Theory of Special Relativity is wrong

[sol invictus]

You were trying on a scam sol invictus.

No, GMB, I was asking you a simple, yes or no question. If you think that's a scam, please verify that you've taken all your meds today (especially the lithium).

So go over it again and this time in plain english.

For the third time: imagine you're inside a laboratory floating far out in space, very far from any stars or other form of matter. The laboratory is sealed and has no windows, so you cannot see out or in any way interact with anything outside, but it is fully equipped with optical tables, a particle accelerator, a greenhouse, an electronics lab, and everything else you might need to do laboratory experiments. You know it also has no engines or rockets on the outside, so you're sure it's moving at constant velocity. It also has zero rotation.

Question: is there any experiment you can do inside the lab that will tell you what its velocity is? If you'd like we can specify a coordinate system - say galactic coordinates - and I'm asking whether there's an experiment you can do to determine the velocity vector of the lab in those coordinates.

Yes or no?

 

[GMB]

"Surely that is a simple question to understand and answer?"

Yes velocity is relative. And contains no acceleration in it so no g forces or what have you. So he says something obvious and then tries to smuggle in all this other rubbish with it.

So yes of course we can agree on the obvious stuff. But the con-artist attempted to stooge people into signing up for all sorts of nonsense on the basis that they agree that velocity is relative.

Well velocity IS relative. I've always maintained that. But special relativity is a theory of velocity-absolutism. It is in contradiction to the principle that velocity is relative.

 

[athon]

Third parties please note. At this point we can predict that white lion will fall in line with the practice of the filibuster. As good as he has been with the history this is what we can expect from here on in.

The idea if he wasn't shooting blanks, would be to go to a specific voodoo aspect of special relativity, and then find the right study or data, and then to explain in his own words very clearly why he thinks that this constitutes evidence.

He won't do it.

Because he doesn't have such a study available to him.

Funny. You've been asked to do the same.

Hypocracy? Or were you lying?

Athon

 

[Tubbythin]

Its a mathematical template for predictions is all. I know you are not finding any evidence for any of the voodoo assumptions within this bogus theory. So your filibuster begins now. We cannot really accept microscopic evidence since there is too many speculative aspects to it.

Er, no. The quantum theory of electrodynamics, for example, is probably the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics.

 

[GMB]

Go again sol invictus. This time speak plain english. I've answered that velocity is relative. I've always said that velocity is relative. It is you that are attempting to contradict this fact.

 

[Tubbythin]

Look White Lion. One macroscopic reference would do if any one of them were any good. They are all crap. They do not confirm the voodoo aspects of special relativity.

That would be because special relativity isn't voodoo.

 

[sol invictus]

Go again sol invictus. This time speak plain english. I've answered that velocity is relative. I've always said that velocity is relative. It is you that are attempting to contradict this fact.

Yes or no, GMB?

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes yes yes. I've heard the mantra fella. The best theory ever. Roll up roll up roll up and do we have evidence for you. The mantra is part of the generalised hucksterism.

The analogy of the heart as a pump is likely better tested than that.

Huh. Precision requires numeracy. Hence you fail (yet again).

 

[GMB]

That would be because special relativity isn't voodoo.

Yes it is. Its totally and unapologetically irrational. Certainly in its modern form as advocated by its current supporters.

You should read about their implied theory of the big bang inflation. The only scientific creation theory more irrational then traditional tribal creation theories.

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes yes yes. I've heard the mantra fella. The best theory ever. Roll up roll up roll up and do we have evidence for you. The mantra is part of the generalised hucksterism.

The analogy of the heart as a pump is likely better tested than that.

Huh. Precision requires numeracy. Hence you fail (yet again).

 

[Jono]

Its a mathematical template for predictions is all. I know you are not finding any evidence for any of the voodoo assumptions within this bogus theory. So your filibuster begins now. We cannot really accept microscopic evidence since there is too many speculative aspects to it. And the potential for circularity is clear.

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

Not finding any evidence?!? If you are up against a wall of bricks, do you not see the bricks. You made the claim there were no evidence for SR, you've not only been given clarification but dozens of experiments and links to more. You inferred the claim that the experimental tests are not correct, yet you are uncapable of providing any on-point critique of them. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to actually study the basis of SR, both the theoretical and experimental, before crying about it without any on-point critique on it?

