Special Relativity Is Refuted

[Motor Daddy]

...(snip) but you'll demand that we believe you anyways. Can you see the problem here?

I couldn't care less if you believe me or not. I actually feel sorry for you that you can't see the light (pun intended).

I understand what distance and time are, I'm sorry that you don't. I'm not concerned with getting rich or awards, I'm merely trying to teach you the proper concept of distance and time, as measured using light. If you don't believe me, fine. I won't lose any sleep over it. Like I said, I actually feel sorry for you.

 

[OnlyMe]

Accepted.

Refractive indices for air 1.0003
Refractive indices for water 1.3330

Taking into account the different speeds for light in the air and in the water,
a laser rangefinder, calibrated for air, will show 6.663 m to a target that is at a distance of 5 meters under water.
Those who believe in SR, and they make a calculation, taking into account the length contraction, then let's do the experiment.
Let's see who is right.

Emil, I would hope the confusion here really is a translation issue.

SR, or rather Einstein's 1905 paper, begins with the introduction of the speed of light in vacuum as a universal constant. There is nothing about the variations in the measured speed of light due to the refractive index of a transparent medium, that is in conflict with SR.

The range finder example you use is not in conflict with SR.

 

[Emil]

Emil, I would hope the confusion here really is a translation issue.

SR, or rather Einstein's 1905 paper, begins with the introduction of the speed of light in vacuum as a universal constant. There is nothing about the variations in the measured speed of light due to the refractive index of a transparent medium, that is in conflict with SR.

The range finder example you use is not in conflict with SR.

So there is no different lengths contraction for different speeds of a particle?

 

[AlexG]

Accepted.

Refractive indices for air 1.0003
Refractive indices for water 1.3330

Taking into account the different speeds for light in the air and in the water,
a laser rangefinder, calibrated for air, will show 6.663 m to a target that is at a distance of 5 meters under water.
Those who believe in SR, and they make a calculation, taking into account the length contraction, then let's do the experiment.
Let's see who is right.

I fail to see what length contraction has to do with this. For that matter, I can't see what SR has to do with this at all. You are using an instrument calibrated for one medium to measure distance (light speed) in another medium.

So what is your supposed point?

 

[AlexG]

Of course, if you're just a crackpot who has no idea what you're talking about, as your reluctance to test your ideas indicates, then you'll just keep making excuse after excuse about how you're the victim of some giant conspiracy(for which no supporting evidence exists) and you're unable to prove that you're right but you'll demand that we believe you anyways. Can you see the problem here?

You've hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head.

 

[AlexG]

So there is no different lengths contraction for different speeds of a particle?

There is no length contraction for light at all. Length contraction at relativistic speed only applies to particles or objects with mass.

 

[OnlyMe]

So there is no different lengths contraction for different speeds of a particle?

For a particle, with a rest mass, yes. Length contraction applies. Photons i.e. light has no rest mass. It is an electromagnetic energy packet, so to speak.

When an electron or a proton is accelerated to near light speeds, and note I said near not to the speed of light, theory projects and seems to be confirmed by experiment, that their particles become flattened like pancakes, so to speak. But both of these have a rest mass, where a photon does not.

The only thing even close to length contraction that could involve a photon is the curvature or expansion of space itself. Even then it is the shape of space that is dynamically stretched or compressed so to speak and the photon itself just moves through it. That is a whole different subject and lies in the details of GR rather than SR. (I know this last is a crude example/explanation, but I am almost at a loss to come up with a clear and simple example.)

 

[Emil]

For a particle, with a rest mass, yes. Length contraction applies. Photons i.e. light has no rest mass. It is an electromagnetic energy packet, so to speak.

When an electron or a proton is accelerated to near light speeds, and note I said near not to the speed of light, theory projects and seems to be confirmed by experiment, that their particles become flattened like pancakes, so to speak. But both of these have a rest mass, where a photon does not.

The only thing even close to length contraction that could involve a photon is the curvature or expansion of space itself. Even then it is the shape of space that is dynamically stretched or compressed so to speak and the photon itself just moves through it. That is a whole different subject and lies in the details of GR rather than SR. (I know this last is a crude example/explanation, but I am almost at a loss to come up with a clear and simple example.)

You say many "inaccurate" things but not worth pointed out.
Not only in this post but also in other posts.
Discussing these is "inaccuracies" would be off topic.

The muons have rest mass?

 

[AlexG]

The muons have rest mass?

The rest mass of a muon is 200 times that of an electron, about 10 times less than a proton.

It's a simple thing to look up.

 

[OnlyMe]

You say many "inaccurate" things but not worth pointed out.
Not only in this post but also in other posts.
Discussing these is "inaccuracies" would be off topic.

The muons have rest mass?

Emil, taking into consideration that my post came with a disclaimer that the macroscopic analogies I offered were crude examples, I would appreciate knowing what you see as inaccurate. I am not beyond making inaccurate statements and analogies. If you really believe them to be off topic, let me know by message on my profile page.

 

[Emil]

Emil, taking into consideration that my post came with a disclaimer that the macroscopic analogies I offered were crude examples, I would appreciate knowing what you see as inaccurate. I am not beyond making inaccurate statements and analogies. If you really believe them to be off topic, let me know by message on my profile page.

The model for absorption and re-emission is a quantum model attempting to explain refractive indexes.., .

I disagree

Radio frequencies penetrate water more efficiently than does light and provides the effective range in water to actually map the ocean floor, beyond the depth that light penetrates.

I disagree

For our purposes, length contraction can only be applied to moving objects, not light itself or distances.

I disagree

Length contraction does not apply to distances or photons, it applies only to material objects and even then is only measurable if the object is moving a significant fraction of the speed of light.

I disagree

For a particle, with a rest mass, yes. Length contraction applies. Photons i.e. light has no rest mass.

Also applies if it has effective mass.

But do not want to discuss in this thread about what I think is "inaccurate".

 

[OnlyMe]

I disagree

I disagree

Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Radio frequencies penetrate water more efficiently than does light and provides the effective range in water to actually map the ocean floor, beyond the depth that light penetrates.
​

I disagree

In this you are probably correct, depending on the wavelength. It has been a while since that post but I probably should have said sound waves, as in sonar.

I disagree

Also applies if it has effective mass.

But do not want to discuss in this thread about what I think is "inaccurate".

As to the rest, I guess you are entitled to your own opinion.

As to the absorption/reemission model it was introduced as a link to a video explaining the process as, an explanation of refraction.

Most of the rest has been covered repeatedly in these and other forums.

 

[Read-Only]

But do not want to discuss in this thread about what I think is "inaccurate".

and therein lies your entire problem with this subject: You don't want to consider what science has actually proven to be correct, but rather only what YOU "think."

That's very, very sad because it demonstrates the height of both your arrogance AND blind ignorance.

 

[Emil]

and therein lies your entire problem with this subject: You don't want to consider what science has actually proven to be correct, but rather only what YOU "think."

That's very, very sad because it demonstrates the height of both your arrogance AND blind ignorance.

It is a clear example of your "inaccuracies", making it impossible a discussion between us.
I said clearly:

But do not want to discuss in this thread about what I think is "inaccurate".

If you want a discussion on one of these topics, you only have to open a new thread.
But you prefer a hysterical response.

 

[OnlyMe]

If you want a discussion on one of these topics, you only have to open a new thread.

Emil, the thread.., the title of this thread defines the conversation as involving Special Relativity. It is in a pseudoscience sub folder but that in and of itself should not preclude the interjection of "science" into the discussion.

Given this as context, discussing SR is consistent with the current thread. It even allows a bit more latitude in ideas than might be acceptable in a thread more directly associated with contemporary scientific consensus.

I don't believe that there is anything, any issue we (including you) have raised, that would not be an acceptable point of discussion for this thread.

We do not have to agree with one another to discuss any subject. In truth, the best discussions, on almost any subject, most often involve differing points of view.

I do not know how to responde to your last reply to me since there was little substance to the reply. Just stating you do not agree, essentially ends discussion. I do not dispute the fact that we seem to disagree on many fundamental points. I do disagree in the implied position, that the points raised are not appropriate for this thread.

