Theory of Special Relativity is wrong

[sol invictus]

Stupid question probably, but can you explain this in more detail? Specifically, suppose that the speed of light isn't constant; how do you determine the speed of the lab from that if you're inside the lab? Because it seems to me that even if the speed of light isn't constant, so to an outside observer the light is traveling at c + whatever mph (and therefore deduce the speed of the lab), it will be constant in relation to everything in the lab, and there won't be any way of measuring the difference.

Not a stupid question.

The easiest answer is that you could just build a scaled down version of your lab, inside your lab, then send it flying along. That would allow you to measure the speed of light from the "outside". If it changes, that would mean the speed you were measuring in your lab must also differ from the speed measured from the outside the big lab.

A slightly more detailed answer involves aether. Consider sound waves - they propagate at a fixed speed (call it v) with respect to the air they travel through. So if something (like a car) carries its own air with it, sound inside the car propagates at speed v + the speed of the car, with respect to the ground, or simply at speed v wrt to the car. But if the car has no roof sound propagates at v wrt the ground, and so as measured from inside the car it propagates at v - the speed of the car, and so you can measure the speed of the car that way.

What you're suggesting is that the lab could carry the some stuff (call it aether) with it like the sealed car, and that light propagates through that aether at fixed speed wrt it. That's a priori possible, but it's been ruled out by many experiments over the years - experiments similar to the "lab inside the lab" I proposed above. See here and (I haven't read it, but probably explains this in great detail) here.

A final answer is that if Maxwell's equations are correct, light always propagates at speed c in vacuum no matter what the velocity of the source is. Maxwell's eqs. describe electricity and magnetism, and are among the best tested laws of physics we know of. They're used constantly in everything from electrical engineering to physics. One of the great successes of 19th century physics was the realization that they describe light (as well as radio waves, x-rays, etc.). And if you take them seriously - which Einstein was the first to do - they also imply the above facts, along with all their bizarre consequences.

 

[Gregory]

Okay, thanks for that.

 

[arthwollipot]

But fire away with your evidence. We will see that you don't have any.

You can't possibly know this without employing some kind of occult epistemology.

 

[GMB]

Really? Its been ten days and they haven't come up with squat. Sol Invictus has been unable to even so much as frame his wild claims in plain English.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There is some confusion about the way light acts here. Actually light acts like any other wave medium. So with the speed of sound, sound simply travels at the speed dictated by the nature of the air it moves through. Likewise light will quickly conform to what ever the aether conditions are in that portion of space.

If you are racing forward at a 100 miles per second in relation to that aether the light won't move at c+100 miles per second any more than the speed of sound would speed up to sos+100 miles per second. All it is is standard wave behaviour.

If we try and get a propeller driven plane to break the speed of sound, as we get closer to the speed of sound the amount of energy we must add in order to get incrementally closer goes through the roof. Thats why its foolish and circular reason to interpret this jive about subatomic particles gaining mass rapidly as they approach the speed of light. They do no such thing, any more than the propeller-driven plane gains mass. It is inherent to the situation that the propellers cannot get the plane to outpace the speed of the shock waves they can generate using the air that they are going through. So the speed of sound is their inherent limit because of their means of propulsion.

The embarrassment of our scientists not realizing this sort of thing is really a function of public funding of science. Which was always going to lead to dysfunction in science the same as stolen-money funding creates problems everywhere else.

 

[Terry]

Could you walk me through how that explains the Michelson-Morley result?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Check out the new thread he started today. GMB includes a link with maximum woo woo factor.

 

[GMB]

Yes. It was not a null result. Its the result of a partially-entrained aether. They tried to detect an aether and they didn't find out what it is they thought they would. On the other hand they didn't get a null result. It looks like the earths gravity partially entrains the aether.

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html

"Unentrained Aether

We will banish the term "aether" in due course, but let’s take a closer look at this much maligned substance, given its historical importance to the whole question of the speed of light. To be certain, the 1887 Michelson-Morley (M-M) null-result disproved the concept of an unentrained aether. An unentrained aether would be totally unaffected by a gravitational field. The Earth would glide effortlessly through it without dragging any of it along, by virtue of the Earth’s gravitational pull. From a scientist’s perspective, an unentrained aether would come blowing through the laboratory like a hurricane with a velocity of the Earth’s speed of revolution around the Sun (30 km/sec). And like the passing eye of a hurricane, the aether-wind would reverse direction twice each day as the Earth rotated on its axis. At 0.01% of c the M-M experiment was certainly sensitive enough to detect such an aether-wind, and a small non-null result was found, but not to the level expected for an unentrained aether."

So you see. They did disprove one view of this aether. And it was a view that the earth had no effect on the aether locally. But still a result implying some sort of aether was picked up here and elsewhere.

