Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
 |
|
On Jul 14, 1:39 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?
Freedom of thought and expression.
Elements of reflexion can be found in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
I was unaware. How many have been hospitalized as a result of this violence?
--
--Bryan
|
By "violently", I meant "meanly".
Marcel Luttgens |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 6:20 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr 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 validity of SR is stricto sensu limited to inertial
frames of reference, which don't exist in the physical
world.
Marcel Luttgens
| Quote: |
Do not misidentify a handful of prolific fools and idiots as a
"controversy".
Tom Roberts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 4:53 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 6:20 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr 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 validity of SR is stricto sensu limited to inertial
frames of reference, which don't exist in the physical
world.
|
Sure they do, Marcel. Open up any textbook on the subject and you'll
see it explained that while 100% inertial frames do not exist you can
always get close enough over small distances.
| Quote: |
Marcel Luttgens
Do not misidentify a handful of prolific fools and idiots as a
"controversy".
Tom Roberts
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 7:53 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 6:20 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr 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 validity of SR is stricto sensu limited to inertial
frames of reference, which don't exist in the physical
world.
|
And Newton's first law in a strict sense applies to objects that have
no net force on them, which don't exist in the real world.
However, in both cases, there are certainly ample situations where the
deviations from absolute adherence are below the level of sensitivity
of the measurement, and in these situations, both SR and Newton's
first law serve as excellent and predictive models.
| Quote: |
Marcel Luttgens
Do not misidentify a handful of prolific fools and idiots as a
"controversy".
Tom Roberts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
paparios@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On 15 jul, 09:44, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 7:53 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Jul 15, 6:20 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr 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 validity of SR is stricto sensu limited to inertial
frames of reference, which don't exist in the physical
world.
And Newton's first law in a strict sense applies to objects that have
no net force on them, which don't exist in the real world.
However, in both cases, there are certainly ample situations where the
deviations from absolute adherence are below the level of sensitivity
of the measurement, and in these situations, both SR and Newton's
first law serve as excellent and predictive models.
Marcel Luttgens
Do not misidentify a handful of prolific fools and idiots as a
"controversy".
Tom Roberts
|
All physics theories try to model nature's way. As such, they are just
models and, for sure, they are good acceptable models when they allow
us to predict nature's behavior in a useful way. So we have that for
simple problems, Newtonian physics is more than adequate and allow us
to build very complex structures (buildings, airplanes, etc.). Special
and General Relativity, together with Quantum Physics, all have their
niches where they provide the answers which other theories do not
(digital electronics, GPS, etc.).
In my opinion, SR suffers more from us their own supporters, who had
not being able to make a good connection bridge between the
knowledgeable people and the general public. So SR, for instance, is
more known because of the so called "paradoxes" and poor to really
awful cheap explanations of the sort of "learn relativity in 5
minutes", than for its real predictive value. Of course there are very
good texts on relativity, but most people from the general public will
be lost after a few pages in the mathematics involved on those books.
Regarding relativity debunkers in this forum, I'm in total agreement
with Tom Roberts statement:
“History also shows that nobody has ever developed a new and useful
theory without being familiar with the then-current theories and
experiments. That's why the idiots and crackpots around here are so
pathetic: if they truly wanted to make a contribution, they would be
seriously STUDYING the current theories and experimental record, and
trying to extend one or the other…”
I would also ask them if they have ever participated in a scientific
research project of any sort. That is the real way of doing things.
The rest are just opinions.
Miguel Rios |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 14, 5:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
Why is SR still controversial?
|
SRT is still controversial because the SRians failed (refused) to
realize that a clock second do not have the same duration (absolute
time content) in different frames. The fact that a clock second does
not have the same duration (the same absolute time content) in
different frames is the reason why every observer measures the speed
of light as a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,3458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new concept for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity---called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT
as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. A paper on IRt entilted "Imroved
Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Because it threatens their religion belief.
Ken Seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Koobee Wublee
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 7:29 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
It [SR] isn't [controversial]. Morons are born every day, who believe
the Earth is flat and that the universe revolves around the Earth.
|
I doubt it. It is just an excuse for you to continue your belief in
SR. <shrug>
| Quote: |
When M/M (and many others later) measured the speed of light on two paths at
right angles and found it the same over the course of a year, only two
conclusions are possible [...]
|
The conclusion of MMX according to consensus is that these two beams
of light arrive at the detector without any PHASE difference. The
emission theory of light can easily account for the result of this
experiment. In the emission theory, light particles are treated like
any others including baseballs. Since the emission theory does not
agree with electromagnetism, it has enabled many adventurous minds to
work out the mathematical model since. Most of these conjectures are
stupid and rather absurd down right. That should be very
understandable. <shrug>
| Quote: |
[...] Special Revelativity really is that simple.
|
Yes, that is true. It is so simple that anyone with any intelligence
would be able to see through the fallacy in it. However, the religion
of SR has taken hold right at the instance when the Lorentz transform
was introduced. In doing so, we are witnessing so many wise guys that
were told the beauty in the Lorentz transform (which is a truth) but
not the absurdity within and choose to spread the gospel of SR to all
the corners of classrooms mindlessly. <shrug> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 10:11 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 5:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?
SRT is still controversial because the SRians failed (refused) to
realize that a clock second do not have the same duration (absolute
time content) in different frames. The fact that a clock second does
not have the same duration (the same absolute time content) in
different frames is the reason why every observer measures the speed
of light as a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,3458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new concept for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity---called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT
as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. A paper on IRt entilted "Imroved
Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
|
Ken unfortunately can no longer process comments on his theory, due to
advancing senility. Please be warned that nothing you say to him today
will be retained tomorrow.
Physicists LOVE revolutions. Nobel prize winners almost ALL broke
conventional wisdom. See how they were punished for that? But they
have to be revolutions that turn out to be right. Revolutions for the
sake of revolution are not constructive.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 11:03 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 7:29 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
It [SR] isn't [controversial]. Morons are born every day, who believe
the Earth is flat and that the universe revolves around the Earth.
I doubt it. It is just an excuse for you to continue your belief in
SR. <shrug
When M/M (and many others later) measured the speed of light on two paths at
right angles and found it the same over the course of a year, only two
conclusions are possible [...]
The conclusion of MMX according to consensus is that these two beams
of light arrive at the detector without any PHASE difference. The
emission theory of light can easily account for the result of this
experiment. In the emission theory, light particles are treated like
any others including baseballs.
|
I see. So it is your position that in the emission theory, there are
no waves and so there is no phase and so there is no phase difference?
Please let this be your position.
| Quote: |
Since the emission theory does not
agree with electromagnetism, it has enabled many adventurous minds to
work out the mathematical model since. Most of these conjectures are
stupid and rather absurd down right. That should be very
understandable. <shrug
[...] Special Revelativity really is that simple.
Yes, that is true. It is so simple that anyone with any intelligence
would be able to see through the fallacy in it. However, the religion
of SR has taken hold right at the instance when the Lorentz transform
was introduced. In doing so, we are witnessing so many wise guys that
were told the beauty in the Lorentz transform (which is a truth) but
not the absurdity within and choose to spread the gospel of SR to all
the corners of classrooms mindlessly. <shrug |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Raghar
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 4:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Jul 15, 6:20 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
For example, the GPS uses the Earth Centered Inertial Frame, which is
accurately inertial in the region near the earth (clocks are corrected
for their altitudes). The success of the GPS shows that this is a valid
approximation. But don't try to use the GPS to measure positions of
lunar or solar probes.
|
Imagine a device that sends in a regular interval some information.
Set these devices to predicable (circular) trajectories evenly spaced
on the plane. Create an another rotational plane and fill it by these
devices. Create yet another to have proper delta u, to avoid
degenerate cases. Set amount of devices to reasonable level to avoid
unnecessary costs.
Design an algorithm that would allow synchronization of dependents on
the ground based on received signals from the above devices.
As a bonus design an algorithm that would allow a perfect
synchronization between all devices moving on a single plane of
rotation.
Both these algorithms could be made without use of SR, at an accuracy
that depends on interference of third objects, and manufacturing
accuracy of T/R componnents.
So GPS is not a proof of a SR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tom Roberts
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 6:20 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr 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 validity of SR is stricto sensu limited to inertial
frames of reference, which don't exist in the physical
world.
|
This is PHYSICS, not some abstract debating society. There is no
"stricto sensu" in PHYSICS (or any other science).
The real question is: for a given experimental situation, is SR accurate
enough to be applied? For a great majority of experiments it is.
For example, the GPS uses the Earth Centered Inertial Frame, which is
accurately inertial in the region near the earth (clocks are corrected
for their altitudes). The success of the GPS shows that this is a valid
approximation. But don't try to use the GPS to measure positions of
lunar or solar probes.
For example, consider any modern elementary particle experiment. The
particles travel with speeds approaching c, and the duration of the
measurement is limited to a few hundred nanoseconds. During that time
the locally-inertial frame used in the analysis falls due to the earth's
gravitation by an amount VASTLY smaller than the experimental
resolutions. So SR is valid for such measurements.
There are literally zillions of similar examples. they have one common
feature: gravity is not important for their physical situations and
measurement resolutions.
Tom Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Koobee Wublee
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 9:51 am, PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 11:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The conclusion of MMX according to consensus is that these two beams
of light arrive at the detector without any PHASE difference. The
emission theory of light can easily account for the result of this
experiment. In the emission theory, light particles are treated like
any others including baseballs.
I see. So it is your position that in the emission theory, there are
no waves and so there is no phase and so there is no phase difference?
Please let this be your position.
|
It sounds like you have a secret weapon up your sleeves ready to hit
me over the head with. OK, I will bite. Yes, that is indeed my
position. The emission theory of light cannot cope with wave-like
nature as described by the Maxwell equations. This is something
Androcles the nitwit cannot understand. Is this also something you
have trouble with?
| Quote: |
Since the emission theory does not
agree with electromagnetism, it has enabled many adventurous minds to
work out the mathematical model since. Most of these conjectures are
stupid and rather absurd down right. That should be very
understandable. <shrug
[...] Special Revelativity really is that simple.
Yes, that is true. It is so simple that anyone with any intelligence
would be able to see through the fallacy in it. However, the religion
of SR has taken hold right at the instance when the Lorentz transform
was introduced. In doing so, we are witnessing so many wise guys that
were told the beauty in the Lorentz transform (which is a truth) but
not the absurdity within and choose to spread the gospel of SR to all
the corners of classrooms mindlessly. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 12:44 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 10:11 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?
SRT is still controversial because the SRians failed (refused) to
realize that a clock second do not have the same duration (absolute
time content) in different frames. The fact that a clock second does
not have the same duration (the same absolute time content) in
different frames is the reason why every observer measures the speed
of light as a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,3458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new concept for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity---called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT
as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. A paper on IRt entilted "Imroved
Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Ken unfortunately can no longer process comments on his theory, due to
advancing senility. Please be warned that nothing you say to him today
will be retained tomorrow.
|
Hey idiot there is no comment on my theory.
| Quote: |
Elements of reflexion can be found inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
A related question is
Why do SR proponents often react violently?
Because it threatens their religion belief.
Physicists LOVE revolutions.
|
No they don't.
| Quote: |
Nobel prize winners almost ALL broke
conventional wisdom. See how they were punished for that? But they
have to be revolutions that turn out to be right. Revolutions for the
sake of revolution are not constructive. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr 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.
|
Any theory that has a limited domain of applicability is incomplete.
Ken Seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: Why is SR still controversial? |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:19:59 +0100
<WZZek.80571$7v1.9904@newsfe30.ams2>:
| Quote: |
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7848fe06-b919-4bb8-8b3e-468e67e6b32c@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 4:02 am, "Greg Neill" wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Why is SR still controversial?
It is contraversial only to those who don't (or won't)
understand it and its supporting evidence.
You will never understand why it is controversial without
understanding the other side’s point of view. <shrug
===========================================
Ok, how does Sagnac work, fuckhead?
You will never understand anything.
|
Take it easy, Androcles; he's on your side. ;-)
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Does anyone else remember the 1802?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.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
