Re: SR Unverifiability - GR falsifiability
- From: "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Sep 2006 13:09:04 -0700
Mike wrote:
Axioms of SR:
(See for example: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html )
1. Space-time is a 4-D continuum --- fails verification (and common
sense)
2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification
3. POR ( Principle of Relativity - An epistemological principle that
fails verification)
4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - fails verification
(and common sense)
We've been through all this before on this NG. SR in fact relies on
several physical assumptions, e.g.:
1. It takes the same amount of time for light to travel around a
triangular path in both directions. Note that only one clock is used,
so the issue of synchronisation does not come up. These experiments
were done by Fizeau, and Einstein almost certainly knew about them in
1905. Without this (physically verifiable) result Einstein's
synchronisation of clocks wouldn't work (Einstein's 1905 paper would
grind to a halt at the point where it says: "We assume that this
definition of synchronism is free from contradictions", specifically,
the relation 2 there).
2. It assumes that the (now consistent) clock synchronisation does not
go out of step. IOW the clocks once synchronised, remain synchronised
for all time. If this wasn't true (it isn't e.g. when gravity is
present), then the second postulate would amount to a mere clock
setting convention and the entire SR - while correct - would become
entirely vacuous, just like the "relativity" based on clock
synchronisation by sound signals would be.
There is no way to falsify the base of SR.
There is - perform the two experiments above and check the results.
Certain aspects of space and time homogeneity and isotropy are
necessary.
If you want to attack the absurdity of Einstenian Relativity attack GR.
Dealing with SR is a waste a time, It is no more than a formal
mathematical theory.
You haven't studied it in enough detail and got fooled by the
mathematical simplicity of its derivation (as were many others - just
read this NG).
--
Jan Bielawski
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SR Unverifiability - GR falsifiability
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: SR Unverifiability - GR falsifiability
- References:
- SR Unverifiability - GR falsifiability
- From: Mike
- SR Unverifiability - GR falsifiability
- Prev by Date: Re: people_v_Baez webpage removed?
- Next by Date: Re: SR Unverifiability - GR falsifiability
- Previous by thread: Re: SR Unverifiability - GR falsifiability
- Next by thread: Re: SR Unverifiability - GR falsifiability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|