Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PD
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
 |
|
On Jul 10, 8:27 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 10, 9:00 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:27 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 8:18 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.
Salaam alekum!
This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
fact Relativity got rid of the aether.
You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
talking in a prely philosopical way.
I would ask you
WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?
What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
theories?
You know what. I think you have got a rather large file somewhere. You
have an editor along the lines of the Honeywell Buzzword Generator.
You write under a large number of aliases. I do not believe that, or
any other contribution advances our understanding one iota.
What is antirelativity? It is largely a cover for Roswell and the fact
that a large amount of money was squandered. This on top of putting a
large number of red herrings into aerodynamic research.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=area+51+antigravity&meta
Hence my introduction. Reputable physicists were NEVER consulted, just
as no repuable arabist was consulted over Iraq. Antirelativity can
thus be summed up.
No Physics, no Arabic.
- Ian Parker
What? No. I'm not Eric Baird. It's just that there is a whole universe
of difference if Special Relativity is true or a newtonian ad hoc
model
is true. If SR minkowski block spacetime is right. We could be
living in an imaginary universe where any rule is possible dictated
by math. If newtonian model triumps then there is physical
mechanism and physical cause for everything with thermodynamics
statistical fashion possibly explaining even quantum "probabilities".
SR or not. That is the question. Eric Baird has thought of it for
decades. He is the Czar of the antirelativists. I wonder if anyone
has discussed with him previously and knew where he got it
wrong because I can't analyze it right now.
Danny
A couple of comments:
1. It is a misconception that SR is nothing but mathematical
constructs and does not carry the same "physical" basis as Newtonian
physics does. Newtonian physics is no less a mathematical construct
than SR. For example, Newton explicitly offered no mechanism for
gravity, despite being able to write down a general rule for the
strength of that mechanism, and in fact he was quite flummoxed by the
notion of reaching across empty space to influence something without a
tangible mediator. Conversely, SR does offer a physical meaning for
its findings -- just not the little-things-banging-on-little-things
picture you might have imagined it should be.
Well. When different observers in different inertial frames have
different length and time with respect to a reference frame. It goes
over anything Newtonian.
|
Exactly.
| Quote: |
The effect is like inside a mind or machine
or a psychedelic drug trip where perspective can have different
effects on observers. There is nothing newtonian about it.
Something like that.
|
Well, sorta. It's really not as complicated as that. There are frame-
dependent quantities in physics and frame independent quantities.
Always have been. It's just that they aren't quite the ones we once
thought.
| Quote: |
2. The author suggests that a better developed Newtonian model would
account for all of the experimental findings that presently agree with
relativity. That may be so, and the best avenue for demonstrating that
is to actually develop a coherent theory with all the direct causal
factors you think are needed to actually account for all of the things
observed. Included in this should be why successive increments of
kinetic energy added to a particle in flight never raises the velocity
higher than c, just as an example. Note that the author has failed to
provide that. But just to key on something, the presumption is that
Newtonian physics can have enough arbitrary forces and mechanisms
added to it to reproduce ANY arbitrary behavior observed; and that all
one has to do is add enough mechanisms to fit the data. This turns out
to be a bad presumption. Newtonian mechanics has a certain structure
which limits which behaviors could even *conceivably* be fit, no
matter what mechanisms are added to it. And the odd thing is that, in
observation, some phenomena we see are clearly outside those limits.
Modified Newtonian Physics with more than 3 dimensions may
give extra tricks that plain old Newtonian mechanics could't pull off
(?).
|
OK, I'm willing to provisionally entertain the speculation -- but is
there more?
| Quote: |
About your query why adding successive increments of kinetic
energy added to a particle in flight never raises the velocity
higher than c. Eric Baird answered it thus when he mentioned
in the above that:
"From the point of view of the coils, we
can argue that the particle's resistance to
acceleration (and its apparent inertial mass), goes to
infinity as its speed through the accelerator
approaches lightspeed, and we might blame this on the
particle's additional relativistic mass at higher
speeds. But the idea of relativistic mass isn't always
fashionable amongst physicists, so it's handy to have
another way of describing the situation, and we can do
this y describing the experi ment from the point of
view of the particle.
Coupling efficiency
Suppose that our "SR particle" is coasting through a
straight section of accelerator tube at close to
background lightspeed, and we throw more EM energy at
it ... the particle sees the receding accelerator coils
to be redshifted, reducing the frequency, energy, and
radiation pressure of their signals.
|
Whoops, what happened to the blueshifted, approaching coils?
