0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Is there any 'Einstein' out there to defend it?
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 14/05/2024 12:48:48Is there any 'Einstein' out there to defend it?No need. We have a lot of observational data to defend it for us.
The 21cm hydrogen line observed from space.How does relativity explains it?What is the cause of the emission according to relativity?
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 14/05/2024 16:51:24The 21cm hydrogen line observed from space.How does relativity explains it?What is the cause of the emission according to relativity?I think you'll need to consult quantum physics for that answer, not relativity.
Right, the current relativity does not have explanation for it.
Having said that, if there is a preferred frame than the force between electron and proton varies based on the hydrogen atom speed in the preferred frame as shown in the thought experiment.When the hydrogen atom slows down in the preferred frame the force is stronger and the electron is pulled to lower energy state. Suddenly 'spontaneous' emission has a cause.The 'relativity' anchored in the preferred frame can explain the emissions.
...There is no preferred frame. The isotropy of the speed of light has been demonstrated to extremely high precision.
The two-way speed of light is good enough to detect anisotropy.
Isotropy is established by definition.
There is no experiment to prove it.
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 19/05/2024 01:21:01Isotropy is established by definition.Only because it was discovered to be true experimentally.Quote from: Jaaanosik on 19/05/2024 01:21:01There is no experiment to prove it.Sure there is. The Michelson-Morley experiment was one, as are more recent optical resonator experiments: https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1284
The paper you linked has no word about length contraction.How is that possible?The quality of papers is going downhill. No, the isotropy of the speed of light is not tested here if the length contraction is not being discussed.
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 21/05/2024 15:10:47The paper you linked has no word about length contraction.How is that possible?The quality of papers is going downhill. No, the isotropy of the speed of light is not tested here if the length contraction is not being discussed.And how did you come to that conclusion?
It's a hole in the analysis.
Any opinion about conservation of angular moment as shown in post #20?
...It's been a while since I've studied magnetism and currents, so I'm not equipped at the moment to give an analysis.