Measurement of the Relativistic Doppler Effect Using 8.6-MeV Capture γ Rays:
"The energies of γ rays from the 10.27-MeV (T=1, Γ<1.8 keV)→1.63-MeV (T=0) transition in 20Ne have been measured in an annular Ge (Li) detector at 0 and 180°. 16O(4He, γ) and 4He(16O, γ) capture reactions in a differentially pumped gas target were used to produce recoiling 20Ne ions with two different very accurately known velocities. We observe a tranverse Doppler shift of 10.09 ± 0.41 keV for the 16O capture reaction. This allows us to determine relativistic time-dilation effects at velocities of 0.05c to an accuracy of 3.5%. Our results are in very good agreement with the prediction of special relativity."

Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?
"Recent observations of regularly pulsating x-ray sources in binary star systems are analyzed in the framework of the "emission" theory of light. Assuming that light emitted by a source moving at velocity v with respect to an observer has a speed c′=c+kv in the observer's rest frame, we find that the arrival time of pulses from the binary x-ray sources implies k<2×10-9. This appears to be the most direct and sensitive demonstration that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source."

Too many speculative aspects to it? You are jesting surely?
You consider particle accelerator-tests to be "too speculative"?

Btw, if you want to find a Macroscopic test, I suggest you go and borrow (or purchase) "Local, macroscopic test of special relativity" by Cavalleri or "Special Relativity: the Foundation of Macroscopic Physics" by W.G Dixon.

 

[Jono]

Oops, made a double inprint. Corrected.

 

[sol invictus]

Go again sol invictus. This time speak plain english.

I've already asked you twice, in very plain english. There won't be a third time.

I've answered that velocity is relative.

I didn't ask you that. I asked you a simple, specific, and concrete yes or no question. While it's already quite clear that you're only a badly-disciplined child trying to get a response, if you won't answer even that, it will be obvious to everyone that you're not even a decent troll (we've had many here, and so far you're near the bottom).

So you don't feel too frightened, I'll tell you where I'm going with this. If your answer is yes there's an experiment that will determine the velocity, I'll want to know what it is. If your answer is no, we'll proceed from there and see what the options are.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Yes it is. Its totally and unapologetically irrational. Certainly in its modern form as advocated by its current supporters.

You should read about their implied theory of the big bang inflation. The only scientific creation theory more irrational then traditional tribal creation theories.

I look forward to the publication of your evidence and the resultant Nobel Prize. I would be pleased to attend the ceremony.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I’d like to thank those who post informative answers in these kinds of threads. Your efforts are not wasted as there are people like myself learning among the sideshow.

 

[Jono]

They knew full well that Einstein had cut corners to come up with a pseudo-solution first to a problem that was proving intractable at the time.

Oh really, Lorentz "knew" this bit of nonsense you are naval-gazing through?

Well, here is what he had to say about it when he had understood it:

"If I had to write the last chapter now, I should certainly have given a more prominent place to Einstein's theory of relativity by which the theory of electromagnetic phenomena in moving systems gains a simplicity that I had not been able to attain. The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time, and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity."

-- Lorentz, H. A; “The Theory of Electrons: And its Applications to the Phenomena of Light and Radiant Heat”, 1916.

The general idea of associating mass with energy had in one way or the other been around for about 25 years prior to Einstein's 1905 papers, as Einstein himself viewed it; this association was already implicit in Maxwell's theory in a sense. In the 1905 paper containing his deduction of mass-energy equivalence, Einstein acknowledges that it was explicitly based on "Maxwell's expression for the electromagnetic energy of space".

Here’s what Einstein himself had to say about these matters;

By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle would lead us to assured results. The example I saw before me was thermodynamics.
The general principle there was given in the theorem: the laws of nature are such that it is impossible to constructa perpetuum mobile (of the first or second kind). How, then, could such a universal principle be found?
After ten years of reflection such a principle resulted from a paradox upon which I had already hit at age sixteen: If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell's equations.
From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how, otherwise, should the first observer know, i.e., be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees that in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained.

-- Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, “Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist”, Volume One, p. 53, Open Court Classics

 

[Darth Rotor]

"Einstein considered that the relativity principle was not compatible with a preferred frame. "

You are stooging yourself by your unwillingness to speak in plain English.

The principle of relativity is consistent with an integrated holistic reality. It is incompatible with a theory of velocity absolutism.

GMB, I have no dog in this fight, but will ask you how sol's and others' use of vocabulary, and your's, are any different in being possible obstacles to understanding?

I've been long since fed up with overuse of buzz words and jargon, and prefer plain speaking.

Please help out this audience member by adapting the manner of plain speaking that you insist upon from others. It will help me follow the discussion, though I admit to a nasty habit: when I see words and terms I don't understand, I either look them up or ask to have them explained in simpler English.

