Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer roadies roadies roadies  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Can Experiments Disprove Special Relativity?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 86 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 3:10:46 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012 3:11:41 PM PST
John Donohue says:
Glyn Phillips -- You don't know anything about the Theory of Relativity... it is abundantly clear from your post. Why you would introduce "your theory" in an Amazon forum can only be answered by the observation: Glyn Phillips is a crank and just wants attention.

And if you have a PhD in theoretical physics then I can blow rainbows out my bum.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 5:03:03 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 10, 2012 5:25:09 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012 5:26:09 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
"If you did any exercise of the math of relativity, you could easily discern the unrealistic nature of an arcane theory. Nothing any one would benefit from."

Fell off my chair laughing. This only makes it clear that you have not actually looked at the math of relativity properly. I bet all you did was tinker around with the equations improperly written using engineering units and without expressing the equations in their true form.

The problem is that using engineering units time is treated differently. This is about as silly as measuring everything to the left of you in meters and everything in front of you in ells. You really can't complain that your equations have funny conversion factors floating around and look bad. You just need to rewrite them in the proper form.

Next you would write the equations in their hyperbolic form. While this is pretty, it goes even farther. After a good deal of manipulation you would arrive at a simple rotation matrix.

Oh, and the math has been confirmed to great precision many times. The first was when it was proven that there was no universal rest frame. The Lorenz transformations are the only class of transformations that can do that. Beyond that, if you study condensed matter physics, aka materials physics, you would discover that relativistic perturbations on the Hamiltonian for gold predict its gold color and further you would also predict that mercury would be a liquid at room temperature. Understanding atomic properties is hardly useless, especially since that is how computers are build these days.

The only ones here who are at risk of looking silly are the ones who maintain that relativity is incorrect because they have a grudge against the theory or the man who came up with it. The theory works and has been confirmed literally thousands of times and, even if you don't admit it, is a key component of modern physics, electrical engineering, and particularly nuclear engineering. If it where not for Einstein's E=m no one would have a clue how to build a reactor or understand fission reactions.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 5:35:26 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 10, 2012 5:45:43 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
Simple: You views are out in the open and contrary to the past century of known physics. He has never explained his and I refuse to buy a crank's book no matter how elegantly its written.

Oh, and as this is another personal attack, abuse reported.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 7:43:21 PM PST
noman says:
RE: MFEH's tinfoil hat is too tight says:"If you did any exercise of the math of relativity, you could easily discern the unrealistic nature of an arcane theory. Nothing any one would benefit from.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie"

**People who actually do physics strangely seem to disagree with you. Doing a quick SCIRUS search on "relativity" gives 728, 503 hits with the following subheadings:

theory of relativity
speed of light
special theory of relativity
general theory of relativity
albert einstein
general relativity and quantum cosmology
black holes
principle of relativity
relativistic
lorentz transformation
quantum physics
inertial frame
twin paradox
cosmology
frame of reference
michelson morley experiment
fossils
relativity theory
simultaneity
gravitational waves
energy technology
gravitation
light signal
postulate
black hole
frames of reference
high energy physics - theory
addition of velocities
dilation
doppler
contraction
inertial mass
world line
physicists
astrophysics - cosmology and extragalactic astrophysics
electromagnetism
doppler effect
relativity principle
doppler shift
lorentz invariance
classical physics
atomic clock
gravitational redshift
light waves
dark energy
electricity and magnetism
gravitational radiation
light cone
curved
general relativistic
electrodynamics
beam of light
twitter
aberration
aether
big bang theory
rotation curve
quantum gravity
fundamental building
gravitational lensing
physics - general physics
riemannian geometry
equivalence principle
gravitational mass
tachyon
cerenkov radiation
space time continuum
pythagoras theorem
sub section
detectors
cosmic background
dispersion relation
relativistic correction
invariant
piece of ground
perihelion
need to know
mathematical physics
mathematics - logic
perturbation

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 8:32:13 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012 8:33:00 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 10, 2012 8:42:29 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
You spamming the forums using your personal credentials. I should also point out that your credentials do not include expertise on quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, special relativity, or general relativity and yet that is what you spend most of your time talking about. As far as I can tell, your expertise is in optics and possibly some related engineering.

That roughly translates to "you are not an expert in the field of physics. Don't expect us to treat you as one." Noman is not pretending to be one. She simply posts evidence of what the experts think. That has more weight than your arguments (your physical weight also doesn't enter into this).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 9:26:57 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 11, 2012 5:44:56 AM PST
noman says:
RE: "Noman is not pretending to be one. She simply posts evidence of what the experts think. "

**While I appreciate the promotion,"Noman" does not refer to my chromosomal makeup but rather to Odysseus nom de guerre, Odyssey book 9.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 9:36:03 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 11, 2012 9:38:51 AM PST
Jack Shandy says:
-"The first was when it was proven that there was no universal rest frame. The Lorenz transformations are the only class of transformations that can do that."

