Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #456778
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR |
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fk7nndFt7s0U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <pbev1i$1qkq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <fk23vhFlig7U1@mid.individual.net> <pbipsk$1p37$1@gioia.aioe.org> <fk4v7aFa8n2U1@mid.individual.net> <pbkpbj$t4r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
On 24/04/2018 12:07 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 23/04/2018 04:37, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >> On 23/04/2018 6:04 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> Il 22/04/2018 02:40, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>>> On 21/04/2018 7:08 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>>>>>> Demonstration that on Earth (that is an inertial frame) the >>>>>>>>> speed of light cannot be isotropic and therefore cannot be c, >>>>>>>>> so the second postulate of Special Relativity (SR), which >>>>>>>>> states that the speed of light has the same value c in all >>>>>>>>> inertial frames, is falsified. >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So I performed the demonstration in two different ways. >>>>> I don't know in what other ways the scientific community would like >>>>> me to prove it. >>>>> >>>>> As I wrote in the previous post, I think that the only way in which >>>>> the scientific community can "challenge" my demonstration is to >>>>> state that the special relativity would see the truck as an >>>>> inertial frame and the surface of the sphere as another inertial >>>>> frame, which moves under it. >>>>> Which is a Ptolemaic view of reality. >>>>> And that I could "challenge" in turn, asking what the engine that >>>>> drives the wheels of the truck, would do. >>>>> But I already imagine what would be answered to me. >>>>> >>>>> However I think that only with a Ptolemaic view of reality, perhaps >>>>> it would be possible to "challenge" my demonstration. >>>>> But is a Ptolemaic view of reality, credible? >>>>> >>> >>>> That the background radiation spectrum is not the same in all >>>> directions is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that this >>>> implies that the photons have different speeds relative to the >>>> Earth. So far, your arguments have been circular. >>>> >>>> Special relativity provides a consistent model of reality derived >>>> inexorably from certain assumptions, one of which is that the laws >>>> of physics depend only on relative velocities. That does not in >>>> itself mean that it is right, but it does mean that any model in >>>> which the speed of light is shown to be not constant must contain an >>>> assumption that contradicts the assumptions on which special >>>> relativity is based. >>>> >>>> Thus attempting to show that special relativity is wrong by way of >>>> thought experiments is a fool's errand, because such attempts are >>>> necessarily circular. This approach is doomed to failure. It is a >>>> logical impossibility. It is an ex-parrot. The only way to get >>>> closer to the truth is through real experiments. >>>> >>> >>> As regards the thought experiments, you convinced me. >>> But as regards the measurement of the dipole anisotropy, which shows >>> that the Earth is moving relative to the CMBR reference frame, not much. >>> Because this reference frame could be considered as the privileged >>> reference frame, which Lorentz could not find. >> >> If there were a privileged reference frame, one would expect that to >> show up in experiments, and it doesn't. >> > > look down > >>> >>>> Fortunately, many real experiments have been done, and the results >>>> are consistent with special relativity. >>>> >>> >>> In his books, the physicist Franco Selleri has shown that experiments >>> that are consistent with SR are also consistent with his "weak >>> relativity", which in practice is a theory of the aether. >>> But not only, because the experiment on the Sagnac effect would not >>> be consistent with SR, but with his theory. >> >> Any theory in which the speed of light is the same for all observers >> must necessarily reduce to the Lorentz Transformation, in the absence >> of gravity. This is indeed the reason that Lorentz arrived at his >> transformation, and why the same transformation that Einstein >> independently found is still called the Lorentz Transformation. > > I did not believe that Einstein had independently found the so-called > Lorentz transformations. > Because Einstein was not very good in math. > But also because I don'like Einstein, because he treated his wife Mileva > Marić, badly. > I believe that Mileva contributed to the development of SR, so much so > that in the original documents, there was also her name. > IMHO Einstein will have been good, but also very cunning. I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by anyone who's done high school algebra. General relativity is more difficult, but there are plenty of people who can do the math. > >> Einstein started from a different premise, but the transformation >> itself is the mathematical model that constitutes the theory. >> >> As far as I can see, special relativity has no problem with the Sagnac >> effect. >> > > In his book "Weak Relativity", Franco Selleri has dedicated the entire > chapter 9 to show that "no theoretical justification of the > Sagnac effect has been obtained from the two relativistic theorie" (SR > and / or GR). > Here is the link from which you can download the book (free). > <http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Selleri_Weak_Relativity.pdf>. Selleri doesn't dispute that special relativity gives the correct result in the frame of the laboratory, but he claims that it gives a null result in the rotating frame. That involves a naive application of special relativity. A person in a rotating frame is not in an inertial frame, and can tell the plane of rotation, distance to the centre of rotation and direction of rotation. Their obvious approach to the calculation is to transform into the non-rotating frame, apply special relativity, and then transform back into their own rotating frame. This will clearly not yield a null result. >>> >>> Therefore, even assuming that my demonstration isn't sufficient to >>> falsify the second postulate of SR, it would be to choose between two >>> theories both consistent with the result of the experiments. >>> And it seems to me that a Ptolemaic theory, like the SR, is worse >>> than a Copernican theory, like that of the aether. >> >>> >>> However, Einstein based his theory on the validity of the second >>> postulate, but also claimed that the isotropy of the speed of light >>> "is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the >>> physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my >>> own free will" >>> So Einstein supposed that the speed of light is isotropic in all RFs, >>> not because it actually can be, but as a stipulation. >> >> The motivation for it was the fact that experiments had failed to >> detect any variation in the speed of light, even in situations where >> such a variation had been expected and easily within the scope of the >> experiments to detect. It should be remembered that the >> Michelson–Morley experiment was intended to measure the speed of the >> Earth relative to the aether. That it produced a null result was >> completely unexpected. >> > > As I wrote above, in his book Franco Selleri has shown that the results > of the MMR experiment are also compatible with its Weak Relativity, > which contemplates the existence of a privileged reference frame. As does Lorentz Aether theory, whose results are also compatible, and with the same outcome - the theory does not allow the determination of one's velocity relative to the posited privileged reference frame. If a theory is insensitive to the velocity relative to the privileged frame, then one can reasonably argue that the privileged frame was just an artifact of the approach used to get to the result, and has no external reality. > >>> >>> Therefore I ask you: >>> If a theory were developed, with the stipulation that the CMBR >>> reference frame is the privileged reference frame, the only one in >>> which the speed of light is really isotropic, would not, at least, >>> have the same validity as the SR? >> >> No, it wouldn't. One can pull theories out of the air, but to have any >> validity they have to match experimental results. Any theory that >> contains a privileged reference frame[*] must necessarily predict >> results which different from those of special relativity. Since >> experiments support special relativity, they must conflict with other >> theories that predict different outcomes, and thus falsify them. >> >> [*] Other than one that is inherently undetectable in the theory, >> which raises obvious doubts about its existence > > See above. > However I reformulate the question. > > If a theory compatible with the results of the MMR experiment were > developed, with the clause that the frame of reference of the CMBR > is the privileged reference frame, the only one in that the speed of > light is really isotropic, it would not be, at least, do they have the > same validity as SR? It needs to be compatible not just with MMR, but with all the other experiments that support special relativity. For that to be the case, the theory must be equivalent to the Lorentz Transformation, the posited privileged frame will not appear in the theory, and its existence will not be supported by the theory. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 23:39 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-20 12:56 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 22:40 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-21 09:28 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:42 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:45 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-20 17:48 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 16:08 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-20 21:09 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 11:08 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-22 10:40 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:01 -0500
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 18:53 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 12:14 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 08:26 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 19:57 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-23 05:50 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-23 05:26 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-23 06:09 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:32 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 01:48 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:33 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 02:53 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 12:00 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 04:08 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 04:33 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 05:11 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 14:13 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 09:26 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:04 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 12:37 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 19:58 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 20:06 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 20:42 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:40 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 17:01 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-23 09:17 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:05 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 16:07 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-24 13:47 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-23 21:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:25 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 14:49 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:05 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 06:32 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 15:38 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 10:01 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 18:13 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 11:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 22:29 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-25 09:25 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 21:27 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 21:39 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-26 10:42 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 21:37 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:59 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-27 09:07 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 22:38 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Jim Emile <leuu@wwjw.ce> - 2018-04-27 20:46 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 14:40 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-29 14:28 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-28 22:32 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 17:41 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-30 08:51 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 10:14 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-26 21:58 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 22:19 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 22:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 20:49 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 12:21 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 13:30 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 23:52 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 23:46 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "e-ps@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:27 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-22 10:45 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:51 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:16 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 13:39 -0700
csiph-web