"Partially Entrained Aether

You won’t find them mentioned in a mainstream physics text, but there are aether theories that are perfectly compatible with the M-M (almost) null-result. Suppose for a moment that the aether is partially entrained. Such a substance would be attracted by the Earth’s gravitational pull, and therefore would be denser at the Earth’s surface than at higher altitudes. This aether would have a density distribution with altitude that is not unlike that of the Earth’s atmospheric density. Under these circumstances, the partially entrained aether would be traveling almost as fast, almost keeping pace with the Earth’s tangential speed of revolution around the Sun. So from the perspective of the Earth-bound laboratory, the relative velocity between the Earth and the aether would be arbitrarily small, certainly well below 30 km/sec. And if the speed of light is constant with respect to a medium such as the aether, then in this instance a null-result would be expected, given the limited sensitivity of the M-M experiment."

So the Morley experiments merely disproved the notion of an unentrained aether. Not of a partially entrained aether. And other experiments, with the second hypothesis in mind, came good.

"To reveal the Earth’s rotation at work, a more sensitive version of the experiment was needed. This quest resulted in the Michelson-Gale (and Pearson) experiment of 1925, a massive interferometer experiment spread over fifty acres outside of Chicago.16 The experiment detected a fringe shift of 0.236 of one fringe due to the Earth’s rotation, in agreement with aether theory and within the limits of observational error....."



"Galactic Drift

In addition to the Earth’s revolution about the Sun, our entire solar system has a galactic velocity component. A very sensitive and precise aether drift experiment might be able to detect this component if conducted at higher altitudes to lessen the slowing effects to a partially entrained aether. Although it is not reported in the textbooks, such an experiment was performed by Dayton Miller18 during the mid-1920s on a mountain top near the Mt. Wilson observatory. The experiment was an utter marvel of science, performed with exquisite care and precision over a period of several years. (See the excellent article by James DeMeo in IE #38 describing the Miller interferometry experiment.)

Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting towards an apex in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere, towards Dorado, the swordfish, right ascension 4 hrs. 54 min., declination of –70° 33’, in the middle of the Great Magellanic Cloud and 7° from the southern pole of the ecliptic. He measured an aether-drift of about 10 km/sec at the location of his interferometer. From this he assumed the Earth was moving through a partially entrained aether which reduced its velocity from 200 km/sec in space, to about 10 km/sec nearer to the surface. This experimental result agrees with the concept of a partially entrained aether. More importantly, this is the tie-breaking experiment that relativity theory cannot explain."

So you see. This doctrine is rational, the experimental evidence stacks up. And its easy enough to round it out with better evidence. Whereas special relativity is irrational and easy to refute. And only lying and dishonesty keeps it going.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't be a baby and attempt not to be an idiot. Now what is this woo business? The link I posted was actual science and reason. Something that you have no capacity for clearly.

A scientific article does not engage in ad hominem attacks. It supports its thesis with facts, experimental evidence, and hopefully consistent math. A good part of that article tried to belittle Einstein included was this quote:
Even devoted admirers of Einstein would not dispute that the progress of physics would not have suffered if the indisputably greatest scientist among them had spent the final three decades of his life—roughly from 1926 on—sailing.

So since no one has noticed Einsteins theory to fail in the laboratory they find it easier to try to make him look silly. Nice try, but a definite fail.

 

[Hindmost]

http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/faq.html#Q40

A brief review of the site indicates belief in perpetual motion, cold fusion, vacuum energy that can be harnessed...etc. Any site that ignores the laws of thermo is just not credible on any level.

This puts them right in league with kevin Trudeau and his ilk. It also means that this thread will not go very well.

glenn

 

[shadron]

There was no ad hominem attacks. None.

Uhhhhh....He quoted one. He wasn't referring to you, yet, but you're pushing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its you that are making the ad hom attacks. Not Cantrell. You. Because you don't have a science argument. Rather you seem to be saying that issues of character negate science. Well they don't. You haven't beaten the two clocks refutation. You haven't brought evidence that shows that special relativity is right and the doctrine of the partially entrained aether is wrong. Its just a big fat zero where your contribution is concerned.

So my proof by quotes of ad hominem attacks in your article are ad hominem attacks If the majority of his paper was math and science you might have a point, but since a good half are pointless attacks I would have to disagree. He does not supply any experimental evidence that supports his side. If he wants to use the concept of embedded aether it is up to him to develop a test that will prove this. Otherwise he is just whistling in the dark.

 

[shadron]

I don't know about this vaccumn energy. Many things may be possible if we can get the committed irrationalists out of science. Who knows what sorts of ambient energy we might be able to tap into. E=M(c squared) sort of implies that there is a lot of energy available surely. So even these other claims aren't automatically a bad thing. But its the facts and reasoning in the one article that I linked to. And I didn't link to anything else.

Just shows what appalling methodology people can glom onto.

