Re: Is special relativity falsifiable? (returning to the topic)

From: Bruce Pew (vanep_at_cox.net)
Date: 06/07/04 

Date: 6 Jun 2004 21:50:33 -0700

"César Sirvent" <8umucsxySPA@M_MAPSterraReMoVeThIs.es> wrote in message news:<HCMwc.802810$A6.3134074@telenews.teleline.es>...
> "Bruce Pew" <vanep@cox.net> escribió en el mensaje
> news:45534f09.0406061312.15943389@posting.google.com...
> > "César Sirvent" <8umucsxySPA@M_MAPSterraReMoVeThIs.es> wrote in message
> news:<TBAwc.792377$A6.3089571@telenews.teleline.es>...
> > > "Bruce Pew" <vanep@cox.net> escribió en el mensaje
> > > news:45534f09.0406052000.74511c86@posting.google.com...
> > > > "César Sirvent" <8umucsxySPA@M_MAPSterraReMoVeThIs.es> wrote in
> message
> news:<8r1wc.767570$A6.2975695@telenews.teleline.es>...
> > > > > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
> > > > > news:bdf02d35.0406040801.7efbe770@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > The two major effects predicted by special relativity - time
> dilation
> > > > > > and length contraction - are easily verifiable in thought
> experiments.
> > > > > > The verification of the former was started by Einstein himself in
> his
> > > > > > rotating-disc thought experiment but was not finished for obvious
> > > > > > reasons. Numerous variations of this experiment can be imagined -
> a
> > > > > > successful one is described by Androcles here:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Theorem.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The verification of length contraction is also possible. When two
> rods
> > > > > > with equal proper lengths pass one another, and if, at a given
> moment,
> > > > > > one sees the other covering only part of its extension:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________ other
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _________________ one
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it is not so difficult to check whether the picture is correct,
> just
> > > > > > as one checks (and proves the absence of) transverse length
> > > > > > contraction. I have given two examples on this list but now I
> don't
> > > > > > wish to talk about them. Rather, the question I would like to ask
> is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why do relativists refuse to propose or even discuss thought
> > > > > > experiments with a possible unfavorable outcome? As far as I know,
> > > > > > their teacher Einstein used to attack quantum mechanics by using
> > > > > > numerous thought experiments. I see no reason why only "favorable"
> > > > > > experiments should be acceptable in relativity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > >
> > > > > Pentcho, experimental verification of SR has been undergone to high
> > > > > precission in a series of tests which corroborate the predicted
> results.
> The
> > > > > number of tests is even almost excesive.
> > > > > However, GR remains poorly tested, namely because difficulties
> related
> with
> > > > > the accuracy needed. The state-of-the-art brand new experiment,
> Gravity
> > > > > Probe B, which started a few weeks ago, will provide greater insight
> into
> > > > > the GR validity, and, I hope, will discover minute deviations from
> the
> > > > > predicted theoretical values of the Lense-Thirring effect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cesar Sirvent
> > > >
> > > > Poorly tested? Just your opinion cesar. Who cares what cranks hope? If
> > > > you were actually interested in science you wouldn't have such a silly
> > > > agenda.
> > >
> > > I am highly interested in science, a lot more in physics, and extremely
> > > interested in GR, especially the foundations.
> > > That GR is poorly tested due to the minute of the effects and inherent
> > > difficulties of interpretation for cosmological effects is a
> "mainstream"
> > > idea.
> > >
> > > Also, if you are so completely sure that Gravity Probe B will not yield
> > > conflicting results, you are:
> > >
> > > 1) Blindly and irrationaly accepting GR as a dogma.
> > > 2) suggesting that the very-expensive experiment is a waste of time and
> > > money.
> > >
> > > As for the deviation in the L-S effect, it is heuristically predicted by
> my
> > > theory, but for now I have only the existence of an additional term
> whose
> > > value is adjustable, which is bad news. But if any deviation is found,
> it is
> > > worst news for GR.
> > >
> > > Cesar
> >
> > Don't put words in my mouth ceasr. I don't blindly or irrationally
> > accept GR. I recognize that it is a very useful theory which hasn't
> > been falsified to this date. People have asked you specific questions
> > pertaining to 'Your theory'. So far it doesn't exist. Specifically how
> > does your prediction differ from GR and how was it derived?
> > Specifically where does your adjustable term come from?
>
> My theory does not *officialy* exists yet. At this stage, only two more
> people know of it. And it will be so till it gets submitted, peer-reviewed
> and ultimately publised. If you don't feel comfortably about my mentions to
> my theory, you can safely skip those comments from my posts.
>
> Cesar

Maybe you should reconsider making references to something that
doesn't officially exist. Especially if you are not going to give any
details why your theory predicts a different value for the frame
dragging effect than predicted by GR.