(And BTW here is where the author starts to leak his rather shallow
understanding of how accelerators work. The accelerating component is
typically RF cavities, not magnets, which is where the coils are.)
| Quote: |
With the coils
moving away at lightspeed, SR's Doppler relationships
describe this energy and momentum of their fields
disappearing altogether. So the coupling efficiency
between the accelerator coils and the particle drops
toward zero as their relative recession velocity
approaches lightspeed, and with SR we therefore expect
to be able to accelerate the particle towards the speed
of light, but not to it or beyond it. This is what we
see happening in our accelerators. SR wins!
.. Except that, when we try a similar exercise with
the Doppler relationships for other theories, similar
things have a habit of happening. If we try the
"Newtonian" Doppler relationships we find that with fIf
= (c-v)lc, setting the recession velocity to lightspeed
once again gives a frequency (and energy, and coupling
efficiency) of zero. When we directly accelerate a
particle, the lightspeed limit that we usually think of
as a validation of SR also shows up under Nemonian
mechanics, and presumably also under a range of other
theories.
Indirect acceleration
This "direct acceleration" lightspeed barrier can have
different characteristics under different Models: in
the NM version of the story, an unstable particle
travelling at close to background lightspeed can
fragment and throw off daughter particles, some of
which might travel at more than background c.
|
Which would be detectable, and doesn't happen.
| Quote: |
This
effect is related to NM's support for classical
indirect radiation effects ("semi classical Hawking
radiation), and wouldn't seem to be possible under
SR-based Models. Unfortunately, when we start to deal
with the more "particle-y" aspects of particle physics,
quantum effects become relevant, allowing the
appearance of particles in "impossible" situations to
be explained away by ideas such as quantum tunnelling:
even if we found something that looked like evidence of
superluminal daughter particles, by classifying this as
a quantum effect we could probably still get away with
arguing that the result didn't threaten SR."
|
That's a lot of handwaving. There is no event horizon here, so the
reference to Hawking radiation is a bit off the mark -- the event
horizon is needed to turn virtual particles into a flux of real
particles. As for the rest of the quantum mechanical "boojums" and the
implications that it's all very mysterious and we really don't know
what's going on there, that is also a bit off the mark. The radiation
of virtual and real particles is extremely well understood for
electrons (say, in an electron-positron accelerator), and measurements
agree with theoretical calculations to TWELVE significant figures. For
him to imply that this could all happen under our noses without our
knowing about it, well, it seems a little off.
| Quote: |
3. The author claims that certain combinations of models were dropped
and not sufficiently investigated once relativity landed on the scene.
I would question that. It is a habitual behavior among authors like
this to consider seminal experiments and seminal models, but fail to
read the follow-up research. Physicists actively look for any and all
holes in prevailing theories, because finding the chink in the armor
of a popular model is a good way to make significant progress. The
implication that physicists prefer the status quo is to fail to
recognize that most of the significant developments in physics --
relativity, quantum mechanics, path-integral quantum field theory,
superconductivity theory included -- were significant precisely
because they bucked the prevailing concepts.
PD
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 9:09 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Danny Milano wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:45 pm, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Danny Milano
milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.
Baird said:
"16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity
We're told that the experimental evidence for special
relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable
doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all
this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results
reckoned to support the special theory include:
............
snip crap.
The main point in that collection is, that relativity may be wrong,
and may be replaced by other, better thories, but the author fails
to present one ( 1 ) single successful example.
He is an idiot.
w.
If Eric Baird arguments are valid. It means something. That
special relativity is not right and other newtonian theories may
indeed replace it. At least it settles the fact that SR is wrong
and a unique newtonian model (maybe Thomsonian physics)
await discovery.
Yes, this is true, and don't let the rubber ruler kingdom
stop you from looking for a true physical cause for effects since
that is what "physics" is still about even though they don't
want it to be.
|
Spaceman has no idea what these "true physical causes" are, but he has
faith that if we find them and plug them into Newtonian mechanics,
everything will work fine. See my comments about the structure of
Newtonian mechanics and your response as well. Spaceman is much more
willing to believe in little pink fairies if they make Newtonian
physics work, than to believe in relativity. Just because he can. And
no one can make him believe otherwise. (And so, in his mind, he
"wins".)
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 9:06 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 10, 3:16 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:50 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:18 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.
Salaam alekum!
This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
fact Relativity got rid of the aether.
You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
talking in a prely philosopical way.
I would ask you
WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?
What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
theories?
Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity.
Michelson-Morley in no way contradicts special relativity. You might
say it contradicts special relativity if you take out time dilation
and length contraction, but then again, that ain't special relativity,
is it?