Well damn it then, man, get in there and make something that taps it. Incredible wealth, fame and fortune are yours (did I mention money?); all you gotta do is make it work. We'll all live happily ever after, and I'll pledge my vote to you as king of the universe.

I do most certainly agree with your last sentence.

 

[Hindmost]

Totally irrelevant if true and a confession of irrationality on your part to so much as mention this. Since what really counts is the information in a single link by a single person.

I don't know about this vaccumn energy. Many things may be possible if we can get the committed irrationalists out of science. Who knows what sorts of ambient energy we might be able to tap into. E=M(c squared) sort of implies that there is a lot of energy available surely. So even these other claims aren't automatically a bad thing. But its the facts and reasoning in the one article that I linked to. And I didn't link to anything else.

Just shows what appalling methodology people can glom onto.

I don't believe it is irrelevant to point out that a specific author doesn't understand the basic laws of thermo. (the author is essentially saying if he drops a ball, it can bounce forever) It makes it doubtful that the author could possibly understand Special or General relativity.

FYI: E=mC² actually states nothing about the amount of energy available for use...it is simply a conversion factor between mass and energy. I will have to let others explain about vacuum energy as I am not well versed in QM.

glenn

 

[Reality Check]

...snip...
"Partially Entrained Aether
...snip...

Michelson–Morley experiment

In recent times versions of the Michelson–Morley experiment have become commonplace. Lasers and masers amplify light by repeatedly bouncing it back and forth inside a carefully tuned cavity, thereby inducing high-energy atoms in the cavity to give off more light. The result is an effective path length of kilometers. Better yet, the light emitted in one cavity can be used to start the same cascade in another set at right angles, thereby creating an interferometer of extreme accuracy.
The first such experiment was led by Charles H. Townes, one of the co-creators of the first maser. Their 1958 experiment put an upper limit on drift, including any possible experimental errors, of only 30 m/s. In 1974 a repeat with accurate lasers in the triangular Trimmer experiment reduced this to 0.025 m/s, and included tests of entrainment by placing one leg in glass. In 1979 the Brillet-Hall experiment put an upper limit of 30 m/s for any one direction, but reduced this to only 0.000001 m/s for a two-direction case (i.e., still or partially entrained aether). A year long repeat known as Hils and Hall, published in 1990, reduced the limit of anisotropy to 2×10^-13.

(Emphasis added)

Isn't Wikipedia wonderful!

 

[GMB]

Uhhhhh....He quoted one. He wasn't referring to you, yet, but you're pushing.

He didn't quote one. Since the author didn't rely on any putdowns to make his argument. Whereas you are one of the few posters on this site who doesn't practise this bad habits. Putdowns are not ad hominem. Using putdowns as a substitute argument are. Its just appalling the extent to which faux-skeptics have fallen for this methodology.

The author makes his case in terms of reason and evidence. But it was important to deal with some matters up front as he did since Einstein is sanctified. Like FDR used to be though in sober reality the guy was a harmful rotter. Not Einstein but FDR.

So for example people say " Well what about the bomb" when you go to show how special relativity isn't true. The author had to show that contrary to popular understanding this sort of thing is really irrelevant. This is no ad hom and it was necessary.

Einstein was a great scientist. But more a creative genius rather than an investigative genius. He was a bit of a mystic when it comes down to it.

 

[GMB]

Isn't Wikipedia wonderful!

Actually its a load of rubbish when it comes to contentious issues but whatever makes you happy fella.

An example would be the global warming racket. You have William Connelly and others going through every damn wiki topic that is tangentially related to global warming and ruining every last one of them. And people are even more maniacal when it comes to special relativity. So the wiki must be avoided totally in this matter except for concrete facts. The interpretation of experiments has to be ignored in this case.

Find some detail if you think you are onto something. The other experiments stand. The doctrine of the partially-entrained aether stands until you find some detailed way to refute it.

 

[GMB]

I don't believe it is irrelevant to point out that a specific author doesn't understand the basic laws of thermo.

He does understand thermodynamics. And it is pretty irrelevant when you come to think of it. Because we are talking about the doctrine of the partially-entrained aether. Which pans out whereas special relativity doesn't.

 

[GMB]

You've been proved wrong since with all the wiki's tendentiousness on your side you cannot even find one null result. The idea is to do the experiments at high altitude. I think you will find that these experiments were done at low altitude.

So thats the end of your analysis right there.

 

[sol invictus]

Ok so you are back Sol Invictus. So lets have your wild claims and this time in PLAIN ENGLISH. So the ridiculousness of your claims will be manifest to all third parties.

I didn't make any claims, GMB. I just asked you a simple question. I asked it twice, phrased in very simple English that everyone else had no trouble at all understanding.

But I know you're not going to answer it, because you can't.

 

[GMB]

Right but their laughter doesn't change the fact that special relativity is totally refuted. Laughter might be healthy. But it cannot affect the laws of physics.

Try harder.

Do better.