to wikipedia is irrelevant again but you can consider
some firmly established result, e.g. the gravitational redshift factor
1+V/c^2 experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka. Then you ask
yourself:

Sue: "Is the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 consistent with
Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) or is it consistent with the
antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light?"

Finally, you answer your own question and inform the world about the
logic you have used.

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 15, 6:29 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:29 am, "Sue..." wrote:



On Jul 15, 3:06 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jul 15, 8:29 am, "Sue..." wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?

It isn't. SR is a well established theory with a definite domain of
applicability, and within that domain there is no controversy
whatsoever: there is not a single reproducible experiment that is in
conflict with its predictions within its domain.

The key to understanding special relativity is
Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:

All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames.

So...
Is Hafele and Keating ~within the domain of applicability~ ?
Is it a proof, disproof or falsifacataion of SR?http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm

Sue you are rarely relevant but this time you are.

That may mean some of things "deemed" irrelvant
were actually outside of someone tunnel vision.

In the far-field macroatomic realm the speed of
light propagation is independent of both emitter
and absorber. It is established by the
eps and mu of free-space.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Correct?

The reference to wikipedia is irrelevant ...

Proving my point.

I have long assumed you think electromagnetism
has nothing to offfer so it is irrelevant.

If you ever decide
to view things with a broader scope, you
will find this treatment of light...
Well....enlightning!

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

Sue...




again but you can consider
some firmly established result, e.g. the gravitational redshift factor
1+V/c^2 experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka. Then you ask
yourself:

Sue: "Is the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 consistent with
Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) or is it consistent with the
antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light?"

Finally, you answer your own question and inform the world about the
logic you have used.

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 15, 12:43*pm, "Sue..." wrote:
On Jul 15, 6:29 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jul 15, 11:29 am, "Sue..." wrote:

On Jul 15, 3:06 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jul 15, 8:29 am, "Sue..." wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?

It isn't. SR is a well established theory with a definite domain of
applicability, and within that domain there is no controversy
whatsoever: there is not a single reproducible experiment that is in
conflict with its predictions within its domain.

The key to understanding special relativity is
Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:

* * All inertial frames are totally equivalent
* * for the performance of all physical experiments.

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames.

So...
Is Hafele and Keating ~within the domain of applicability~ * ?
Is it a proof, disproof or falsifacataion of SR? http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm

Sue you are rarely relevant but this time you are.

That may mean some of things "deemed" irrelvant
were actually outside of someone tunnel vision.

In the far-field macroatomic realm the speed of
light propagation is independent of both emitter
and absorber. *It is established by the
eps and mu of free-space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Correct?

The reference to wikipedia is irrelevant ...

Proving my point.

I have long assumed you think electromagnetism
has nothing to offfer so it is irrelevant.

YOUR REFERENCE is irrelevant or, more precisely, in this case
wikipedia authors are too silly or dishonest. Maxwell's ectromagnetism
is quite straightforward about the speed of light and John Kennaugh
has just explained this. According to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the
speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer relative to the
aether:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...dc1468b57a1876
John Kennaugh: "Two predictions of Maxwells theory we Prediction 1
- Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the source. Prediction 2 - Because the
speed is controlled by the aether, the speed of an observer relative
to the aether will add to or subtract from the speed of light in the
aether."

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 15, 7:46 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:43 pm, "Sue..." wrote:



On Jul 15, 6:29 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jul 15, 11:29 am, "Sue..." wrote:

On Jul 15, 3:06 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Jul 15, 8:29 am, "Sue..." wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?

It isn't. SR is a well established theory with a definite domain of
applicability, and within that domain there is no controversy
whatsoever: there is not a single reproducible experiment that is in
conflict with its predictions within its domain.

The key to understanding special relativity is
Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:

All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames.

So...
Is Hafele and Keating ~within the domain of applicability~ ?
Is it a proof, disproof or falsifacataion of SR?http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm

Sue you are rarely relevant but this time you are.

That may mean some of things "deemed" irrelvant
were actually outside of someone tunnel vision.

In the far-field macroatomic realm the speed of
light propagation is independent of both emitter
and absorber. It is established by the
eps and mu of free-space.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Correct?

The reference to wikipedia is irrelevant ...

Proving my point.

I have long assumed you think electromagnetism
has nothing to offfer so it is irrelevant.

YOUR REFERENCE is irrelevant or, more precisely, in this case
wikipedia authors are too silly or dishonest. Maxwell's ectromagnetism
is quite straightforward about the speed of light and John Kennaugh
has just explained this. According to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the
speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer relative to the
aether:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/8edc1468b57...
John Kennaugh: "Two predictions of Maxwells theory we Prediction 1
- Because the speed is controlled by the aether, the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the source. Prediction 2 - Because the
speed is controlled by the aether, the speed of an observer relative
to the aether will add to or subtract from the speed of light in the
aether."

John Kennaugh can't make up his mind whether "photons" are
divisible or not and he hasn't the inclination to study a
telescope interferometer to know how he should make up
his mind.

The Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) at
Paranal Observatory has just seen another extension
of its already impressive capabilities by combining
interferometrically the light from two relocatable
1.8-m Auxiliary Telescopes.

Following the installation of the first Auxiliary
Telescope (AT) in January 2004 (see ESO PR 01/04),
the second AT arrived at the VLT platform by the
end of 2004. Shortly thereafter, during the night of
February 2 to 3, 2005, the two high-tech telescopes
teamed up and quickly succeeded in performing
interferometric observations.
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p.../pr-06-05.html

It is impossible to consider his concept until he
makes up his mind what it is.

Sue...



Pentcho Valev