Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / November 2004

The essentials of special relativity are given here:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

I disagree. "Tripping points" should be avoided, not emphasized and
highlighted. Learn a lesson from C++. There were subtle difficulties
in the C++ language that confused even experienced programmers. The
Java language was created in part to specifically avoid the trouble
spots of C++. The ease of Java is due to the fact that its language
makes the use of "tripping points" impossible. You should be teaching
the equivalent of Java for special relativity. It's presented here:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

It's impossible to understand special relativity without mastering
algebra at the high school level. Trolls are created by spontaneous
generation just by teaching that math is unnecessary for the
understanding of physics.

To specifically drill at misconceptions and things that evidently
defy common sense will only increase the population of trolls.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

http://www.motionmountain.net
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Ignorance is educable; stupidity is forever.  You go educate even one
drooling idiot *yourself,*

http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html

and then get back to us with proof.  Start with Relf - get him to
format a 65-character line.  HA HA HA.

[snip]

In general a good idea - but aren't there already enough web pages
dealing with such questions? So wouldn't be compiling a list of good
reference articles already enough?

BTW, do you *really* think that any of the cranks in sci.physics would
care about such explanations?

Bye,
Bjoern

One-sided, by the misguided - You.

                    The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.

For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.

2)  "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.

3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.

4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
 tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
 xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
where V = (c+v)/(1+v/c) as required by the redefined PoR.
Androcles.

Paul Draper:

 While I think your goal here is commendable, you might want to consider
a couple of additional factors and see if that modifies your proposal any,
since I think you're going to be somewhat disappointed if you're expecting
a visible difference in the content posted here.

 (1) The kooks are already out of the real world at the level of
     halliday and resnick. Most of the apparent ``sophistication''
     in their arguments is only apparent. Inreality, they are
     simply quote mining for concepts which can't be derived from
     the physics to which they try to apply it without failing
     at the level of newtonian mechanics. Anything that would
     require actual effort and perhaps even working a problem
     or two to understand is going to be written off with the
     same mantra: ``It's just mathematics'', or ``It's just
     an abstraction'' as if that's an argument in favor of
     something concrete that doesn't work. So, if you thought
     providing some basic physics might reduce the number of
     kooks, my guess is that it won't. The reason kooks are kooks
     is that they don't know any basic physics and if they actually
     disovered that F = ma conflicted with their ideas, they'd
     reject F = ma and call it an abstraction without physical
     content, too.

 (2) The kooks are probably a benefit if you assume there exist
     readers who don't post, but who might be interested in relativity
     and wondering why physicists accept some theories and reject
     others. Those readers are likely to discover precisley why
     theories accepted by physicists are accepted. The theories
     physicists accept are the ones that actually answer physical
     questions about nature in a very general way rather than
     attempt to explain some pet phenomena in a way that doesn't
     answer anything and is still grappling with questions that
     were solved a century ago or more.

     Most of the kooks emphasize ``classical mechanics'', but don't
     know any. They dispute modern theories but can't manage to
     do so without misconstruing the theories to say things the
     theories either don't say or even contradict. Some call their
     theories ``quantum theories'', but think quantum means ``classical
     theory of particle motion'', which is redundant and contrary
     to that which defines a quantum theory. They can't believe anyone
     sees any physics in the dirac equation because they don't, so
     they think p = mv is physical and spin means something must be
     spinning, while p/ = mc is an abstraction even though one gets
     the experimentally correct description of spin from it in which
     nothing is spinning. The list is endless.    

     Their posts aren't totally pointless, since they illustrte a more
     general facet of pseudoscience. What the kooks handwave might
     initially appear sensible to someone who has an interest in physics
     but doesn't have a background in physics. They can easily judge for
     themselves what distinguishes science from pseudoscience without an
     extensive background in science merely by seeing which theories can
     answer physical questions and predict physical results observed in
     real experiments. Personally, I think most reasonable people can
     accept that nature might be stranger than the thought rather than
     accept theories about nature that don't say anything about nature,
     but preserve their preconceptions. The kooks offer rather perpetual
     examples for comparison and they aren't going to be infuenced by
     any logic, experiment or anything else. There are people who believe
     who argue in favor of dowsing or talking to dead people using
     similar arguments, so seeing how science works here might have
     value in recognizing pseudoscientific legerdemain elsewhere.
     The reader can decide for him/herself which is which and apply
     that as they see fit to seances, etc.

 I know that many of these already exist, since I've either seen them or
posted such an article in response to a question about it. I'll leave
your list with the articles of which I am aware there is at least one
article that scefically address your topic directly.

 I'm not sure whether this has specifically been asked and answered, but
it's easy to define a field in a single sentence: A field is some data on
spacetime. That definition is rather general and can hardly be very
controversial. It also clearly illustrates the difference between science
and kookdom. Scientists create theories with which one can calculate
the data such that it agrees with experiments. Kooks are obsessed with
finding a philosophically satisfactory container for it in order to try
amd overcome some personal difficulty with accepting nature on nature's
terms.

xxein:  What is the difference between a concept of subjective
observation described by a math and an objective reality described by
a physic?

Don't you think that correct explanations of these things have
been posted over the years in this group?

Do you think that the cranks accept them?

What is the FAQ supposed to be for?

John Anderson

Draper is free to do as he wishes.  Unpaid volunteers are
free spirits and aren't responsible to anyone.

The physics FAQ does a fine comprehensive job.  Sam
Wormsley, with his inexhaustible supply of links does an
even finer job.

Redundancy can't hurt.  So, go ahead.  Right or wrong,
push your own philosophy to the hilt.  As it was, so shall
it be.  There's nothing new under the Sun.

[Old Man]

For these two questions, the series should start with something like
"Please forget whatever you have heard about it."

Ilja

[snip]

I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.

I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.

While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students"  will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.

I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.

[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD