Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

[1100f]

Yes and most likely improperly. That was my meaning. There is no basis to assume matter is in any way connected with the properties of light in terms of its aparent invariance.

Again, you show your misunderstanding of what SR says.
We tried to explain you, but you still want to make false claims about what SR says.

Show me what is wrong with the Lagrangians used in all three interactions.
Show where it says that matter is connected to properties of light.

 

[MacM]

Again, you show your misunderstanding of what SR says.
We tried to explain you, but you still want to make false claims about what SR says.

Show me what is wrong with the Lagrangians used in all three interactions.
Show where it says that matter is connected to properties of light.

You connect matter with the properties of light the minute you start to claim and apply the Theory of Relativity to them.

Again you failed to address the issues and choose to assert "Wrongfully" a lack of understanding of the problem.

Rather than argue with you I refer you to [POST=714909]Physicists Worlds Wide, Conferances, Correspondances and Generally Ignored Experiments[/post]

 

[1100f]

You connect matter with the properties of light the minute you start to claim and apply the Theory of Relativity to them.

Again you failed to address the issues and choose to assert "Wrongfully" a lack of understanding of the problem.

Rather than argue with you I refer you to [POST=714909]Physicists Worlds Wide, Conferances, Correspondances and Generally Ignored Experiments[/post]

You are the only one that connect automatically light with matter.
c is called "speed of light" because, since EM governs our daily life, light was the first thing that was discovered to go at this speed. However it is not a property of light only. Any massless particle goes at c. Look for example at the standard model Lagrangian. Not all particles in the standard model have electric charge, however the standard model is a relativistic one.

 

[MacM]

You are the only one that connect automatically light with matter.

c is called "speed of light" because, since EM governs our daily life, light was the first thing that was discovered to go at this speed. However it is not a property of light only. Any massless particle goes at c. Look for example at the standard model Lagrangian. Not all particles in the standard model have electric charge, however the standard model is a relativistic one.

I can tell you didn't even read the other physicists material.

I do not connect light (or massless particles- EM) with matter. I state catagorically that that is the error made in Relativity.

"The assumption that mass in any manner is constrained by such properties."

Further had you actually read the material proved you here you would see that more recent experiments show that P2 of Relativity is false.

So you not only wrongfully associate the matter universe with it but it doesn't even exist. :bugeye:

 

[1100f]

I can tell you didn't even read the other physicists material.

I do not connect light (or massless particles- EM) with matter. I state catagorically that that is the error made in Relativity.

"The assumption that mass in any manner is constrained by such properties."

Further had you actually read the material proved you here you would see that more recent experiments show that P2 of Relativity is false.

So you not only wrongfully associate the matter universe with it but it doesn't even exist. :bugeye:

Did you understand what I wrote?
It doesn't seem that you did.
I said that Relativity is not connected to light. The theory of light is done in the framework of relativity. So please, don't tell that I am saying the opposite.

 

[MacM]

Did you understand what I wrote?
It doesn't seem that you did.
I said that Relativity is not connected to light. The theory of light is done in the framework of relativity. So please, don't tell that I am saying the opposite.

You can play on words but you cannot hide.

Relativity is based on the Postulate that the speed of light is invariant.

 

[1100f]

You can play on words but you cannot hide.

Relativity is based on the Postulate that the speed of light is invariant.

Agreed. c is invariant.
Nowhere in the derivations of SR, the fact that it is light is used.
The only thing that is used is that c is invariant.

 

[MacM]

Agreed. c is invariant.
Nowhere in the derivations of SR, the fact that it is light is used.
The only thing that is used is that c is invariant.

I only want to note the differance in our responses.

You state that c is invariant.

I only state that the postulate of Relativity says it is invariant.

It appears that postulate has experimental data that disagrees.

 

[1100f]

I only want to note the differance in our responses.

You state that c is invariant.

I only state that the postulate of Relativity says it is invariant.

It appears that postulate has experimental data that disagrees.

This is irrelevant to what we are talking about.
You said that relativity is about light.
I said that relativity is not only for light.

 

[MacM]

This is irrelevant to what we are talking about.
You said that relativity is about light.
I said that relativity is not only for light.

Changing your statement content does not alter your first statement.

[post=715010]Here[/post]

And this is a totally backward definition. The invariance of light was the basis and is a postulate (foundation) of Relativity.

 

[MacM]

This is irrelevant to what we are talking about.
You said that relativity is about light.
I said that relativity is not only for light.

Changing your statement content does not alter your first statement.

[post=715010]Here[/post]

I said that Relativity is not connected to light. The theory of light is done in the framework of relativity.

And this is a totally backward definition. The invariance of light was the basis and is a postulate (foundation) of Relativity.