If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley
refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the
antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK?
|
No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle
of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly,
SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson-
Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO
postulates mentioned.
| Quote: |
Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light
The emission theory of light is consistent with Michelson-Morley, but
the emission theory of light is inconsistent with OTHER experimental
results. It is not proper to consider experiments in isolation when
evaluating the evidence in support of or against a theory.
In all those cases "the emission theory" can be reduced to a single
equation, c'=c+v, showing how the speed of light varies with v, the
speed of the light source.
|
Yes, and the implications of such a theory have been thoroughly
explored in the literature.
| Quote: |
It can be shown (but the discussion cannot
be held on this forum)
|
Why not?
| Quote: |
that an exact equation cannot be confirmed by
some experiments and refuted by others, unless something is wrong with
the experiments.
|
If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the
theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead. It is the crank
who insists that because the theory is right, there must be something
wrong with the experiments. Now, on occasion, a single experimental
result is shown to be faulty. But that's why experiments are
reproduced and complementary experiments performed. If two or three
*independent* experiments corroborate each others' findings, then
there is a high confidence value in the result of those experiments.
And if those findings are contrary to a model's predictions, then the
model is dead as burnt toast. This is *precisely* what happened to
emission theory over the last several decades.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danny Milano
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 9:52 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 10, 2:41 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.
There is zero chance that he knows why relativity is wrong. Baird does
not understand relativity yet published a textbook on it anyway, and
explicitly did not seek out corrections from those who are learned in
the field.
Baird said:
"16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity
We're told that the experimental evidence for special
relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable
doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all
this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results
reckoned to support the special theory include:
* E=mc^2
He simplifies, probably because he doesn't know better.
* transverse redshifts
Incorrect terminology - again, doesn't know better. Its' transverse
Doppler shift.
[bla bla bla]
|
I searched for "transverse redshift" in the net. I came across it in
the "redshift" entry in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
"Transverse redshift" is mentioned halfway. Wordsearch for
it in the page and you shall find it. I guess you are into
semantic nitpicking.
Danny
| Quote: |
And while this was a good story to tell credulous
schoolchildren, it was essentially pseudoscience. The
idea that E=mc^2 "belongs" to SR doesn't hold up to
basic mathematical analysis, and to Einstein's credit
he went on to argue for the wider validity of the
result by publishing further papers that derived the
relationship (or a good approximation of it) from more
general arguments outside special relativity. We also
found in section 2.5 (with working supplied in the
Appendices, Calculations 2), that E=mc^ 2 is an exact
result of NM, if we ignore standard teaching and go
directly to the core mathematics. Not only is the
NM-based derivation of E=mc2 reasonably
straightforward, it's shorter than its SR counterpart,
and it's also part of every hypothetical model in
section 13.
This argument is so worthless that not only is it so stupid that it
doesn't need anything past rolled eyes, but it manages to invalidate
the rest of the post based on sheer stupidity. Anyone who can write
this - I don't know or care if its you or just you quoting the idiot -
isn't worth listening to.
|
I wonder if you have discussed with Baird before in the past. I
just found his book at amazon and got it since there is not
much anti-SRists who publish books. I guess if he is cut off.
The rest of the anti-relativists here fall like domino since his
treatise encompassed all the anti-relativists here.
Danny
| Quote: |
[snip]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 9:23 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:09 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:45 pm, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Danny Milano
milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.
Baird said:
"16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity
We're told that the experimental evidence for special
relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable
doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all
this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results
reckoned to support the special theory include:
............
snip crap.
The main point in that collection is, that relativity may be wrong,
and may be replaced by other, better thories, but the author fails
to present one ( 1 ) single successful example.
He is an idiot.
w.
If Eric Baird arguments are valid. It means something. That
special relativity is not right and other newtonian theories may
indeed replace it. At least it settles the fact that SR is wrong
and a unique newtonian model (maybe Thomsonian physics)
await discovery.
Yes, this is true, and don't let the rubber ruler kingdom
stop you from looking for a true physical cause for effects since
that is what "physics" is still about even though they don't
want it to be.
Spaceman has no idea what these "true physical causes" are, but he has
faith that if we find them and plug them into Newtonian mechanics,
everything will work fine. See my comments about the structure of
Newtonian mechanics and your response as well. Spaceman is much more
willing to believe in little pink fairies if they make Newtonian
physics work, than to believe in relativity. Just because he can. And
no one can make him believe otherwise. (And so, in his mind, he
"wins".)
PD,
You have math as a cause only, if you actually thought for yourself
instead of as a read only memory text file , you would see such.
|
Nonsense. There is a perfectly valid physical cause. It's just that
you imagine that the ONLY physical causes you will choose to believe
in are material things bonking up against material things, and
anything else you consider to be not "physical" enough for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
rotchm@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
| Quote: |
By definition,
Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all
inertial frames.
|
Thats true and...
| Quote: |
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.
|
By *definition* too.
