SR doesn't show, for example, that clocks in motion measure different time from clocks at rest. It shows that they measure difference time and that the difference agrees with the quantitative predictions of SR.
Also, a theory is good if it agrees with experiment up to the available precision and since zero mass for a photon satisfies this condition and has done so for almost 100 years or so, you will have to deal with it GMB.
http://www.physorg.com/news9248.html (one more succesful test of SR)
*
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
The appeal to "frame of reference" is a perpetual series of spoon-bender distractions. There is only one relevant "frame of reference" and that frame of reference is REALITY.
Well you see for example Einstein's relativity postulate, necessity of differentiating between the concepts is given, as the formentioned refers to uniform rectilinear motion and not circular motion, so frames of reference in arbitrary motion are not inertial frames.
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
Excerpt thereof:
""Physics is an experimental science, and as such the experimental basis for any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between theory and experiments in modern science is a multi-edged sword:
It is required that the theory not be refuted by any undisputed experiment within the theory's domain of applicability.
It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of experiments that:
- cover a significant fraction of the theory's
domain of applicability.
- examine a significant fraction of the theory's predictions."
...
That being said, as of this writing
there are no reproducible and generally-accepted experiments that are inconsistent with SR, within its domain of applicability."
Your link is not in favour of special relativity. Your link is sticking up for an augmented Lorentz relativity. I've got no cause to be suspicious of this Lorentz relativity. There is nothing voodoo about it that I can see. It ought to be the default position at the moment until the whole deal can be reworked. It ought to have precedence over special relativity from first principles.
Most of the mathematical tools used in Special Relativity was, yes, created by Lorentz, Hertz, Maxwell, Poincaré etc. This is however not equivalent with having reached the breakthrough of revealing a testable, workable formulation of Special Relativity under the umbrella of a theory.
Poincaré for example, he acknowledged the Lorentz aether which assumes the existence of a privileged aether frame. He expressed his agreement with Lorentz in the following terms:
"the results I have obtained agree with those of Mr. Lorentz in all important
points. I was led to modify and complete them in a few points of
detail"
This agreement implies that the speed of light is isotropic exclusively in the privileged frame, as is easily deduced from Lorentz theory (for that, see his explanation of Michelson's experiment where the speed of light is c+v or c-v in the two opposite directions)
Einstein considered that the relativity principle was not compatible with a preferred frame. Einstein first considered this aether; the privileged frame matter, as superfluous. He did never acknowledge the existence of a preferred frame, so his theory was compatible with the relativity principle. So, Lorentz and Poincare developed most of the math used, but never fully embraced the principles behind it.
Stephen Hawking in "
A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes" writes;
Between 1887 and 1905 there were several attempts, most notably by the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of objects contracting and clocks slowing down when they moved through the ether. However, in a famous paper in 1905, a hitherto unknown clerk in the Swiss patent office, Albert Einstein, pointed out that the whole idea of an ether was unnecessary, providing one was willing to abandon the idea of absolute time. A similar point was made a few weeks later by a leading French mathematician, Henri Poincare. Einstein's argument were closer to physics than those of Poincare, who regarded this problem as mathematical. Einstein is usually given credit for the new theory, but Poincare is remembered by having his name attached to an important part of it." (pp. 22-23)
Ergo, before SR, there was something called Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. To understand this, one must know how a Michelson interferometer works.
If there were an ether, the green path would be parallel to Earth's velocity through the ether, also the blue path would be purpendicular.
What MM (Michelson-Morley) observed was that the length of the two paths was different (even though the arrangement was perfectly symmetric, to check this it suffices to rotate the apparatus 90º and measure again).
Fitzgerald-Lorentz explained that the green path was contracted due to its movement though the ether. The ratio of lengths was;
The explanation, if I understood it correctly, is that the FL (Fitzgerald-Lorentz) contraction is absolute, while Special Relativity predicts a relative contraction.
In other words, in the FL explanation there is an ether, there is a concept of absolute motion and an observer at rest with respect to the ether measures objects in movement as contracted.
However In Special Relativity, there is no absolute concept of rest, hence an outside observer would measure a moving train as contracted, yet another observer on the train would also see the first one on the station contracted.
This is one important difference between the FL contraction and SR. Empirically, Special Relativity wins hands down.
Another huge difference is that the FL contraction is a bit of an ad hoc explanation if you will, with no basis. Simply, I think it is correct to say that it's is just an artificial way of preserving the concept of an "ether". Special Relativity though, is derived from two physical postulates with a simple meaning and it is real science, ie falsifiable with experiment.
