EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 14, 10:01*am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
Be sure to ask spaceman what he thinks a "physical cause" is.
Spaceman is a rare breed of goon. He believes that the only real
physical causes are material things acting on material things. Keep in
mind he's an auto mechanic, used to metal touching metal to make
things go. He does not believe in fields, he does not believe in
structure of space and time other that what he learned in 7th grade
math about length, area, volume, and duration.

LOL
metal touching metal?
LOL
Apparently you think cars don't use fields such as when a
coil pack uses to produce high energy sparks to sparkplugs
and you must have missed the fact that a gas explosion does the
actual pushing of the metal that gets the engine running.

That would be material acting on material, no?

PD is just an ass that like to belittle people

I only belittle people who act like asses in a domain where THEY know
nothing. I'll point out that if I were posting to a newsgroup where
your expertise lies and I made an obvious demonstration of my obvious
ignorance and still told you that you don't know what you're doing,
then you would have the complete right to upbraid me for such
infantile behavior. Notice that you are posting to sci.physics, a
newsgroup on a topic where you have demonstrated obvious ignorance and
where you nevertheless feel confident that everyone that uses
relativity has their head up their rear. Any belittlement you have
received has been a *direct result* of your behavior. There are lots
of novices and amateurs that post to this group and are not belittled.
You might consider what it is that you are doing that generates a
different result for you. As Dr. Phil would say, "How that workin' for
ya?"

even when he
knows nothing about what they might really do.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:01 am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
Be sure to ask spaceman what he thinks a "physical cause" is.
Spaceman is a rare breed of goon. He believes that the only real
physical causes are material things acting on material things. Keep
in mind he's an auto mechanic, used to metal touching metal to make
things go. He does not believe in fields, he does not believe in
structure of space and time other that what he learned in 7th grade
math about length, area, volume, and duration.

LOL
metal touching metal?
LOL
Apparently you think cars don't use fields such as when a
coil pack uses to produce high energy sparks to sparkplugs
and you must have missed the fact that a gas explosion does the
actual pushing of the metal that gets the engine running.

That would be material acting on material, no?

Matter causing other matter to move.
Yes.
It works wonderful
Someday you might find out how wonderful.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

On Jul 14, 10:33*am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:01 am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
Be sure to ask spaceman what he thinks a "physical cause" is.
Spaceman is a rare breed of goon. He believes that the only real
physical causes are material things acting on material things. Keep
in mind he's an auto mechanic, used to metal touching metal to make
things go. He does not believe in fields, he does not believe in
structure of space and time other that what he learned in 7th grade
math about length, area, volume, and duration.

LOL
metal touching metal?
LOL
Apparently you think cars don't use fields such as when a
coil pack uses to produce high energy sparks to sparkplugs
and you must have missed the fact that a gas explosion does the
actual pushing of the metal that gets the engine running.

That would be material acting on material, no?

Matter causing other matter to move.
Yes.
It works wonderful

Yes, it does, when it applies. The fact that it works beautifully
where it applies in no way demands that this is what nature does in
all cases.

Now, you are free, I suppose, to *imagine* that it *might* be true in
all cases. But because this isn't OBVIOUSLY so, then what a scientist
does is ask, "OK, so how would that work, exactly?" and "What kinds of
implications does that have that I could look for experimentally?" and
"What do we already know that might rule out some of the scenarios?"
And then the scientist sets to work on gathering answers.

The criticism I have for you in particular is not that you consider
that this *might* be so, and it is not that you don't have the
foggiest idea how to ask or answer those questions, but instead that
you insist that it IS so rather that it MIGHT be so. You insist this
even though you don't know what you're talking about -- and that is
worthy of ridicule.

PD

Someday you might find out how wonderful.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:33 am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:01 am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
Be sure to ask spaceman what he thinks a "physical cause" is.
Spaceman is a rare breed of goon. He believes that the only real
physical causes are material things acting on material things.
Keep in mind he's an auto mechanic, used to metal touching metal
to make things go. He does not believe in fields, he does not
believe in structure of space and time other that what he learned
in 7th grade math about length, area, volume, and duration.

LOL
metal touching metal?
LOL
Apparently you think cars don't use fields such as when a
coil pack uses to produce high energy sparks to sparkplugs
and you must have missed the fact that a gas explosion does the
actual pushing of the metal that gets the engine running.

That would be material acting on material, no?

Matter causing other matter to move.
Yes.
It works wonderful

Yes, it does, when it applies.