"Laws" are those eqs. or relations that take the same form in all i-
frames. We search for such relations and when found it is declared a
"Law". Hence, the principle of relativity is simply a re-statement of
the definition of Law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 7:25 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I wonder if you have discussed with Baird before in the past. I
just found his book at amazon and got it since there is not
much anti-SRists who publish books. I guess if he is cut off.
The rest of the anti-relativists here fall like domino since his
treatise encompassed all the anti-relativists here.
Danny
|
Yes, he comes periodically on this forum to peddle his "book".
It is obvious that you wasted your 15$ buying it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pentcho Valev
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 3:44 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Whether time indeed dilate or length indeed contract or
whether hidden newtonian principle is at work without
directly altering time and length is a major points for
scrutiny. I just found Eric Baird unique in that one
doesn't commonly encounter an anti-relativist
publishing a book. The full title of his book is
"Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special
Relatity". Baird believes General Relativity or
curved spacetime could be true yet in a small
point of it, flat spacetime doesn't work because
it's curved spacetime all the way to the planck horizon.
Well. At least Baird believes in general relativity. But
then isn't it that General Relativity had been inspired
by Special Relativity. I read in Wheeler "Black hole..."
that Einstein imagined time dilation occured in
different height and he thoght what if the different
time dilation could cause gravity itself. So SR leads
to GR although Eric Baird believes GR could be
cooked up entirely without SR. Hmm... the book
is dense, have to read it if I have more time.
|
General relativity is an INCONSISTENCY, that is, a theory where
assertions are accompanied by their negations. It keeps Einstein's
1905 false light postulate (c'=c) but at the same time has implicitly
introduced its antithesis, the true equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light. An instructive, although somewhat
misleading, description of this malignant theoretical construction (an
inconsistency is much more dangerous than a false theory) is given by
Newton-Smith (W. H. Newton-Smith, The rationality of science,
Routledge, London, 1981, p. 229):
"A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including
this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories,
our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it
will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple
argument shows. Let ‘q’ be an arbitrary sentence of the language and
suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive
the sentence ‘p and not-p’. From this ‘p’ follows. And from ‘p’ it
follows that ‘p or q’ (if ‘p’ is true then ‘p or q’ will be true no
matter whether ‘q’ is true or not). Equally, it follows from ‘p and
not-p’ that ‘not-p’. But ‘not-p’ together with ‘p or q’ entails ‘q’.
Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit
everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that
did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which
contained each sentence of the theory’s language and its negation."
The deduction performed by Newton-Smith is unacceptable to a physicist
since « from ‘p’ it follows that ‘p or q’ » is not a relevant physical
argument (see http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf ). Still the
central idea – that the lowest degree of verisimilitude should be
given to an inconsistency – is correct.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 9:25 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I wonder if you have discussed with Baird before in the past. I
just found his book at amazon and got it since there is not
much anti-SRists who publish books. I guess if he is cut off.
The rest of the anti-relativists here fall like domino since his
treatise encompassed all the anti-relativists here.
|
I wish that were true, but it turns out there's a million ways to be
wrong, and Baird is just wrong a couple hundred of those ways.
It isn't all that unusual for antirelativists to publish their own
books. Self-publishing is easy (though not all that cheap) with the
help of print-on-demand micropublishers like Chocolate Tree Books,
which is the one that produced Eric's book. (So far, CTB has produced
exactly two books.) There are actually some quite lavishly produced
books by all manner of cranks, including one I saw recently that must
have cost a million dollars to make that was an anti-evolution
diatribe funded by a religious order.
Other examples of antirelativistic books:
Ken Seto's Model Mechanics -- he can no longer afford the web page
where he used to sell his book.
David Thompson's Secrets of the Aether -- http://www.16pi2.com/
Einsteinhoax -- http://users.isp.com/retic/physics/index.htm
PD
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 6:25 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
Its' unfortunate you bought his book. I'd ask for a refund. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 10:06 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:23 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:09 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:45 pm, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Danny Milano
milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.
Baird said:
"16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity
We're told that the experimental evidence for special
relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable
doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all
this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results
reckoned to support the special theory include:
............
snip crap.
The main point in that collection is, that relativity may be
wrong, and may be replaced by other, better thories, but the
author fails to present one ( 1 ) single successful example.
He is an idiot.
w.
If Eric Baird arguments are valid. It means something. That
special relativity is not right and other newtonian theories may
indeed replace it. At least it settles the fact that SR is wrong
and a unique newtonian model (maybe Thomsonian physics)
await discovery.
