ravell

"What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?"

Recommended Posts

Regarding the alleged plenty of scientific evidence and experiments confirming the special and general relativity, the summary list of which is presented in the article "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?", available on the link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html ,

it is not possible to treat this list of experiments as confirmation of the truth of the SR.

A significant part of the experiments quoted there concerns the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and many other similar experiments. In any case, these experiments can not be a confirmation of the truth of  Special Relativity, because in fact their null results are due to the Doppler effect, and not from the alleged contraction of the longitudinal arm of the interferometer as the SR claims.

Another large part of the experiments cited in that article concerns the delaying of clocks (light clocks !) in motion, which is also not a relativistic effect, because the delay of light clocks results directly from classical physics. The mathematical proof in this regard is presented in the article available on the link:  URL deleted

 

It must be emphasized here that presenting GPS as the SR proof is unfounded. The required factory offset for clocks in GPS satellites is entirely based on classical physics.

It is also worth noting that a significant part  of the description  contained in the article, refers to "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR / GR", which in itself does not require additional comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you have any experimental data on top of your dropbox pdf? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, not again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ravell said:

Regarding the alleged plenty of scientific evidence and experiments confirming the special and general relativity, the summary list of which is presented in the article "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?", available on the link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html ,

 

it is not possible to treat this list of experiments as confirmation of the truth of the SR.

A significant part of the experiments quoted there concerns the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and many other similar experiments. In any case, these experiments can not be a confirmation of the truth of  Special Relativity, because in fact their null results are due to the Doppler effect, and not from the alleged contraction of the longitudinal arm of the interferometer as the SR claims.

Another large part of the experiments cited in that article concerns the delaying of clocks (light clocks !) in motion, which is also not a relativistic effect, because the delay of light clocks results directly from classical physics. The mathematical proof in this regard is presented in the article available on the link: 

 

It must be emphasized here that presenting GPS as the SR proof is unfounded. The required factory offset for clocks in GPS satellites is entirely based on classical physics.

It is also worth noting that a significant part  of the description  contained in the article, refers to "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR / GR", which in itself does not require additional comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And SR/GR are classical theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ravell said:

it is not possible to treat this list of experiments as confirmation of the truth of the SR.

No scientific theory is ever “confirmed as true”

3 hours ago, ravell said:

Another large part of the experiments cited in that article concerns the delaying of clocks (light clocks !) in motion

There are experiments using atomic clocks, not light clocks (aren’t light clocks used only in thought experiments?)

3 hours ago, ravell said:

It must be emphasized here that presenting GPS as the SR proof is unfounded. The required factory offset for clocks in GPS satellites is entirely based on classical physics.

As some who has been involved in the development of GPS systems, I can assure you that this is bollocks. 

GPS has to take into effect Doppler (which is large do the receivers have to search for the signal) and GR to account for relative speed and gravitational potential. This is different for every satellite and not accounted for by the “factory offset”

3 hours ago, ravell said:

which in itself does not require additional comments.

 

Key word being “apparent”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's never sensible to try to prove that a theory is true; but it's often reasonable to try to prove that it is false.

If all the attempts to prove it false are unsuccessful, then it's (conditionally) presumed to be true.

 

People have been busting a gut trying to show that SR and GR are false. (Not least because you would get rich + famous if you did it)

Nobody has managed yet.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ravell said:

It must be emphasized here that presenting GPS as the SR proof is unfounded. 

The only thing that really needs emphasising is the nonsensical unsupported and unevidenced inferences  under the guise of questions, on a theory that has been validated time and time again over more then a 100 years by the best brains on Earth. That fact was highlighted with the wise words of another thus, 

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

People have been busting a gut trying to show that SR and GR are false. (Not least because you would get rich + famous if you did it)

Nobody has managed yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ravell said:

 

Another large part of the experiments cited in that article concerns the delaying of clocks (light clocks !) in motion, which is also not a relativistic effect, because the delay of light clocks results directly from classical physics. The mathematical proof in this regard is presented in the article available on the link:

!

Moderator Note

You’ve been told multiple times that if you want to discuss something, the discussion must take place here and not via external links.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ravell said:

It is also worth noting that a significant part  of the description  contained in the article, refers to "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR / GR", which in itself does not require additional comments.

Probably obvious but I'll add an additional comment  anyway; the section "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR / GR" is supporting SR.
The initial part of the section 10. "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR/GR" reads (bold by me):

Quote

It is clear that most if not all of these experiments have difficulties that are unrelated to SR. In some cases the anomalous experiment has been carefully repeated and been shown to be in error (e.g. Miller, Kantor, Munera); in others the experimental result is so outrageous that any serious attempt to reproduce it is unlikely (e.g. Esclangon); in still other cases there are great uncertainties and/or unknowns involved (e.g. Marinov, Silvertooth, Munera, Cahill, Mirabel), and some are based on major conceptual errors (e.g. Marinov, Thimm, Silvertooth). In any case, at present no reproducible and generally accepted experiment is inconsistent with SR, within its domain of applicability.

From there the chapter lists several experiments that might look like SR/GR inconsistencies and why no inconsistencies are found. Example:

Quote

Esclangon, C.R.A.S. 185 no. 26 (1927), pg 1593.

He observed a systematic variation in the position of an optical image, correlated with sidereal time.  This result is inconsistent not only with SR, but is also inconsistent with the hypothesis that space is Euclidean and light travels in straight lines.

His “signal” is actually composed of points that are an average of several thousand measurements each, and the magnitude of the signal is about 25 times smaller than the resolution of the individual measurements; an elementary error analysis shows that his result is not significantly different from no variation (the prediction of both SR and Euclidean geometry). So there is no reason to believe this result is inconsistent with SR. Also see Experimenter's Bias below—this is a clear example of over-averaging.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

People have been busting a gut trying to show that SR and GR are false. (Not least because you would get rich + famous if you did it)

Nobody has managed yet.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

What Einstein meant is this set of equations, which are the Heaviside-Lorentz equations (the modified Maxwell):

annot1420a.gif

However, the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations is invariant under Galilean transformations: the velocity vectors are additive.


https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.php?aid=80761

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288491661_Electromagnetic_phenomena_not_explained_by_Maxwell's_equations

Dr. Terence W. Barrett explains that the Heaviside-Lorentz equations are of U(1) symmetry form with Abelian commutation relations. The original Maxwell equations possess non-Abelian commutation relations and are of SU(2) symmetry forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Nobody has managed yet

John you frequently refer to this nobody person.

But you never tell us where to find him.

;)

40 minutes ago, sandokhan said:

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

What Einstein meant is this set of equations, which are the Heaviside-Lorentz equations (the modified Maxwell):

annot1420a.gif

However, the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations is invariant under Galilean transformations: the velocity vectors are additive.


https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.php?aid=80761

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288491661_Electromagnetic_phenomena_not_explained_by_Maxwell's_equations

Dr. Terence W. Barrett explains that the Heaviside-Lorentz equations are of U(1) symmetry form with Abelian commutation relations. The original Maxwell equations possess non-Abelian commutation relations and are of SU(2) symmetry forms.

 

+1

Have you read Roy Turner's book 'Relativity Physics' on this subject?

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now