Post by GSSWrong. The indoctrination is an induced mental state which cannot be
stripped away by quantum realm.
I do not know the writer of EinsteinHoax. I read his article about
three years back and was quite impressed by it.
Seriously? I've always considered him to be a complete kook
and newsgroup spammer. On the other hand, my opinion was based
on the lack of content, indifference to logic, and plodding rhetoric
and rigid style of his articles, so maybe my criteria was too
restrictive to find something positive, but I'm not sure what
could possibly offset those handicaps.
Post by GSSEven though he is a
little too blunt, he represents millions of those scientists and
engineers who are intuitively convinced that there is something
seriously wrong with the Relativity Theories but cannot pinpoint
exactly what is wrong.
That's odd. I'm a physicist and have never encountered one of
those millions of scientists and engineers. What do you figure
the odds on that are? I'd guess close to a bazillion to one against.
[...]
Post by GSSI disagree. Because of the indoctrination in the mainstream, all
dissenting voice is stifled. This in turn has stifled our progress in
fundamental physics.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. In the last half century,
physics has made more progress than in the histpry of science prior to
that time. Withing the last century, physicists have discovered two
forces not not known to exist before the turn of the 20th century,
and in that time, explained them and unified with them electromagnetism.
The physical theories we have now are the most precise theories ever
created in the history science. All of those theories are based on
relativity and quantum field theory.
Perhaps your expectations were a bit high, given the incredible
successes of the theories developed through the 20th century. But,
if not, precisely what is being stifled and precisely which dissenting
voice is going chirp up and establish some credibility with a calculation
for simple, well known, physical result before demanding a reasearh
program to solve the hard stuff?
[...]
Post by GSSI agree. Let us therefore cooperate in tearing down the ill founded
Relativity Theories.
Let is first see if (1) you even know why you are objecting to relativity,
(2) if you have an alternative that explains more. This should be rather
simple, however not as simple as a cliche about clocks and rulers. How
about simething for which I haven't yet seen in the form of a slogan,
like an e+/e- scattering cross section, or the electron magnetic moment?
Post by GSSOnly the first postulate is required. "The laws of physics are >the
same for all inertial systems". From that postulate, Maxwell's
relations provide the same value for c for all inertial observers. The
second postulate is redundant.
Wrong.
Don't be naive. I can derive special relativity from the first
postulate alone and I've posted such a derivation several times
on this newsgroup, so I know it can be done no matter how many tme
you say that it can't. I can also derive maxwell's equations
without ever assuming the existence of a charged particle, (which
I've also posted on this newsgroup).
[...]
Post by GSSof light in each of the infinitely many inertial reference frames by
sacrificing the absolute nature of space and time coordinates
The speed of light is irrelevant to relativity. In fact, the speed of
light is only constant if charge is conserved, and it makes no difference
to relativity either way.
[...]
Post by GSSKindly make it clear that as per your understanding whether the SR is
defined within our Solar system.
Sure. Special relativity is valid anywhere that gravitational fields
are of no interest, which just about everywhere for any purpose other
than studying the behaviour of large objects on a cosmological scale.
Most physicists find it useful to gauge their choice of approximations
by the physical content of what is being calculated. Not only does
that indicate a grasp of the physics but it saves a great deal of
unnecessary labor. But that is just a personal preference for thinking
before throwing math at anything.
Post by GSSKindly also make it clear that as per your understanding where exactly
the two postulates of SR that *require* no gravity are valid. Are they
valid anywhere in our universe?
Let me see if I can summarize this concisely. Are you interested
in gravitational effects? [Yes/No] If Yes, then you need to use
general relativity. If No, then you can still use general relativity
if you aren't deterred by the thought of making something as hard as
possible for no particular reason. On the other hand, if you have
better things to do than spend a few extra days doing quality control
for the BIC pen corporation, you can skip general relativty and stick
with special relativity, or even plain old newtonian mechanics if
special relativity is overkill.
