Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614562 > unrolled thread

Which experiment with big results against SRT would make the biggest headlines?

Started by	LEO_MMX <ned.marsen@gmail.com>
First post	2023-07-06 10:17 -0700
Last post	2023-07-15 10:48 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 42 — 16 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →

#614562 — Which experiment with big results against SRT would make the biggest headlines?

From	LEO_MMX <ned.marsen@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-06 10:17 -0700
Subject	Which experiment with big results against SRT would make the biggest headlines?
Message-ID	<06235ffd-e5cd-4756-968e-edb109a1c49cn@googlegroups.com>

Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest headlines?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#614567

From	Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-06 11:19 -0700
Message-ID	<56fb8581-b223-47bb-85d2-c7beff69ef28n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614562

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:18:02 PM UTC-5, LEO_MMX wrote:
> Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest headlines?

I haven't the foggiest idea. Over the last century, all of 
the obvious experiments have been tried and refined 
to extreme sensitivity, and absolutely nothing has 
worked to topple SR.

If you want to topple relativity, go for GR. It is almost
universally acknowledged that GR must fail at some
point. Many of us hope and expect that existing 
experiments may be within only a few orders of 
magnitude of sensitivity in being able to find a 
discrepancy between GR predictions and experiment. 
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.nucl.58.020807.111839

My own money would be on STEP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614584

From	Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date	2023-07-06 16:06 -0500
Message-ID	<5tadne3OpdB-sTr5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#614562

On 7/6/23 12:17 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the 
> biggest headlines?

Any experiment within the domain of SR that actually disagreed
significantly with the predictions of SR would get enormous headlines.

For example, in 2011 the initial results of OPERA implied that neutrinos
traveled from CERN to Gran Sasso faster than c. It got enormous
headlines, in both the scientific and popular press. The experimental
setup was re-examined, and a fault was found; after correcting it the
speed of the neutrinos was indistinguishable from c.

To date, no other experiment has done so.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614592

From	Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-06 15:12 -0700
Message-ID	<2f8beb7a-21e5-4a00-8dfb-9539dd01f488n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614584

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:06:56 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Any experiment within the domain of SR that actually disagreed 
> significantly with the predictions of SR would get enormous headlines. 

Domain of applicability of SR:

1) Absolute absence of matter or energy of any kind: It means a void universe, where nothing exists. Then, you get Lorentz Transforms.

2) Absolute absence of any kind of acceleration that require energy to increase speed. Then, you get mass increase of an "electron".

3) Absolute constancy of the speed of light in such void universe.

4) This is new, just to protect the above: LOCALITY and short time duration. No lengths superior to 1 second of light travelling.

As anyone can conclude: these conditions are NONEXISTENT in any experiment done in the last 100 years. For instance,
what really happens in the CERN LHC or any other particle accelerator.

Any experiment performed has violated the basic rules of the "thought experiment" that SR is. A fairy tale, told repeatedly by
fraudsters in science.

But, crying foul, relativists will negate the evidences, arguing that the "approximations" are more than enough for their science.

Same thing with GR and the three predictions, based on simplifications, exuberant imagination and permanent fraud and cover up.
Mercury's 43"/cy, 1.75" starlight deflection by the Sun and gravitational red-shifting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614598 — Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility

From	"Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-06 19:17 -0700
Subject	Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility
Message-ID	<cf779f6d-68fe-4b93-9625-d5601e91aacdn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614592

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 3:12:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Domain of applicability of SR: 
> 
> 1) Absolute absence of matter or energy of any kind: It means a void universe, where nothing exists. Then, you get Lorentz Transforms. 

False. SR works perfectly in weak gravitational fields. The Earth is a good counterexample you imbecility no. 1 above.

> 
> 2) Absolute absence of any kind of acceleration that require energy to increase speed. Then, you get mass increase of an "electron". 
> 

False. SR works with uniformly accelerated frames, uniformly accelerated object and uniform rotating objects. This contradicts your above idiocy no. 2.

> 3) Absolute constancy of the speed of light in such void universe. 
> 

False. (Proper) speed of light is constant even in the presence of gravitating bodies. It is the coordinate speed of light that varies. Contradicts imbecility no. 3 above by Dick Hertz.

> 4) This is new, just to protect the above: LOCALITY and short time duration. No lengths superior to 1 second of light travelling. 
> 

False. Total insanity by crank Dick Hertz.

> 
> As anyone can conclude: these conditions are NONEXISTENT in any experiment done in the last 100 years. For instance, 
> what really happens in the CERN LHC or any other particle accelerator. 
> 

In the LHC (and all other accelerators) SR rules. Contrary to what crank Dick Hertz thinks.

> 
> Same thing with GR and the three predictions, based on simplifications, exuberant imagination and permanent fraud and cover up. 
> Mercury's 43"/cy, 1.75" starlight deflection by the Sun and gravitational red-shifting.

Also false. Crank Dick Hertz keeps biting the dust.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614602 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility

From	Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-06 20:33 -0700
Subject	Re: Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility
Message-ID	<23015095-e44c-4f42-a0df-b2ac7b0ad7b2n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614598

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:17:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 3:12:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> 
> > Domain of applicability of SR: 
> > 
> > 1) Absolute absence of matter or energy of any kind: It means a void universe, where nothing exists. Then, you get Lorentz Transforms.
> False. SR works perfectly in weak gravitational fields. The Earth is a good counterexample you imbecility no. 1 above.
> > 
> > 2) Absolute absence of any kind of acceleration that require energy to increase speed. Then, you get mass increase of an "electron". 
> >
> False. SR works with uniformly accelerated frames, uniformly accelerated object and uniform rotating objects. This contradicts your above idiocy no. 2.
> > 3) Absolute constancy of the speed of light in such void universe. 
> >
> False. (Proper) speed of light is constant even in the presence of gravitating bodies. It is the coordinate speed of light that varies. Contradicts imbecility no. 3 above by Dick Hertz.
> > 4) This is new, just to protect the above: LOCALITY and short time duration. No lengths superior to 1 second of light travelling. 
> >
> False. Total insanity by crank Dick Hertz.
> > 
> > As anyone can conclude: these conditions are NONEXISTENT in any experiment done in the last 100 years. For instance, 
> > what really happens in the CERN LHC or any other particle accelerator. 
> >
> In the LHC (and all other accelerators) SR rules. Contrary to what crank Dick Hertz thinks.
> > 
> > Same thing with GR and the three predictions, based on simplifications, exuberant imagination and permanent fraud and cover up. 
> > Mercury's 43"/cy, 1.75" starlight deflection by the Sun and gravitational red-shifting.
> Also false. Crank Dick Hertz keeps biting the dust.

EXACTLY as I wrote: "But, crying foul, relativists will negate the evidences, arguing that the "approximations" are more than enough for their science."

"False. SR works perfectly in weak gravitational fields. The Earth is a good counterexample you imbecility no. 1 above."
But it works, cretin says. BUT IT IS NOT IN THE STUPID THEORY, Feynman bastard son!

"False. SR works with uniformly accelerated frames, uniformly accelerated object and uniform rotating objects. This contradicts your above idiocy no. 2." 
But it works, cretin says. BUT IT IS NOT IN THE STUPID THEORY, CRETIN!

"False. (Proper) speed of light is constant even in the presence of gravitating bodies. It is the coordinate speed of light that varies."
BUT IT IS NOT IN THE STUPID THEORY, IMBECILE! And GR is based on variable speed of light, in opposition to its competing scalar
theory from Nordstrom. Even Einstein accepted this publicly, addressing a scientific meeting in 1914, when announced that HIS theory
and Nordstrom's one were the only worth attention, spiting on the face of more than 9 different colleague's theories.}

"In the LHC (and all other accelerators) SR rules. Contrary to what crank Dick Hertz thinks."
So, the idiot insists that it works. BUT IT IS NOT IN THE STUPID THEORY, ASSHOLE!

So, SR as a thought experiment, even when ridiculous, is valid as thousands of other T.E. for centuries.
But real applications ARE FAKE, because they violate EVERY SINGLE PARAMETER of the "domain of applicability".

You are like any communist, who will tell that Marx's ideas are perfect, IN A FUCKING BOOK!

Now, how does it work in real life, commie relativist?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614633 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility

From	"Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-07 07:43 -0700
Subject	Re: Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility
Message-ID	<e892ab13-4c4e-4b1b-9116-6744d27d4f53n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614602

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 8:33:45 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> a lot of mouth frothing<

You have a lot of spittle on your face, Dick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614638 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-07 07:58 -0700
Subject	Re: Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility
Message-ID	<94da17f0-3517-4c1d-aeee-f46108231698n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614633

On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 16:43:02 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 8:33:45 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > a lot of mouth frothing< 
> 
> You have a lot of spittle on your face, Dick.

You're lying again, Dono, but what to expect
from a relativistic idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614609

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-07 00:45 -0700
Message-ID	<b2f910b1-407d-4ecd-b1ff-3ea10fa4202cn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614592

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 3:12:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:06:56 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> 
> > Any experiment within the domain of SR that actually disagreed 
> > significantly with the predictions of SR would get enormous headlines.
> Domain of applicability of SR: 
> 
> 1) Absolute absence of matter or energy of any kind: It means a void universe, where nothing exists. 

No, no, no. It's perfectly possible for an experiment to negate SR in principle.
Your "argument" is like saying Newtonian mechanics cannot be falsified experimentally
because that theory uses point masses in perfect vacuum, etc.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614608

From	nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date	2023-07-07 08:48 +0200
Message-ID	<1qdgz7u.sit67xyc6p5bN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
In reply to	#614584

Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 7/6/23 12:17 PM, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the 
> > biggest headlines?
> 
> Any experiment within the domain of SR that actually disagreed
> significantly with the predictions of SR would get enormous headlines.
> 
> For example, in 2011 the initial results of OPERA implied that neutrinos
> traveled from CERN to Gran Sasso faster than c. It got enormous
> headlines, in both the scientific and popular press. The experimental
> setup was re-examined, and a fault was found; after correcting it the
> speed of the neutrinos was indistinguishable from c.

That wasn't even a falsification of an SRT-compliant theory.
All that it falsified was itself.
And to be fair, it wasn't published as 'a falsification of SRT'
They said: 'we don't understand what is wrong here', please help us,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614615

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-07 01:18 -0700
Message-ID	<7671f2d0-8eaa-4bae-b653-216a51c4df79n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614584

On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 23:06:56 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/6/23 12:17 PM, LEO_MMX wrote: 
> > Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the 
> > biggest headlines?
> Any experiment within the domain of SR that actually disagreed 
> significantly with the predictions of SR would get enormous headlines. 
> 
> For example, in 2011 the initial results of OPERA implied that neutrinos 
> traveled from CERN to Gran Sasso faster than c. It got enormous 
> headlines, in both the scientific and popular press. The experimental 
> setup was re-examined, and a fault was found; after correcting it the 
> speed of the neutrinos was indistinguishable from c. 
> 
> To date, no other experiment has done so. 

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your bunch
of idiots "improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t in forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper seconds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614586

From	nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date	2023-07-06 23:07 +0200
Message-ID	<1qdgvrq.17832ft1nvzqafN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
In reply to	#614562

LEO_MMX <ned.marsen@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest
> headlines?

No such experiment is possible, in principle.
(local) SRT is -a postulate- about space-time.
It cannot be falsified.
(all measurements of space-time intervals need SRT
 for their correct interpretation)

The best you can hope for is an experiment
that falsifies -an SRT-compliant theory-.
(such as Maxwellian electrodynamics, or the standard model, or...)

This will certainly generate headlines.
What such a result -means- will be quite another matter.
By far the most likely outcome of professional debates about it
will be that the falsified theory itself is at fault.

It is only after all attemps to replace it
by an SRT-compliant modified theory have failed
that local SRT itself will come under consideration.

So no, you are asking the wrong question, [1]

Jan

[1] And anyway, you are having far too much faith in naive empirism,
or naive Popperianism.
Cheap 'instant truth by experiment' doesn't happen in physics.

If (local) SRT will have to be overhauled eventualy
it is far more likely that such a development will come about
as a result of theoretical considerations.
(like SRT itself to begin with)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614610

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-07 00:52 -0700
Message-ID	<8a71a31f-5196-43f5-9a1f-af117d8fe94en@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614586

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:55 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> LEO_MMX <ned.m...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> > Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest 
> > headlines?
> No such experiment is possible, in principle. 
> (local) SRT is -a postulate- about space-time. 
> It cannot be falsified. 

The second postulate can be falsified: for example, synchronise
the clocks by the usual light signals method and see if the
sync remains in place next week. If aether wind exists, the
clocks will physically desynchronise.