And when applied properly, it applies to everything.
But of course you are affraid of that fact.
LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

On Jul 14, 10:56*am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:33 am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:01 am, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
Be sure to ask spaceman what he thinks a "physical cause" is.
Spaceman is a rare breed of goon. He believes that the only real
physical causes are material things acting on material things.
Keep in mind he's an auto mechanic, used to metal touching metal
to make things go. He does not believe in fields, he does not
believe in structure of space and time other that what he learned
in 7th grade math about length, area, volume, and duration.

LOL
metal touching metal?
LOL
Apparently you think cars don't use fields such as when a
coil pack uses to produce high energy sparks to sparkplugs
and you must have missed the fact that a gas explosion does the
actual pushing of the metal that gets the engine running.

That would be material acting on material, no?

Matter causing other matter to move.
Yes.
It works wonderful

Yes, it does, when it applies.

And when applied properly, it applies to everything.

And this statement, without your having any basis for believing this,
is precisely what I just told you is worthy of ridicule. And so you do
it again. I'm beginning to wonder whether you *crave* ridicule.

But of course you are affraid of that fact.
LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

On Jul 11, 8:24*am, Danny Milano wrote:
On Jul 11, 10:28*am, Eric Gisse wrote:





On Jul 10, 3:11*pm, Danny Milano wrote:

On Jul 11, 6:37*am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jul 10, 2:25*pm, Danny Milano wrote:

On Jul 11, 3:51*am, PD wrote:

On Jul 10, 11:14*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

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...g/2d2a006c7d50...
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?

Yes, that's perfectly consistent with what I just told you.
Now, you are apparently still flummoxed with putting this next to
c'=c, thinking there is a contradiction.
There isn't.
c'=c applies in *SPECIAL* relativity, where tidal effects of gravity
are negligible over the distances concerned.
That's why it's called *SPECIAL* relativity, because it applies in
special cases.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi PD,

Do you think it is possible for General Relativity to exist
without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity)
inherent in the theory?

Do you think you are capable of having a meaningful discussion of
general relativity when you are unable to differentiate between
special and general relativity?

[...]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

General Relativity is about curved spacetime causing as one
side effect, gravity.

You miss the point. Gravity _IS_ curvature in general relativity.

Special Relativity is a tiny region of spacetime
which we assume flat.

No more than a surface is assumed flat if you look really close at
it.

Eric Baird book theorized that it is
possible GR is possible without SR. That's why I asked if
it is possible for General Relativity to exist without time
dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) inherent
in the theory?

Baird is an idiot, so "no". And you still don't get it - things like
time dilation and length contraction are fundamental predictions of
the theory of _SPECIAL RELATIVITY_ that are not true in general
relativity.

Time dilation, length contraction may be fundamental predictions
of Special Relativity but in General Relativity, spacetime is
automatically curved. It is inherent in the metric. And a curved
metric automatically implies that time dilates, length distorts
which caused gravity. In other words, when you curve the
metric, time and length is distorted and this can cause dilation
and distortion as in the time dilation near the singularity in
the black hole as well as spagettization in it which is extreme
behavior of the metric.

About Baird. I don't know why he suggests General Relativity
could be true yet Special Relativity could not be true. I mean.
Since General Relativity has inherent time dilation and length
distortion (I didn't say contraction) due to the curved metric.
It won't take much effort for nature to endow the universe
with time dilation, length contraction to occur in flat
spacetime. I know SR implies observer dependent time,
length distortion and GR implies actual distortions
as seen from different reference frames (as in gravitational
time dilation near a planet where all ships would notice it as
similiar in contrast to SR observer dependent fashion).

Agree?

Danny





When we deal with macro object like solar
system and galaxies. GR rule, this means time dilation
and length contraction doesn't apply and only valid in
the tiny region of spacetime or the minkowski metric
and not in the GR manifold, right.

No, it means the situation gets _more_ complicated, not less.
Shapiro delay, gravitational time dilation, etc.

Danny- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text
- Show quoted text -

Dear Danny: "Understanding Einstein" has, for too long, been the
"badge of intellect" of physics buffs. Proclaiming the absurd–—like
all of the space-time h. s...——is so anti-intuitive that normal folks
just turn away. You should have done that, too. Now, because of my
disproofs, Einstein is rightfully just a “badge of stupidity”. Follow
my thread to see if you have... "Einstein's Disease". —— NoEinstein
——