Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)

Tom Roberts schreef:

Specificaly I am thinking of the emergence of
the Big Bang model of the universe (implying that the laws of the
universe favour one particular inertial frame, the frame of the
momentum of the universe),

But there is no such implication. Indeed, in the FRW manifolds of GR,
which are the basis of big bang cosmologies, there is no such
"favouritism". The unique cosmological frame is special because of a
symmetry of the manifold, not because it is somehow "special" in the
laws of physics.

If Big Bang can be explained purely from the laws of physics, the
momentum of the entire universe is an inertial frame favoured by the
laws of physics. If the laws of physics favour one particular inertial
frame, it is no longer possible to say that all frames are equal for
the laws of physics. That means... there is no Relativity. I am sorry
for you, but the conclusion is inevitable.

the fact that the EPR-paradox was
experimentally decided against Einstein's relativity based
convictions/predictions (in the eighties of last century with the Bell
inequalities, "spooky action at distance" appearing to be real),

This, too, is not true. These experiments could instead be falsifying
the notion of "local realism". Indeed, that is the usual interpretation....

Who did understand Relativity better than Einstein? Einstein knew that
his theories implied "local realism". That's why Einstein rejected
"spooky action at distance". Thirty years after the death of Einstein
it was confirmed experimentaly that there is indeed "spooky action at
distance". Science should now have the courage to question the truth of
a theory that - according its inventor - is not reconcilable with
certain facts that have meanwhile become experimentaly confirmed and
verified.

and
the experimental fact that the velocity of earth in space can be
measured accurately with colorshift in CMBR (implying that velocity is
not that relative after all).

And this is also not true. Presumably the CMBR is merely marking the
cosmological frame in the FRW manifold corresponding to our universe
(there are good theoretical reasons to presume this). That frame is
"special" only in that it directly reflects a symmetry of the manifold;
velocity is still "relative" in the usual sense (i.e. the "sense" of GR).

The facts are that it is possible to measure one's velocity in the
universe against something. So there is something in the universe that
can be considered as a zero inertial frame. Michelson/Morley were not
able to find this zero frame, but ultimately it did show up. Again,
science should have the courage to reconsider a theory that was
invented to explain the impossibility to detect the velocity of earth
in the universe.

This is a fine place for "thinking outside the box", because the
consequences of silly mistakes are so minor. But one should be aware of
the current knowledge about physics. The "imbiciles", "clowns", and
"crackpots" don't. It is their lack of knowledge, and their
intransigence that makes them worthy of such labels.

Abject language is the domain of children.

You are a fine example of that: you suddenly appeared, claimed "Special
Relativity is Dead", and started several threads offering so-called
"proofs". But not one of your arguments is valid -- they simply present
your elementary misunderstandings of the theory.

The problem with Relativity is that it does not describe reality in the
way it should. Physics should describe nature in terms of "what seems"
and "what is", and how these things are related. "What seems" is local
and "what is" is global. The "what is" level in SR is constituted by
the rule for time delation, the "what seems" level is based upon that
by taking the signal delay (with Doppler etc.) in consideration. The
problem now is that the "what is" level is not global. If it were,
there would be inconsistency.

The lack of a global "what is" level, is in effect the absence of
"absolute time" in Relativity. However, according the proponents of
Relativity it is impossible even to take an arbitrary time as absolute.
That means that Relativity does not describe nature. It does not
describe the reality of the universe in one absolute framework. So
"Relativity" is not complete. It can be completed by adding absolute
time, but then you have also to change the name in something like
"Absoludity". As far as I can see it is possible to reinterprete
Relativity with absolute time, without invalidating the end results of
computations with SR. I have seen suggestions in this direction from
other "crackpots" on this forum. They are probably right.

From a fundamental standpoint Relativity is incomplete, and in fact
wrong, since completion destroys the basic assumption: relativity. I
have posted a number of problems with SR, in an attempt to discover
where the discrepancy between theory and practice is located. Meanwhile
it is clear that the calculation apparatus of Relativity is made
consistent, at least for the cases that are not too difficult. It is
also clear that people that have practiced these calculations have
difficulty in distinguishing between consistency of the theory and
validity of the theory. Since there are fundamental/philosophical
problems with the theory (an absolute framework lacks and is even
impossible), and since the assumptions of the old man have been
invalidated by theory (Big Bang) and by experiment (CMBR & Bell
inequalities), the waiting is for evidence that let the theory crumble
down. Meanwhile it will be a fact of life that the children are calling
me names.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mega Pixel Myth
    ... about mega pixels these days, and I ask them how big they ... mega pixels the better the image no matter what Size you ... I tell them the size images I save to for my intended purpose 99 ... average people don't parlez vous PPI) they think I'm funning with ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: The princile of the relativity.
    ... .THE METAMORPHOSES OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RELATIVITY. ... All the laws of the mechanics are ... The only issue is the definition of an inertial frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: the heart of a paradox
    ... > was wishfully thinking that Relativity allows for a purely local reckoning ... > from one's arbitrary choice of a reference frame. ... dividing the universe into two pieces. ... plane to be the edge of each half-universe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is electromagnetic field theory unified?
    ... >>I recall your comment about rotating FoR about the magnet and 'that's ... Angular velocity does have an absolute frame of reference. ... as the absolute inertial frame of the universe, which, as Einstein said, ... "is contrary to the spirit of the relativity principle". ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About frames moving at constant velocity with respect to inertial ones
    ... But Newtonian's laws are NOT Lorentz invariant. ... In frame A, ... Mass excluded from 1905 Relativity? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)