So, in simpler English, what is:

integrated holistic reality.

theory of velocity absolutism.

I gather that the latter, from contextual clues you have offered, is your description of the use of constants, in this case speed of light as a constant.

The former I need your help with.

Yes velocity is relative. And contains no acceleration in it so no g forces or what have you.
Well velocity IS relative.

Velocity at a given moment in time while under acceleration can be easily calculated by the equation

v = at

Let's say my helicopter is under acceleration for a minute as I go from zero to 120 knots. It has an a and a variety of values of v for that whole minute. I continue applying acceleration a to counter the -a of drag from air resistance, since air is needed for lift and thrust. I thus maintain a constant velocity of 120 knots in a given direction, let's say North. (I want to visit Mrs Claus whilst Santa is out. Nudge Nudge, wink, wink, say no more.)

GMB, I may be playing with words here, but let me suggest to you the following:

My helicopter's velocity of 120 knots contains in it, as you say it, an acceleration a necessary to overcome -a (drag) of the air. We then sum accelerations to zero, leaving velocity constant until I either increase or decrease a, -a increases or decreases for environmental reasons, or the usual happens with helicopters and I land just before I run out of gas.

But special relativity is a theory of velocity-absolutism. It is in contradiction to the principle that velocity is relative.

Is there no room at the inn for them both? I think that's where you are coming from. Am I close?

DR

 

[simdude]

I guess I'll try. You believe that there exists a contradiction in the fact that c is limit while otherwise velocity is clearly relative? Yes? For example if you're on a flatbed truck that's moving 10 mph and you throw a ball backwards at 5 mph it moves relative to the ground at 15 mph. Obviously. By the same logic since there is light coming out of the tail lights the light should be moving at c + the speed of the truck. Since we can measure the speed of that light and see that it is (against intuition) still c it is concludable that c is some sort of universal speed limit.

So it's very easy to prove that c is the limit. And it's very easy to prove that velocity is relative.

I won't lie. I'm actually caught with how to get to the next step of showing that the theory rectifies this seeming contradiction. Even worse I'm trying to think of a good way to explain it. I'll be thinking about it. But more than anything I wanted to analyze the problem and make sure I'm attacking it correctly. Am I doing that?

I'm not sure how difficult the math is behind proving the whole thing to be honest. I'm studying to be an engineer not a physicist. I could easily demonstrate mathmatically how time dilation works once you assume c to be a constant if that would prove or explain anything.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I guess I'll try. You believe that there exists a contradiction in the fact that c is limit while otherwise velocity is clearly relative? Yes? For example if you're on a flatbed truck that's moving 10 mph and you throw a ball backwards at 5 mph it moves relative to the ground at 15 mph. Obviously.

Uh, I got 5 mph as the relative velocity, unless the truck was also moving backwards. 10-5 (direction difference) rather than 10+5. Vector summing.

By the same logic since there is light coming out of the tail lights the light should be moving at c + the speed of the truck. Since we can measure the speed of that light and see that it is (against intuition) still c it is concludable that c is some sort of universal speed limit.

I think I got that.

So it's very easy to prove that c is the limit. And it's very easy to prove that velocity is relative.

So room at the inn for them both?

This was brought up before: speed and velocity aren't the same thing. Speed of light (scalar) and velocity of light photon/wave (vector) from light source to light receiver.

 

[Jimbo07]

Question: is there any experiment you can do inside the lab that will tell you what its velocity is? If you'd like we can specify a coordinate system - say galactic coordinates - and I'm asking whether there's an experiment you can do to determine the velocity vector of the lab in those coordinates.

Yes or no?

Ooh! I've got an idea! We could set up an interferometer and measure the change in position of fringes of an interference pattern due to the difference in velocities of the speed of light due to travelling different paths, which would demonstrate an absolute reference frame and medium for the prop... oh... wait...

I'm not sure how difficult the math is behind proving the whole thing to be honest. I'm studying to be an engineer not a physicist. I could easily demonstrate mathmatically how time dilation works once you assume c to be a constant if that would prove or explain anything.

My limited understanding is that the constancy of c is a proposition of SR, not a proven conclusion. The validity of the proposition has been demonstrated (repeatedly) by experiment. Time dilation, on the other hand is a direct mathematical consequence of a constant c. As a fellow engineer, I share with you my appreciation of the elegance and simplicty of the time dilation argument. As has been mentioned repeatedly, time dilation has also been verified experimentally (and productively ).