 

[origin]

“ Originally Posted by OnlyMe
For our purposes, length contraction can only be applied to moving objects, not light itself or distances. ”

Originally Posted by Emil
I disagree

Is there a reason you disagree with this. What evidence or data is your disagreement based on, or is this just your opinion?

“ Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Length contraction does not apply to distances or photons, it applies only to material objects and even then is only measurable if the object is moving a significant fraction of the speed of light. ”

Originally Posted by Emil
I disagree

Is there a reason you disagree with this. What evidence or data is your disagreement based on, or is this just your opinion?

“ Originally Posted by OnlyMe
For a particle, with a rest mass, yes. Length contraction applies. Photons i.e. light has no rest mass. ”

Originally Posted by Emil
Also applies if it has effective mass.

What evidence or data is this based on, or is this just your opinion?

Originally Posted by Emil
But do not want to discuss in this thread about what I think is "inaccurate".

Really? Isn't that kind of the point of the forum, to discuss competing ideas??:shrug:

 

[AlexG]

I've posted all that before. Emil doesn't really pay any attention, except to say 'I disagree'.

 

[OnlyMe]

I've posted all that before. Emil doesn't really pay any attention, except to say 'I disagree'.

I can't judge anyone on this kind of interaction. I can easily remember times when I was so certain that what "I knew" was right, that any contradicting idea or information, was felt almost as an attack on me personally. We define ourselves to some extent in this way. It happens even to the best of those we call experts, in their field.

I try today to test my own ideas on an almost daily basis, just because over the years I have learned just how far-off the mark much of what I had believed and been taught was, when viewed retrospectively.

A real life example for you. When I was younger I purchased 1000 shares of Apple between $5 and $8 a share. I decided it was time to sell when Apple hit $72. That turns out to have been a wrong assumption. Though I can't really complain. I did have to pay taxes on a profit.

 

[Read-Only]

I can't judge anyone on this kind of interaction. I can easily remember times when I was so certain that what "I knew" was right, that any contradicting idea or information, was felt almost as an attack on me personally. We define ourselves to some extent in this way. It happens even to the best of those we call experts, in their field.

I try today to test my own ideas on an almost daily basis, just because over the years I have learned just how far-off the mark much of what I had believed and been taught was, when viewed retrospectively.

A real life example for you. When I was younger I purchased 1000 shares of Apple between $5 and $8 a share. I decided it was time to sell when Apple hit $72. That turns out to have been a wrong assumption. Though I can't really complain. I did have to pay taxes on a profit.

OnlyMe, I think this is worth consideration: In a broad sense, there's nothing inherently wrong with being wrong. We've all been wrong about things at points in our lives - and will continue to be wrong about other things now and then.

However, there IS something VERY wrong with continuing to hold on to an erroneous concept when presented with a ton of facts that clearly prove a idea we have is false. To behave in that fashion is the hallmark of an idiot.

The world is crammed full of idiots of varying degrees. From people who believe the Earth is flat to those who will not accept that humanity has actually set foot on the Moon. But they will forever remain simple idiots because they refuse to accept the truth in the evidence presented to them.

Such is the case with Emil. Despite thousands of experiments that have shown the validity of SR, he will never accept it because it goes against what he believes. He is SO ego-centric that his mind can never admit his belief is false. Not only is he trying to swim upstream against the current, he's forced (by his stupid ego) to try to swim up a waterfall.

There's only one way to deal with such an individual (one who refuses to learn), and that's to totally ignore them.

 

[OnlyMe]

There's only one way to deal with such an individual (one who refuses to learn), and that's to totally ignore them.

That is always an option.

I don't know anything about, really one who posts here, sufficiently to judge them so harshly. There are often language barriers and even barriers involving education, culture and social conditions. Abscent sufficient information to make an educated and informed judgement, I choose not to jump to what for me would amount to a judgement based on ignorance.

There are a great many reasons why anyone may be or become entrenched in a believe system. I cannot know the circumstances anyone other than myself, faces. Even some of those we might consider "scientists" wear their own special pair of rose colored glasses. I am certain that I do, even while I attempt to see another's perspective.

I just choose not to judge, when I can.