Customer Discussions > Science forum

Can Experiments Disprove Special Relativity?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 86 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 11:55:54 PM PST
Pot calling kettle black eh?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 7:44:49 PM PST
Nova137 says:
Jeff says: The Earth's wobble on its axis causes the stars and constellations to appear to move over time in a very complex way. At least it sounds complex to me every time I read about it.
Nova says: Don't forget about earth's seasons, too!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 8:29:26 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012 9:41:10 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
You don't have any years of experience. Therefore, you concede that you are not an expert?

(Hint: you are the only on in this conversation who is claiming that status. I am simply claiming an (growing) familiarity with the subject.)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 8:10:12 PM PST
gp is a crackpot not an expert

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 7:57:24 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 7:00:03 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Mohamed F. El-Hewie says:

[You could make that more challenging by also asking:]

Yes and those questions are central in relation to the looming December 21 date.

Some people think that on December 21 the Earth will finish its wobble cycle on its axis and the approximately 25,800 year cycle will begin again.

How the Mayans or anyone else decided that the great 'Platonic Year' ends on December 21 I don't know. I guess they feel they knew the position the Earth was in when it first started wobbling.

This gets into questions about the mysterious origins of the astrological ages and signs of the zodiac.

That 25,800 year cycle is called the precession of the equinoxes. The Earth's wobble on its axis causes the stars and constellations to appear to move over time in a very complex way. At least it sounds complex to me every time I read about it.

Ancient cultures placed great significance on the different astrological ages and they felt each age has unique influences on the human race.

There's also the issue of so called Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Those invisible forces influence things at the galactic level. So their influence would also exist down at the solar system level.

The questions you listed all come down to whether people believe the Earth and the other planets orbit the sun and rotate on their axis based only on chance. The other extreme is all of those things happen based on a precision and plan that the human mind can't even begin to imagine.

Some ancient cultures like the Mayans were on the precision end of that scale. They saw great order in the universe and felt the affairs of the human race are intimately tied to the stars.

Jeff Marzano

Fingerprints of the Gods

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 3:53:59 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
But its so funny to see him make stuff up and then wonder why we don't consider him an expert!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 3:53:15 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
Actually, if you want to be considered an expert, you need to take a few years worth of real physics. It's not my job to tutor you. You have clearly established in this thread that you are not an expert. If you where, you would have understood Noether's Theorem and how it relates to symmetries.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 3:23:51 PM PST
it is God's universe

He made it

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 3:16:53 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 2:57:31 PM PST
The Weasel says:
Doctor Who says:
This is reality. There is no fundamental law that the earth must exist.
***
Just quit already. Your opponent is just lobbing the "ball" back over the net - Ignore and move on.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 2:23:00 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 1:53:46 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
This is reality. There is no fundamental law that the earth must exist.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 1:51:54 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
Clearly you have yet to learn Noether's Theorem.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 1:27:13 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 1:24:38 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 12:49:06 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
1) A collision with the moon and effects of the free top.
2) Nothing, it just worked out that way. There is no fundamental law.
3) Circular orbits represent a perfect condition. Real life is not perfect.
4) Seriously? We orbit at an average distance r_ave which dictates an average kinetic energy which dictates orbital speed.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 12:13:17 PM PST
how high is up?

how far is there ??

why ???

why not ????

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 11:18:34 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 8:30:23 AM PST
A. Caplan says:
Glyn Phillips says: As someone with a degree and PhD in theoretical physics, I would like to ask a question. It is said that Special Relativity has been proved in experiments, e.g. time dilation experiments (particle decays in accelerators, atomic clocks on planes).
>As someone who does not have a PhD in theoretical physics, or in any other field, I would like to know where you learned that Special Relativity has been "proven"? By definition, a theory cannot be proven. The experiments you reference SUPPORT the theory, but do not prove it. All experiments design to test a theory have a hypothesis that, if shown to be correct, invalidates (disproves) a theory. If the hypothesis is correct, then the theory must be modified to agree with the new information, or discarded.

Therefore, those experiments, had they been successful, would have disproven the validity of the theory. That is, the theory would no longer have met the criteria of a valid theory.

As you are a PhD in the field, why don't you study the questions that you have brought up? You have a question in physics, your field, now make a scientific investigation. That's what the many scientists whom I know would do, rather than asking a bunch of poster of unknown abilities and knowledge level.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 8:09:35 AM PST
would not the accumulation of stuff (dust , rocks, energy from sun becoming mass in eg trees) cause more weight
while there is nothing giving more momentum
so eventually the earth has to spiral into the sun
unless the sun goes supernova like and burns the earth up first

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 5:49:18 AM PST
The stability of the planets' orbits in the solar system is an interesting topic. Since it is a n-body system, it is chaotic, but it is believed that catastrophic instabilities would only occur on a time scale comparable with its age, meaning not any time soon.

Here's the relevant quote from a very interesting article on Scholarpedia:

This observation leads then to the concept of marginal stability for the Solar system: the Solar system is unstable, but catastrophic phenomena leading to the destruction of the System in its current form can take place only in a time comparable with its age, that is to say approximately 5 billion years. The observation of this present state then makes it possible to suppose that it always was thus for the Solar system, since the end of its formation. At that time, it could have remained some other bodies than the current planets, but in this case, the System would have been much more unstable, and a collision or an ejection could have taken place (an example could be the impactor of the Earth which was at the origin of the formation of the Moon). After this event, the remaining System becomes much more stable. We thus obtain a self-organization of the System towards increasingly stable states which are always states of marginal stability.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Stability_of_the_solar_system

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 9:15:37 PM PST
so you are a lawyer also ?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 8:40:27 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 8:40:57 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
Simple:The conservation comes from symmetry. That is exactly what Noether's theorem means: they system has some type of symmetry. In this case, the symmetry comes from the fact that you can't pick out any natural direction for an axis. In other words, its a perfect rotational summitry. There is also temporal symmetry. There is no natural place to start a clock and say that that is t=0. All points are equally valid points to set t=0.

The "why" is angular momentum conservation. The answer to "why is angular momentum conserved"? is symmetry. You only asked the first question. You also don't have any idea what your talking about so you are just ranting.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 8:17:41 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  16
Total posts:  86
Initial post:  Nov 5, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 14, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions