0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Are there flaws in special relativity?None that have been demonstrated by experiment.
1- There are no "intentions" to a good experiment except to measure whatever we set out to. Thus we find (a) that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of its direction of propagation and (b) that light is an electromagnetic wave. Then we discover the relationships between electric and magnetic fields, and Maxwell uses these experimental relationships to show that c is theoretically constant, from which we derive a whole bunch of relativistic predictions that turn out to be true in practice, and some simple laboratory experiments of determining c without using a light beam and a stopwatch. 2- The problem with a "god's eye view" of physics is the absence of any experimental evidence for a god with a fixed point of view, and a bizarre predilection for William of Ockham's pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate which distinguishes science from superstition.
(at meaning to always move away from its source; to always increase the distance -between the photon and its source- by c) for the velocity of light.
SR declares the value c is highest velocity;
The problem with a "god's eye view" of physics is the absence of any experimental evidence for a god with a fixed point of view, and a bizarre predilection for William of Ockham's pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate which distinguishes science from superstition.
The view of a third party is not "special". If the third observer can see anything, he is part of the observable universe.The idea that we have a distorted view has no foundation. We see what we see, and our mathematical model predicts what we see next. If there were any unaccounted distortion, SR wouldn't work.
1- Isn't that the definition of velocity? 2- Not true. An experimentally verifiable consequence of SR is the impossibility of accelerating a massive object to c, nothing more than that.
The mathematical model generates the god's eye view from the distorted views that we see, and that's why the god's eye view is valid. To reject it is to reject the model.
Quote from: alancalverd on 08/05/2017 23:58:22The problem with a "god's eye view" of physics is the absence of any experimental evidence for a god with a fixed point of view, and a bizarre predilection for William of Ockham's pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate which distinguishes science from superstition.Don't trip over the use of the word "God" there - it doesn't require anything superstitious for that view to be valid as it simply refers to the view that God would have if such a beast existed. The importance of the God's eye view of things is that it refers to the universe as it actually is; all the distortions caused by viewing from within the universe removed so that the universe can be understood properly.
Isn't that the definition of velocity?
There's nothing fantastic or inferential about SR. We simply begin with Maxwell's equations (which are expermentally verifiable), derive a mathematical account of what happens, then test it experimentally. And it works.
Quote from: alancalverd on 08/05/2017 14:46:43Are there flaws in special relativity?None that have been demonstrated by experiment. The Theory of Special Relativity is not flawed. Rather the problem is most applications do not usually include all three terms; relativistic mass, distance and time. We tend to focus on distance and time; space-time and ignore relativistic mass. This result can be an energy balance problem that may be not be obvious. As an example, say you are on a moving train. Someone sitting at the station watches you go by. You see the station appear to move, while the other person sees the train moving, Based on your train reference, you can do calculations and make predictions with the relative assumption and distance and time. Let me now add the mass considerations. The train has X amount of mass, while the station has Y mass. Based on both references, there is a discrepancy in the amount of kinetic energy, even though both see the other moving at the same velocity. The mass will influence the amount of kinetic energy seen using relative velocity V. The kinetic energy is not relative to reference, since both can't be correct and also be different. On the other hand, how would you measure the mass of each, if they are both in relative motion? From a practical and experimental POV, you cant make always use the relativistic mass, since it is not easy to measure. Therefore, it is left out for the time being. However, doing so can violate energy conservation, resulting in inference assumptions that may be totally consistent with one reference, but which is not real based on energy conservation. Without relativistic mass, you can see a mirage. A mirage is when the light from an object is in a different place than the mass of the object, If we go by the light, and ignore the mass, we can see the object in the wrong place, with others seeing the same thing. This may appear to need extra energy. In the train example, say I assume the station was moving. We estimate it has mass, Y, and then we calculate the kinetic energy and from that we calculate the amount of fuel needed to achieve that speed and momentum for that mass. So far, this is all by the book. In reality, the train burnt the fuel and was placed on motion due too this. The amount of energy needed is lower since the station is a large stone building. Using the relative assumption, the moving station caused me to add extra energy to the universe. But since everyone on the train appears to see the same mirage, which is consistent with space-time only calculations, it becomes the law which cannot be questioned.
Are A + B inertial? Or is B fixed?
To review the SR analysis may be explanatory to distinguish its flaws (Please don’t regress; it is not complex, you may see that it is so simple astonishly.S…………………………………………………S'’……………………………...P’O…………………………………………………A………………………………B++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LCS1- The source of light (S) and the photon (P) are on the point O at the moment Tı.2- The source of light arrives to the point A and the photon arrives to the point B at the moment T2.3- OA = v.t (t = T2 – T1) ; OB = c.t ; 4- AB = OB – OA = c.t – v.t = (c – v).t , BUT, we or SR believe that the velocity of the light is a fixed value according to its source; because we want and hope to measure its relative velocity at the meaning “ c +/- v ”; we get that the result is always the value “ c “, so the escaping speed of the light is always “ c “.5- Thus, the length of AB must be c.t (we had determined that the value of c is fixed)6- C = AB / t = fixed value = 300 000 km/s ; what can we do to achieve this equation? We can/must increase the numerator and decrease the denominator.