> (all measurements of space-time intervals need SRT 
> for their correct interpretation) 

Not sure what you mean. See above.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614616

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-07 01:22 -0700
Message-ID	<60388efc-b248-4111-838b-9939e33077f7n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614610

On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 09:52:37 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:55 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > LEO_MMX <ned.m...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > 
> > > Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest 
> > > headlines? 
> > No such experiment is possible, in principle. 
> > (local) SRT is -a postulate- about space-time. 
> > It cannot be falsified.
> The second postulate can be falsified: for example, synchronise 
> the clocks by the usual light signals method and see if the 
> sync remains in place next week. If aether wind exists, the 
> clocks will physically desynchronise.

Ane experimental evidence for "If aether wind exists, the 
clocks will physically desynchronise."?
Or just a guess of a brainwashed idiot, maybe?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614622

From	nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date	2023-07-07 12:46 +0200
Message-ID	<1qdhty4.9s5hr162ej9eN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
In reply to	#614610

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:55?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > LEO_MMX <ned.m...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > 
> > > Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest
> > > headlines?
> > No such experiment is possible, in principle. 
> > (local) SRT is -a postulate- about space-time. 
> > It cannot be falsified. 
> 
> The second postulate can be falsified: for example, synchronise
> the clocks by the usual light signals method and see if the
> sync remains in place next week. If aether wind exists, the
> clocks will physically desynchronise.
> 
> > (all measurements of space-time intervals need SRT 
> > for their correct interpretation) 
> 
> Not sure what you mean. See above.

Your 'light signalling' doesn't depend on Maxwell's equations?

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614680

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-07 14:04 -0700
Message-ID	<698941a4-67e4-4d5d-8d89-29d29b4edb42n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614622

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 3:46:12 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:55?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > > LEO_MMX <ned.m...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest 
> > > > headlines? 
> > > No such experiment is possible, in principle. 
> > > (local) SRT is -a postulate- about space-time. 
> > > It cannot be falsified. 
> > 
> > The second postulate can be falsified: for example, synchronise 
> > the clocks by the usual light signals method and see if the 
> > sync remains in place next week. If aether wind exists, the 
> > clocks will physically desynchronise. 
> > 
> > > (all measurements of space-time intervals need SRT 
> > > for their correct interpretation) 
> > 
> > Not sure what you mean. See above.
> Your 'light signalling' doesn't depend on Maxwell's equations? 

All I'm saying is that Einstein's second postulate is falsifiable in principle.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614685

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-07 14:19 -0700
Message-ID	<c6143f1e-71dd-43f6-b92d-fb6a322ef522n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614680

On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 23:04:22 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 3:46:12 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:55?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > > > LEO_MMX <ned.m...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest 
> > > > > headlines? 
> > > > No such experiment is possible, in principle. 
> > > > (local) SRT is -a postulate- about space-time. 
> > > > It cannot be falsified. 
> > > 
> > > The second postulate can be falsified: for example, synchronise 
> > > the clocks by the usual light signals method and see if the 
> > > sync remains in place next week. If aether wind exists, the 
> > > clocks will physically desynchronise. 
> > > 
> > > > (all measurements of space-time intervals need SRT 
> > > > for their correct interpretation) 
> > > 
> > > Not sure what you mean. See above. 
> > Your 'light signalling' doesn't depend on Maxwell's equations?
> All I'm saying is that Einstein's second postulate is falsifiable in principle. 

And aren't you saying you're a queen of England,
poor halfbrain?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614696

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com>
Date	2023-07-07 15:10 -0700
Message-ID	<b4505513-ba07-47a7-b4ed-12eaf526b972n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#614680

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:04:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 3:46:12 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:55?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > > > LEO_MMX <ned.m...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest 
> > > > > headlines? 
> > > > No such experiment is possible, in principle. 
> > > > (local) SRT is -a postulate- about space-time. 
> > > > It cannot be falsified. 
> > > 
> > > The second postulate can be falsified: for example, synchronise 
> > > the clocks by the usual light signals method and see if the 
> > > sync remains in place next week. If aether wind exists, the 
> > > clocks will physically desynchronise. 
> > > 
> > > > (all measurements of space-time intervals need SRT 
> > > > for their correct interpretation) 
> > > 
> > > Not sure what you mean. See above. 
> > Your 'light signalling' doesn't depend on Maxwell's equations?
> All I'm saying is that Einstein's second postulate is falsifiable in principle. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
It's only an interpretation and a mistaken and unnecessary one. Many experiments have shown this, with Sagnac, Fizeau, MMX, Muons, light bending, etc. Read the literature outside your safe space.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614706

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2023-07-07 19:06 -0500
Message-ID	<kgrnkkF1b5eU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#614696

On 7/7/2023 5:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 2:04:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 3:46:12 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:55?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> LEO_MMX <ned.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest
>>>>>> headlines?
>>>>> No such experiment is possible, in principle.
>>>>> (local) SRT is -a postulate- about space-time.
>>>>> It cannot be falsified.
>>>>
>>>> The second postulate can be falsified: for example, synchronise
>>>> the clocks by the usual light signals method and see if the
>>>> sync remains in place next week. If aether wind exists, the
>>>> clocks will physically desynchronise.
>>>>
>>>>> (all measurements of space-time intervals need SRT
>>>>> for their correct interpretation)
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what you mean. See above.
>>> Your 'light signalling' doesn't depend on Maxwell's equations?
>> All I'm saying is that Einstein's second postulate is falsifiable in principle.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jan
> It's only an interpretation and a mistaken and unnecessary one. Many 
> experiments have shown this, with Sagnac, Fizeau, MMX, Muons, light 
> bending, etc. Read the literature outside your safe space.

I was getting to the thought that some of your postings might be
becoming interesting even where wrong. The final conclusion is that
you are completely delusional.

That includes the baseless delusion that there is such a thing as
a "safe space," especially where ideas are concerned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614755

From	nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date	2023-07-08 11:40 +0200
Message-ID	<1qdjmwv.fvktmi1kxiy8iN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
In reply to	#614680

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 3:46:12?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:55?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > LEO_MMX <ned.m...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest
> > > > > headlines? 
> > > > No such experiment is possible, in principle. 
> > > > (local) SRT is -a postulate- about space-time. 
> > > > It cannot be falsified. 
> > > 
> > > The second postulate can be falsified: for example, synchronise 
> > > the clocks by the usual light signals method and see if the 
> > > sync remains in place next week. If aether wind exists, the 
> > > clocks will physically desynchronise. 
> > > 
> > > > (all measurements of space-time intervals need SRT 
> > > > for their correct interpretation) 
> > > 
> > > Not sure what you mean. See above.
> > Your 'light signalling' doesn't depend on Maxwell's equations? 
> 
> All I'm saying is that Einstein's second postulate is falsifiable in
> principle.
> 
Yes, and that is where you go wrong.
It is a postulate, not a physical theory.
All you can falsify are physical theories.
(that by postulate must be Lorentz-invariant)

The falsification of such a theory can only result
in its replacement by better theory.
(which must again be Lorentz-invariant of course) 

Postulates cannot be falsified, any more than mathematical axioms.
It is only when the experimental scene would turn in such a mess
that one really cannot see anymore how empirically adequate
Lorentz invariant theories can cover it all
that one can begin to think about alternatives.

That of course will be a deep -theoretical- development
involving all of physics, and all of our ideas about space-time,
and not merely the reparation of some falsification.
(quantum gravity may turn into such a case)

If you don't mind me saying so,
your problem is that you have completely missed
the meaning of Einstein 1905. (again: not the content, the meaning)

The fundamental insight of Einstein in 1905 was that you can, and must,
seperate the kinematics and the dynamics.
The kinematicts is inherent in the structure of space-time,
and the dynamics (in his case just electromagnetism)
plays out in that -given- space-time. [1]

As we know, Einstein's deep insight has stood the test of time.
All that needed to be changed was replacing global Lorentz invariance
by local Lorentz invariance. (again by Einstein)

Jan

[1] And yes, I know, Einstein didn't see all that in 1905
as clearly as we can see it now, but the basic understanding was there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →

csiph-web

Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest headlines?

Contents

#614562 — Which experiment with big results *against* SRT would make the biggest headlines?

#614567

#614584

#614592

#614598 — Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility

#614602 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility

#614633 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility

#614638 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz demonstrates his imbecility

#614609

#614608

#614615

#614586

#614610

#614616

#614622

#614680

#614685

#614696

#614706

#614755

Which experiment with big results against SRT would make the biggest headlines?

#614562 — Which experiment with big results against SRT would make the biggest headlines?