Re: The demise of SR.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
The demise of SR.
(What has O'Barr done?)

What I have written in several previous posts
should be the demise of SR. But not one of
the SR experts will even address the issue. This is
nothing new or different. Many others have made
valid complaints about SR, and got the same
treatment. Let me explain some of the problems.
Normally, progress in science is where we reach a
point of knowledge and experimental evidence where a
clear difference occurs between accepted theory and
some measurement. Thus, there is clear and
convincing evidence that something is wrong, and
needs to be corrected by a better theory. And the
test which gave results that violated present theory
is usually used to act as the key to which of these
other approaches will be accepted. So a decision
must be considered and made as to which of all the
new theories give the best predictions that match
with all presently known measurements. And the
winner is decided by these measurement results.
When progress occurs as described above, there
can really be very little argument as to what is
being done, and which approach is superior. But the
present rejection of SR is different. SR does
provide the correct math answers. And thus, the
normal rejection process does not exist.
But this does not mean that we do not need to
address some issues. Upon a present day analysis of
SR, we find some very strange things. And all these
strange things can be removed by changing the base to
the theory being used. And so it might appear that
these are just arguments of words. And some of them
are just that, just arguments of words. But it is
the totality that has to be seen and appreciated.

Let us repeat this thought at least one more time:
The base to SR, the base that is used to develop the
math of SR, is not the correct base. It does produce
the correct math, but it still is not correct. What
we have in SR, is a pseudo-correct base. It looks
correct, it results in the right math, but all the
results do not fully support it.

Let me list again just a few of the points that
can be considered:
1) SR assumes that all velocity is relative. This
is used to derive the math. If object A is moving
with a relative velocity away from object B, then
object B is also moving away from object A with the
same relative velocity. This might not sound like it
is anything new, in that in Newtonian physics, such
facts are always correct. But in SR, each of these
determinations is being done in two different
reference frames.

DHR's see it differently, and they have a point :

Rocket A passes Rocket B in opposite directions. Clocks are synchronized at the moment they pass.

Relative motion. Who is moving and who is not ?

We let the clocks decide. We make Rocket B decelerate, and then accelerate to catch up with A. We conclude that B must have been moving, because B's clock has run slower !

Now same experiment, same everything, except now me make A decelerate and accelerate to catch up with B. We conclude that A must have been moving because A's clock has run slower !

That is why they call it relativity.

Actually, there is an absolute frame, but by the nature of its gamma factor properties, it has relative results when you only consider two way experiments. And so far we cannot perform one-way experiments, because we are limited by the signaling speed of light.

This led Einstein to state : I throw an object away from me, and when it comes back, its clock has run slower. If the object had thrown away Einstein, Einstein's clock would have run slower. It is the same as the A & B rocket experiment.


HTH

Uwe Hayek.

--
Such an assertion can only have be provided by individuals whose inborn ability to think has been severely repressed by excessive education. This repression of intelligent thought is characteristic of the process by which PhD candidates acquire their degrees. They are well taught the accepted truth at the expense of their ability to question that truth. They become, in other words, priests of a religion rather than true scientists.
-- H.E.Retic on the web

L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large (usenet/news) groups.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Cosmic Muons Paradox
    ... It is clear that in its short lifetime a muon ... Let there be a clock at the ground showing coordinate time of the ... object is moving towards the other, ... of relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Basic relativity question.
    ... > at all on the principles of relativity. ... > a clock is on a ship moving relative to me is moving then from my ... > perspective the clock is moving. ... But for people on the ship the clock ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... fundamental part of physics since at least the time of Newton. ... I don't reject Galilean relativity, ... What my transformation predicts is that a moving stick is contracted ... when a moving clock shows a time ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Just what is SR?
    ... What is Einstein's theory of relativity all about? ... title of his theory is "On the Electrodynamics of Moving bodies". ... The clock keeps correct time. ... This is known as the "proper mass". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
    ... acceleration per se has not affect on clock rates), ... through spacetime corresponds to a longer spacetime interval than a ... I don't know that spacetime is math. ... List one "real result" of relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast