Re: Special Relativity is Dead! (Final Proof)




Sue... wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Norman Bates wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1164328938.729767.253440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eric Gisse wrote:
[...]

"wow! if I make relativity sound stupid, it is just like I proved
relativity wrong!"


THIS SHOWS HOW NOINSENSICAL THE H&K REALLY IS.

Hafele and Keating is an EXPERIMENT that existed in real life. Your
"experiment" is a nonsensical through experiment whose only result is
highlighting the fantastic ignorance of its' creator.

H&K had no light path. It couldn't possibly test:
<< As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v;
as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses
between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but... >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html


Sue...

We all know that the H&K experiment was totally inadequate, but the results
that were published were verified by later more accurate experiments, so
can we just refer to it as the H&K experiment and move on?
Norman Bates

I never bring it up but when the H.G Wells fans offer it as
proof of an absurd interpretation of SR then is should be
challenged.

< H&K has nothing to do with SR, idiot. >

<< The published outcome of the experiment was consistent
with special relativity, and the observed time gains and
losses were reportedly different from zero to a high degree
of confidence.

No, the experiment was consistent with GR.

Do you know the difference between SR and GR?


That result was contested by Dr. A. G. Kelly who examined
the raw data: according to him, the final published outcome
had to be averaged in a biased way in order to claim
such a high precision: >>

The claims of the electrical engineer [why is it always an engineer]
have been debunked many, many times in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
http://yost.com/misc/cargocult.html

Learn some physics:
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm

Oh look more irrelevant links.

It isn't a Sue post until there is a smattering of links that have
nothing to do with the topic at hand.


Sue...






The last I looked the first three letters of this n.g. are still
S-C-I.

Sue...




WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?

Why would he? All you are doing is attempting to phrase relativity in a
stupid way even though you have no concept of what relativity is or
what it predicts.

Your attempts to invalidate an experiment you disagree with is childish
and transparent. The Earth, believe it or not, did not stop rotating in
the H&K experiment. Stop pretending it did.




Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.


.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Electro-London Inertia
    ... > sue jahn wrote: ... In general relativity theory ... > proportion to the applied force of acceleration?] ... > upon a rest-based theory called relativity that cannot synchronize ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Polls: Is Special Relativity wrong? One person, one vote
    ... for the performance of all physical experiments" ... Sue loves this quote because it uses the phrase "totally equivalent". ... All inertial frames are totally equivalent ... relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Triplet Paradox
    ... > Sue... ... >> Russell wrote: ... Einstein did not write the FAQ. ... << At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Forgotten Prediction of Einstein
    ... >> Sue... ... informing him that his paper contradicts special relativity? ... And if nobody can do that, well, you must ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Forgotten Prediction of Einstein
    ... > Sue... ... >> Russell wrote: ... >> with real field equations which will include moving media. ... > informing him that his paper contradicts special relativity? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)