 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / January 2007The predictions of special relativity
Almost all of the predictions of special relativity are predictions of the effects of changes in motion on the equations with which we model physical phenomena. They fall into two classes: (a) A change from one reference frame, A, to another, B, in motion relative to A to give a second set of equations for a single sequence of events. In all such cases there is a change of clock rate and predicted but as yet untested changes in the dimensions of rigid bodies. (b) A change in the total momentum and kinetic energy of a set of particles with no change of frame, clock rate or dimensions. To test any class (a) prediction we need measurements of physical variables, in two laboratory frames moving at significant relative velocities, for the same sequence of physical events. The only such measurements that are feasible now and for the forseeable future would seem to be measurements of clock rates, and these only for relative velocities of less than c/1000. Does anyone claim that there are other class (a) predictions that can be experimentally tested? If so what are they? Phil Gardner > Almost all of the predictions of special relativity are predictions of > the effects of changes in motion on the equations with which we model [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Phil Gardner I think you are perhaps working with the old 1905 paper. "The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent" http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html Time-independent Maxwell equations Time-dependent Maxwell's equations http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics (classic field theory)_ a) Maxwell equations (no movement), b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies) http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/ maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended Sue... > Almost all of the predictions of special relativity are predictions of > the effects of changes in motion on the equations with which we model [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > predicted but as yet untested changes in the dimensions of rigid > bodies. SR doesn't predict that. Worldlines are timelike. The only effect that can be documented when two observers return to each other is time dilitation. > (b) A change in the total momentum and kinetic energy of a set of > particles with no change of frame, clock rate or dimensions. That's pretty ambiguous. What do you mean by that? > Almost all of the predictions of special relativity are predictions of > the effects of changes in motion on the equations with which we model [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Does anyone claim that there are other class (a) predictions that can > be experimentally tested? Yes. > If so what are they? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF > Almost all of the predictions of special relativity are predictions of > the effects of changes in motion on the equations with which we model [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > seem to be measurements of clock rates, and these only for relative > velocities of less than c/1000. Actually, one needs only one lab frame, see below. > Does anyone claim that there are other class (a) predictions that can > be experimentally tested? If so what are they? - Ives and Stillwell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment - Hafele and Keating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment Harald > Phil Gardner On Jan 30, 4:19 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > > Almost all of the predictions of special relativity are predictions of > > the effects of changes in motion on the equations with which we model [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > be experimentally tested? If so what are they?- Ives and Stillwell:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment > - Hafele and Keating:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment How do these demonstrate resolution of SR's postulates ? Sagnac, nuclear resonance and Doppler have no part in that mechanism. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures the relative strength of electric and magnetic fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >> http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/ www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html Sue... > Harald > > > Phil Gardner- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - > On Jan 30, 4:19 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > How do these demonstrate resolution of SR's postulates ? They don't - instead they give positive demonstration of SR's law on "time dilation". > Sagnac, nuclear resonance and Doppler have no part in > that mechanism. Neither do they play a role in for example the mechanism of light diffraction. So what? Harald > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html > << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > Phil Gardner- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted >> > text -- Show quoted text - On Jan 30, 8:03 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > > On Jan 30, 4:19 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > How do these demonstrate resolution of SR's postulates ?They don't - instead they give positive demonstration of SR's law on "time > dilation". Which of the three effects are you equating to *time dilation*? It is time dilation if I look at the noonday sun and decide against phoning my friend on the other side of the planet because he is probably asleep? > > Sagnac, nuclear resonance and Doppler have no part in > > that mechanism. << Neither do they play a role in for example the mechanism of light diffraction. So what? >> Thank you for clarifying that. The OP was inquirng about Special relativity. "The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent" http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html Maxwell's time dependent equations are sufficient to resolve that issue. Sue... > Harald > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >> > Phil Gardner- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted > >> > text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - > On Jan 30, 8:03 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Which of the three effects are you equating to *time dilation*? The anomality compared to the hypothesis that the clock rate in all systems as measured in an inertial frame, is unaffected by the speed of that system relative to that inertial frame (Newton's "absolute time" hypothesis). > It is time dilation if I look at the noonday sun and decide against > phoning my friend on the other side of the planet because he > is probably asleep? No, see above - and after all these years, how can it be that you don't know that?? >> > Sagnac, nuclear resonance and Doppler have no part in >> > that mechanism. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thank you for clarifying that. The OP was inquirng about > Special relativity. Sure - and then you pulled in other things. > "The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of > Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sue... Sure - it was some details of Newton's mechanics that were modified; Maxwell's equations kept standing. Harald On Jan 30, 10:03 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > > On Jan 30, 8:03 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > is probably asleep?No, see above - and after all these years, how can it be that you don't know > that?? Because for three years people have told me a Sagnac experiment is time dilation, a nuclear resonance experiment is time dilation or the Doppler effect is time dilaton. I don't see why correcting for the earth's shadow can't be time dilation too. > >> > Sagnac, nuclear resonance and Doppler have no part in > >> > that mechanism. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Sue...Sure - it was some details of Newton's mechanics that were modified; > Maxwell's equations kept standing. How are Newton mechanics modified by SR? Uniform motion is the *Special* stipulation. Sue... > Harald- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - > On Jan 30, 10:03 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> >> > Which of the three effects are you equating to *time dilation*? >> The anomality compared to the hypothesis that the clock rate in all >> systems [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > phoning my friend on the other side of the planet because he >> > is probably asleep? >> No, see above - and after all these years, how can it be that you don't >> know [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > or the Doppler effect is time dilaton. I don't see why correcting > for the earth's shadow can't be time dilation too. If people try to sell you such crap (and you buy it!) then it's indeed normal. From more reliable sources such as textbooks, you would/should/could have known better. a>> >> > Sagnac, nuclear resonance and Doppler have no part in >> >> > that mechanism. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > How are Newton mechanics modified by SR? Uniform motion is > the *Special* stipulation. In several ways; you overlooked that I already gave a partial answer above, here copied below: >> > Which of the three effects are you equating to *time dilation*? >> The anomality compared to the hypothesis that the clock rate in all >> systems >> as measured in an inertial frame, is unaffected by the speed of that >> system >> relative to that inertial frame (Newton's "absolute time" hypothesis). Harald On Jan 30, 10:44 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > > On Jan 30, 10:03 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > normal. From more reliable sources such as textbooks, you would/should/could > have known better. OK... I'll take your advise and reject the Wiki H&K page as one of the most notable examples. > a>> >> > Sagnac, nuclear resonance and Doppler have no part in > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >> system > >> relative to that inertial frame (Newton's "absolute time" hypothesis).Harald- There is no change of force in uniform motion so there is no event to time or test for absolute time. While SR may poke some holes in Newton's ideas, I don't see where it offers a testable substitute for an inertial mechanism or predicts any inertial effects. <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html Sue... quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - > On Jan 30, 10:44 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > OK... I'll take your advise and reject the Wiki H&K page as one > of the most notable examples. Why? BTW, the value of overview articles is their references... >> a>> >> > Sagnac, nuclear resonance and Doppler have no part in >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > There is no change of force in uniform motion so there is no event to > time or test for absolute time. That is irrelevant for clock rate when a clock moves relative to Newton's Space. He just made some assumptions that turned out to be good for low and medium speeds. > While SR may poke some holes in > Newton's ideas, I don't see where it offers a testable substitute for > an inertial mechanism or predicts any inertial effects. I started by replying in this thread about tests that have been done. Perhaps you also don't see how thermodynamics offers a testable substitute for atomic theories? Of course principle theories are not meant to be substitutes. Instead they show that a lot can be achieved without understanding the mechanism. Harald On Jan 31, 4:23 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > > On Jan 30, 10:44 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > Why? BTW, the value of overview articles is their references... If you eat sleep and breath Maxwell's equations and Ewald sums then you can just ignore them. On the whole I find most of the *experts* on light in these newsgroups can't even write down Maxwell's equations so I never hesitate toss out a URL on the off-chance it might be helpful. > >> a>> >> > Sagnac, nuclear resonance and Doppler have no part in > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Space. He just made some assumptions that turned out to be good for low and > medium speeds. He Who? Einstein or Newton? > > While SR may poke some holes in > > Newton's ideas, I don't see where it offers a testable substitute for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > substitutes. Instead they show that a lot can be achieved without > understanding the mechanism. You are now explaining H&K defficiencies with thermodynamics? BYE! Sue... > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.