 

[1100f]

Changing your statement content does not alter your first statement.

[post=715010]Here[/post]



And this is a totally backward definition. The invariance of light was the basis and is a postulate (foundation) of Relativity.

I'll try to explain you again, maybe this time you will understand what I am writting.

The theory of relativity is not restricted to light. It was discoverd by using light experiments because the speed of light is c. The theory of relativity is the basis and the theory of light is done within the framework of relativity. When deriving the Lorentz transformation you seek for a general reference frame transformation. The fact that c is invariant (as a velocity) helps to find the general form of the Lorentz transformation. But the Lorentz transformation is valid for all particles.
Thinking that relativity is restricted to light will make you believe that it is not a physical theory, but a theory about perception.
Again, I suggest that you read an introductory book on relativity to find how the Lorentz transformation is derived.

 

[MacM]

The fact that c is invariant (as a velocity) helps to find the general form of the Lorentz transformation.

1 - Error #1: As I have stated before. The mis-interpretation of the M&M experiments, particle accelerator data and other data and the wrongful assumption of universal invariance of light speed is the root problem.

This view is supported by radar testing of Venus showing clearly a (v+c) and (v-c) result, the absence of time dilation affects in rotating microwave antenna experiments and the actual failure of the H&K Atomic Clock test to support time dilation predictions show failure of Relativity.

Acquired by A.J.Kelly via the Freedom of Information Act in 1991:

"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything...the differance between theory and experiment is disturbing

Hafele"

Lorentz transformation is valid for all particles.

2 - Error #2: As I have stated there is simply no justification to link the physics of the material universe with light or EM wave observed properties, even had they been correct and they appear not to be so.

Thinking that relativity is restricted to light will make you believe that it is not a physical theory, but a theory about perception.

Error #3: I have never said that. I have said that adherance to the concept of Relativity based on false interpretation of evidence is ludricrus. That view is supported by logical arguements using the proclamations of Relativity itself.

Again, I suggest that you read an introductory book on relativity to find how the Lorentz transformation is derived.

Again, I suggest your innuendo falls very short of being justified and that you instead begin to actually look around at the rather volumous amount of experimental evidence and logic that shows you are in a rut to nowhere.

 

[James R]

Nothing new to add, still, MacM? You've reduced yourself to muttering empty assertions.

 

[MacM]

Nothing new to add, still, MacM? You've reduced yourself to muttering empty assertions.

Empty is clearly in the eyes of the beholder. I hardly call Hafele's admission of failure empty, nor my logic for that matter.

 

[geistkiesel]

Empty is clearly in the eyes of the beholder. I hardly call Hafele's admission of failure empty, nor my logic for that matter.

MacM, I finally learned the acute wisdom of your admoniotion desribing one of our mutual postng colleagues on this forum. I naively thought we had reached a state of civility and rational thought which proved not to be h case. Anyway iI tend to ignore the best of advice in these matters giving he "other" the benefit of the doubt and taking them at face value until corcumstances force a different peception and modus operandi.
Well, live and learn is still an operative philsophical imperative I suppose.

Geistkielsel

 

[MacM]

MacM, I finally learned the acute wisdom of your admoniotion desribing one of our mutual postng colleagues on this forum. I naively thought we had reached a state of civility and rational thought which proved not to be h case. Anyway iI tend to ignore the best of advice in these matters giving he "other" the benefit of the doubt and taking them at face value until corcumstances force a different peception and modus operandi.
Well, live and learn is still an operative philsophical imperative I suppose.

Geistkielsel

Thanks. I have noticed that you have not yet voted in my latest thread. I urge you to have a look.

[thread=42456]Vote[/thread]

 

[MacM]

Post deleted due to spam

 

[Persol]

You post the same exact post in a half dozen different places, and wonder why people call you a kook? Yet at the same time you have been responding to the three of us in other threads... so you are also a liar... again.

If you want a stage from which you can spew your lies and distrotions, you have a webpage.

 

[MacM]

You post the same exact post in a half dozen different places, and wonder why people call you a kook? Yet at the same time you have been responding to the three of us in other threads... so you are also a liar... again.

If you want a stage from which you can spew your lies and distrotions, you have a webpage.

This issue is at stake in all these places. You have wrongfully assaulted me and my character in all these places. I have posted the truth in all these places. I have done so through links which is the most efficient method rather than multiple posting.

If you don't want the truth spread over multiple threads then stop lying in multiple threads.

I have posted the correct calibration corrections being made in the GPS. They are not based on SR as you and others have attempted to claim as proof of Relativity.

They are infact adjustments which coincide with LR (my view). So either put up or shut up. Show that these adjustments are not made relative to the central earth inertial frame (at the poles) vs the moving surface clock.