Yes, this is true, and don't let the rubber ruler kingdom
stop you from looking for a true physical cause for effects since
that is what "physics" is still about even though they don't
want it to be.
Spaceman has no idea what these "true physical causes" are, but he
has faith that if we find them and plug them into Newtonian
mechanics, everything will work fine. See my comments about the
structure of Newtonian mechanics and your response as well.
Spaceman is much more willing to believe in little pink fairies if
they make Newtonian physics work, than to believe in relativity.
Just because he can. And no one can make him believe otherwise.
(And so, in his mind, he "wins".)
PD,
You have math as a cause only, if you actually thought for yourself
instead of as a read only memory text file , you would see such.
Nonsense. There is a perfectly valid physical cause. It's just that
you imagine that the ONLY physical causes you will choose to believe
in are material things bonking up against material things, and
anything else you consider to be not "physical" enough for you.
You say "physical cause" but you never prove the "physical" parts.
Your brainwashing was done very well.
|
You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things bonking
up against material things -- that is not the only thing that counts
as a "physical cause".
If you think that it is, then please explain to me what material thing
bonking up against a material thing is responsible for the moon
staying in orbit around the sun. If you say "gravity", I'd say "Lovely
word. What does it mean? What's the *mechanism* for gravity,
Spaceman?" If you have no answer to that, then I'd say your Newtonian
brainwashing was complete.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 10:18 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:1p6dnbbJbez5huvVnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com
PD wrote:
Spaceman has no idea what these "true physical causes" are, but he
has faith that if we find them and plug them into Newtonian
mechanics, everything will work fine. See my comments about the
structure of Newtonian mechanics and your response as well. Spaceman
is much more willing to believe in little pink fairies if they make
Newtonian physics work, than to believe in relativity. Just because
he can. And no one can make him believe otherwise. (And so, in his
mind, he "wins".)
PD,
You have math as a cause only, if you actually thought for yourself
instead of as a read only memory text file , you would see such.
James still doesn't know the difference between a
mathematical model and what it models. James doesn't
(won't?) understand that the observations come before
the math. James doesn't like the idea of a world that
might behave differently from his kindergarten
understanding of it and fervent wishes of how things
should be, so he denies all empirical evidence to the
contrary.
|
What he says is that a physical model must satisfy certain criteria,
otherwise they just cannot be right. He has a favorite physical model
that he probably knows is inconsistent with observation, but it meets
the criteria he has in his head, and so this means it must be right.
And if the observations don't agree with the model, then the problem
is just that we're missing some piece of the model, some Newtonian
force or something, that will make it all work out. He doesn't believe
in chucking a model if it conflicts with experimental evidence,
especially a model he likes. He'd rather doubt the evidence. As far as
he's concerned, any model other than his doesn't meet those certain
criteria, and so they're automatically removed from consideration,
even if they agree with the data.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pentcho Valev
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 4:25 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 10, 9:06 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley
refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the
antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK?
No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle
of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly,
SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson-
Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO
postulates mentioned.
|
It is still OK. First try to realize that the deduction of time
dilation, length contraction and all idiotic "paradoxes" is in fact
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, then reject accodingly Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate and you obtain what I say above.
| Quote: |
If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the
theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead.
|
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)?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:43 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 10:35 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 10, 4:25 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:06 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley
refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the
antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK?
No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle
of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly,
SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson-
Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO
postulates mentioned.
It is still OK.
|
Sorry, no.
| Quote: |
First try to realize that the deduction of time
dilation, length contraction and all idiotic "paradoxes" is in fact
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM,
|
There is absolutely nothing illogical or inconsistent or paradoxical
about time dilation or length contraction. I haven't got the foggiest
idea what you think is illogical or inconsistent or paradoxical.
| Quote: |
then reject accodingly Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate and you obtain what I say above.
If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the
theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead.
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?
PD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pentcho Valev
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY? |
|
|
On Jul 10, 3:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
We've talked about this. The bug is definitely squashed. Your short-
term memory seems to be loose somewhere.
|
Zombie know: no bug no problem. Zombie clever very clever.
| Quote: |
or the 80m-long-pole-trapped-inside-40m-long-barn
paradox?
We've talked about this, too. It's a 36m-long-pole-inside-a-40m-long-
barn and that doesn't sound so paradoxical.
|
Zombie know: 80m in 40m difficult. Master say possible but zombie know
difficult. Zombie clever very clever. Zobbie know: 36m in 40m
possible. Easy. Good. Zombie clever very clever.
| Quote: |
I think only Einsteiniana can produce such wisdom:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."
|
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