Post by GSSHowever, let me clarify that in all my arguments justifying the
invalidity of SR, I have not used the term 'gravity' or 'gravitation'
anywhere. Just for illustration, consider the following argument which
does not depend upon the existence or otherwise of gravity.
'Let us consider a closed volume V of space containing a system of N
particles of matter in all possible physical states. We consider the
closed volume of space in the sense that there is no transfer of mass
or energy across the boundary surface of this volume and the enclosed
particles do not experience any significant force or interaction from
outside this volume. Let point S be the center of mass of these N
particles and let G be a non-rotating Cartesian coordinate reference
frame with its origin located at point S. In this reference frame G,
let the positions of all N particles be defined to be certain function
of time (x^i(t), y^i(t), z^i(t)), provided they remain bounded within
the closed volume V. Since G is a reference frame with origin at the
center of mass of the enclosed N particles, total momentum of all of
its domain particles is zero.
Uh, that doesn't follow. In relativity, you must use the center
of momentum. Center of mass is a classical concept. However, you will
be happy to know that center of momentum coordinates are so useful
that accelerator labs throught the world endorse them for the simplicity
they offer.
Post by GSSObviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total
momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles
will be conserved.
Let me state that precisely: If the p1^u, p2^u, ... pn^u are
four momenta, then, in the center of momentum frame and the total
four mometum is P^u, then since P^u P_u = M^2 is true in _any_
frame,
(p1 + p2 + ... + pn)^u (p1 + p2 + ... + pn)_u = M^2
where M^2 is _not_ the sum of the masses, but sum of the square
of the four momenta. Since that expression is an invariant, you
may pick any frame you wish, including the one in which
the sum of the three momenta is zero. You can also choose a
frame that is as unintuitive as you like or anything inbetween.
Post by GSSWe may refer this set of N particles to any
coordinate reference frame for quantifying or assigning certain measure
numbers to the relative positions of these particles, but that must not
alter the physical state (e.g. pressure and temperature distribution)
or content of matter (e.g. mass-energy content) within the closed
volume under consideration. This requirement may be treated as a
physical constraint on the choice of valid coordinate reference
frames.'
OK, see above expression for an invariant expression.
Post by GSSWith this it is impossible to consider all inertial reference frames in
relative uniform motion to be equivalent.
That is an odd thing to say, since I just wrote down an expression
which is valid in any frame.
[...]
Post by GSSYou have not shown anything "invalid", except your understanding
of relativity.
This is a clear sign of indoctrination.
This is a clear sign of a kook argument which attempts to substitute
slogans in place of knowledge. It's also blatant hypocrisy, since I'll bet
you have decided you simply dislike relativity without knowing anything
about it. So far, all of your objections are bsed on your personal
caricature of relativity. However, if you can post something that actually
resembles relativity as the theory is known to the physicists who have
studied it, go ahead.
Post by GSSHow can you see the invalidity of SR if you snip the argument as
unread!!
Well, for starters, nothing you've posted really resembles the actual
theory of relativity and there are only so many strawman arguments one can
read before deciding the next 100+ lines aren't going to break a trend. If
you had an actual argument, putting it first and placing the strawman
arguments further down would be a better strategy. An even better strategy
would be to not even include the straman arguments, since it tends to give
the impression that you don't understand the subject. That will also make
your posts shorter and more concise.
[...]
Post by GSSNot done. Kindly make an effort to understand my point of view first
and then bring out any specific point which appears to be not
convincing enough.
First, you're going to have to post something that looks like an
argument against relativity and that means relativity as it it is
understood by physicists, not caricatures and strawman arguments collected
from a google search for kooky slogans. If you don't know what a
four-vector is or you continue to insist that light has some relevance to
deriving the lorentz transformations, the best you can expect is that I'll
agree that you have proven your understanding of relativity is wrong.
If you want to be considered an expert, you'll need the expertise expected
of an expert.