Re: Tell me why Einstein's SR was wrong - Results


"SCW" <doune60@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1141060233.558854.104620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sal wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:01:14 -0800, SCW wrote:

<snip>

But Shuba isn't even an anti-relativist! Neither's Tom Roberts, for that
matter. Both of them seem to be answering your question in a way
that's analogous to the way any physicist might answer the question, "Why
is Newtonian mechanics wrong?". The answers may be informative but they
don't seem to have anything to do with what you _appeared_ (to me, at
least) to be investigating.

I know Tom isn't anti-relativist, it's difficult from Shuba's post to
make a decision, but, with tongue firmly in cheek, I classified him as
an objector since he gave an answer.


So to summarize, in your poll asking people who think relativity is wrong
to say why, _nobody_ who actually thinks relativity is wrong said why.

Small surprise, I guess.

Yes, quite correct. I, rather naively, assumed that anyone opposing SR
would be able to pin it down to one of the postulates or the analysis.


I did.
Androcles.



I added a fourth option because I knew that there would be a few people
who couldn't resist disagreeing with everything!

The interesting thing for me was that the Pro SR lobby got so wrapped
up in redefining the question to fit what they saw as a contemporary
account of SR. They knew exaclty why the question was set-out in the
manner it was, but they still wanted to reshape it what they saw as
"correct", i.e. current thinking.


You might try it again with Newtonian mechanics, come to think of it.
We've got at least a couple regular posters who are convinced Newton was
out to lunch, and who apparently feel his version of mechanics is wrong
at
any scale (not just for very large, very small, very fast, and very heavy
things).

No, lets not go there shall we?


And lest you put me down as picking one of (a) through (d), I should
hasten to add that AFAIK relativity as laid out in Einstein:1905 appears
to be correct within its originally described domain of applicability,
and
has since been extended (with no fundamental changes) to cover some
things
outside that domain, and that's about the best you can say for any
theory.
(Acceleration, in particular, wasn't in the original DOA but post-1905 SR
has been extended to deal with accelerated frames.)

Again, I agree. The analysis seems to me to be correct. I quite
pointedly referred (admittedly with errors) to the 1905 paper, but
again, a few people couldn't help themselves and wanted to extend it to
post 1905.


SCW



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tell me why Einsteins SR was wrong - Results
    ... is Newtonian mechanics wrong?". ... hasten to add that AFAIK relativity as laid out in Einstein:1905 appears ... (Acceleration, in particular, wasn't in the original DOA but post-1905 SR ... a few people couldn't help themselves and wanted to extend it to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR is An Aether Theory...and there is NO aether.
    ... >>If you answer, the ONE THAT FELT THE ACCELERATION, you are admitting ... >>obviously wasn't a perfect clock. ... However, one could extend its ... A perfect clock is not affected by they force of an acceleration. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)