Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #456862
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR |
| Date | 2018-04-24 22:29 +0200 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <pbo42c$crl$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <fk23vhFlig7U1@mid.individual.net> <pbipsk$1p37$1@gioia.aioe.org> <fk4v7aFa8n2U1@mid.individual.net> <pbkpbj$t4r$1@gioia.aioe.org> <fk7nndFt7s0U1@mid.individual.net> |
Il 24/04/2018 05:47, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > 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: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. > O.K. > 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. > I will try to deepen your point of view and also that of Selleri. However this problem is not essential for "my position". >>>> >>>> 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. > If I understand correctly, as both Lorentz Aether theory, SR and Selleri weak relativity, have compatible results, I can accept all three theories and then choose the one that seems closest to reality. That is my theory (or hypothesis), which in practice is a variant of that of Lorentz and of that of Selleri. >> >>>> >>>> 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. But Selleri showed that his theory is also compatible with other experiments and observations, namely: Fizeau experiment; Aberration of light; Occultation of Jupiter's satellites; Radar distances of the planets; International Atomic Time. Are there any other experiments? In conclusion I arrive at the same question: In addition to Einstein's special relativity, could I also accept the weak relativity of Selleri? If not, why? Dino Bruniera
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