Not so. The Galilean transformations rest mathematically on the same set of assumptions about spacetime as the Lorentz transformations (existence of physically equivalent reference frames, homogeneity, isotropy, causality, group structure). Only when the single free parameter related to the invariant speed is chosen do we get the distinction between LTs and GTs.

http://www.physics.utah.edu/~lebohec/P3740/levy-leblond_ajp_44_271_76.pdf

Which is also an indication for Mowie that if he thinks that the GTs are 'mathematically realistic', whatever he thinks that means, the LTs are no more arcane than the GTs.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 10:18:23 AM PST
you are the one with diarhhea of the keyboard
and constipation of ideas

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 10:19:00 AM PST
got any other deep thoughts :)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 10:19:44 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 11, 2012 10:32:35 AM PST
Jack Shandy citing:
"http://www.physics.utah.edu/~lebohec/P3740/levy-leblond_ajp_44_271_76.pdf"

Jack Shandy wrote:
"he thinks that the GTs are 'mathematically realistic', whatever he thinks that means, the LTs are no more arcane than the GTs. "
==========================================

Jack,

You lack the ability of smelling a stinking rat when you see one. You cited an article from the American Journal of Physics, 1975, for a French author, Jean-Mare Levy-Leblond, re-proving Lorentz Transformation under the title:

"One More Derivation of Lorentz Transformation"
http://www.physics.utah.edu/~lebohec/P3740/levy-leblond_ajp_44_271_76.pdf

You should have realized immediately that the author was at loss in physics, tried to amuse himself by fooling around with mathematics, with one goal in mind of agreeing with Lorentz.

There is no research, there is no contribution, and there is nothing to gain from futile publication. The American Journal needed to get revenue, fattens its publication, claims to have attracted all sorts of scientists.

What is in it for you? Not much other than getting Physics Geek (Doctor Who) to bark louder, and louder, biting the same dry old bone.

You know well that The Galilean transformations breaks down even for low speeds if the center of mass was not chosen properly. If you try The Galilean transformations on two trains traveling at in opposite directions at v1 and -v2, you cannot calculate the energy of collision of the two trains in your reference frame where v1 and -v2 are measured. You must first determine the center of masses of the two trains in order to get the net velocity after collision. That will obviate the need for the Lorentz Transformation at the train speed regardless of its low value compared to c.

Try solving the classical problem of two trains m1, m2 traveling at speeds v1, -v2, using your high school math. You get
(m1.v1 -m2.v2) (m1 + m2).v12
Where v12 is the net mass of the combined masses after collision. Soon, you discover that you screwed up big because high school math is not really real math, not for scientific application at least. Hence, you must walk away from all forums of discussions where most folks would have any thing better than high school education, of university graduates with diplomas empty of any depth of knowledge.

But, in dealing with light speeds, the center of mass must be determined by Lorentz Transformation.

In both transformations, Lorentz does not degenerate to Galilean when the centers of masses are properly chosen. Lorentz dealt with light of zero rest mass, and had no choice but to use a mathematical detour in order to circumvent the zero-mass of light.

So, what did Jean-Mare Levy-Leblond added to Physics? Only a neatly written assay, sitting dead in the archives of journals, only for Jack Shandy to get entertained. You cannot look yourself in the mirror claiming that you benefited any think from Levy-Leblond's amusing paper.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 10:48:02 AM PST
John Donohue says:
Hey Mo -- you might as well be telling us that you should fly a 737. Your ignorance is clear to everybody who knows any physics at all. You are just a sad little crank who is angry because your crank objections to the SR and GR don't impress any people but other cranks.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 11:18:16 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 11, 2012 11:31:48 AM PST
Jack Shandy says:
-"You know well that The Galilean transformations breaks down even for low speeds if the center of mass was not chosen properly."

And in the remainder follows an exposition on dynamics. But if you read the paper, you see that dynamics has no relevance at all. It's about coordinate transformations, showing how the LTs and the GTs both result from largely the same set of assumptions about spacetime.

-"Lorentz dealt with light of zero rest mass, and had no choice but to use a mathematical detour in order to circumvent the zero-mass of light."

The importance of the derivation in the paper lies in the fact that light and its mass(lessness) are completely irrelevant for the existence of a family of coordinate transformations of which the LTs and GTs are special cases.

-"You cannot look yourself in the mirror claiming that you benefited any think from Levy-Leblond's amusing paper."

Of course I can.

Edit: threw in and deleted an allusion to kinematics, which is as irrelevant to the argument as dynamics is.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 11:46:31 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 11, 2012 11:57:13 AM PST
Jack Shandy says:
-"There is no research, there is no contribution, and there is nothing to gain from futile publication. The American Journal needed to get revenue, fattens its publication, claims to have attracted all sorts of scientists."

It's really funny seeing you continuously trying to discredit publications containing sound mathematics and/or physics, while -you are- invariably dredging up the slimiest muck from the sleaziest quack-infested corners of the internet whenever -you are- trying to substantiate your own drivel.

Edit: inserted -you are-, since otherwise it would be me dredging up muck to substantiate Mowie's drivel :)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 1:04:28 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 11, 2012 1:20:35 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 8:16:00 AM PST
Jack Shandy says:
Spoken like a true engineer I guess, which makes it all the more clear that engineers are not physicists or mathematicians by default.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 8:23:09 AM PST
The people using electricity generated by nuclear power plants to heat and cool their homes are directly benefiting from Special Relativity.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 8:45:25 AM PST
Jack Shandy says:
I guess Mowie wants to know the real life benefit of the -derivation- of the transformations, as is done in the paper. Mowie apparently thinks it's useless to gain knowledge just for the sake of gaining knowledge.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 11:08:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 11:08:36 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 12, 2012 12:26:03 PM PST
Jack Shandy says:
It would be hard to study and appreciate (pure) math and (theoretical) physics if you lack the necessary motivation. Since you seem to detest gaining knowledge just for the sake of gaining knowledge, it seems that you made the right choices in life. I can respect that. What I don't respect is your condescending attitude towards people who see things differently. And for fv<k's sake stop pretending you're an expert in every scientific field you ever read something about. So you studied medicine, engineering, and some undergraduate mathematics. That still doesn't in the least make you the physics expert that you seem to think you are. Sorry.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 12:48:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 12:54:56 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[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
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

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