Re: Polls: Is Special Relativity wrong? One person, one vote

On Feb 25, 8:27 am, Aaron Arcsec <silver[delete-this]
he...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:36:57 -0800 (PST), Albertito

<albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Voting slip:
Is Special Relativity wrong?

11. Not even wrong

Explanation follows:

SR "theory" has caught itself in the following tight bind:

It claims that all of its effects are merely geometrical, or
non-physical

and

it claims that the cause of any possible physical effects,
which can only be motion through space, is meaningless.

Both of these statements, I would dispute.
You have a rather restricted notion of what "physical" means, and as a
result, your search for something you would qualify as being truly
"physical" is driving you buggy.

As a gentle probe of this, let's consider something from *classical*
physics to see if it satisfies your notion of "physical".
Classical physics says an object with net electric charge sets up a
field in completely empty space, such that it is a *physical* property
of a particular location in that empty space that it has a certain
value of electric field. Furthermore, the field is also physically
real in the sense that energy is stored in it. Do you agree that an
electric field in completely space is physically real?

And to borrow something from modern physics:
Modern physics says that there is a measurable property of a system
called mass, which is identifiable by its relation to a number of
other properties. However, the mass of a system of objects does not
necessarily the sum of the masses of (and therefore does not reside
in) the individual objects in the system. For example, the mass of a
two-photon system is non-zero, where the mass of each individual
photon is zero. In your mind, is mass a physical property?

After all this, it may just be that what physicists consider to be
"physical" is much broader than what you are willing to allow.


But mere geometrical effects are useless for physics,
so the "theory" says nothing, and is, in fact, a non-theory.

==A-A==
(recently voted by poll as "crackpot of the decade")

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Musings of a Dummy
    ... energy has no definable or measurable mass, where does the "mass," the ... hard-science (physics, chemistry, etc.)major at nearly every major ... universe operates. ... As a physicist, I know how the electric field functions, its ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... that when photons fall under gravity they gain energy. ... There are two methods of measuring mass you either measure the ... without the aether - which you agree does not exist - ... Even sillier physics then decided it ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... say the same laws of physics apply in all inertial frames of referenec (ie ... "Waldron developed a ballistic theory of light on his own before learning that Walter Ritz had already done it at about the time that Einstein developed his 'Special Relativity'. ... The idea of light separating from the source at different speeds in different FoR is what causes Doppler shift in SR. ... He writes "If a body takes up an amount of energy E then its inertial mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... > I only do that where I point out my correction of modern physics. ... >> dipped toward the mass, but upon leaving the proximity of the mass, it ... >> Energy from a photon striking matter causes matter to move. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... > I only do that where I point out my correction of modern physics. ... >> dipped toward the mass, but upon leaving the proximity of the mass, it ... >> Energy from a photon striking matter causes matter to move. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)