# According to SR...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Motor Daddy, Mar 26, 2012.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,789
How mathematically deduce the SR, in a medium like air or ethanol, in which the invariance of light is not true?

3. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
SR is derived based on the invariance of light speed in VACUUM. Based on that, the equations of physics in any medium can be derived logically. Do you have a book that you could study?

5. ### EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,789
SR is valid only and only if the invariance of light speed is true.
When the invariance of light speed is not true, then the SR is not true !
This is the logical derivation.

The assumption that SR is valid even when the invariance of light speed is not true is illogical.

7. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
Emil, SR only requires that the speed of light be invariant in vacuum. The fact that it moves at different velocities in other mediums is not an issue.

8. ### RealityCheckBannedBanned

Messages:
800

Those very same things you 'furnished' were used to show that in fact they do not show what you think they show.

Hence there is no question of me 'denying' anything; since all I did was observed the lack and you have 'furnished' nothing in response which survives scrutiny in context.

You even confused yourself by claiming that time dilation and doppler effects "are one and the same effects".

Who needs to say anything more in the face of that confused 'source'?

So enough.

Cheers!

.

9. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
Have you considered collaborating with RealityCheck on a textbook on a fringe version of SR? There are so many mainstream books, a fringe one would be so much more entertaining. You two have quite a few ideas, some in common, some independent of each other.

Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
10. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
So you're saying that indirect evidence is somehow not evidence? You have yet to provide an alternative with equivalent practical explanatory power. IOW, an explanation that fits even half as well with all observations. Science does not abandon an extremely well-verified theory for some vague notions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Time_dilation_and_Length_contraction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications

We even know why we would expect length contraction to not be directly observable: http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/ContractInvisible.html

So far, all you've done is some very vague arm waving. So where is your alternative that is demonstrably superior by experiment? Can you fully explain even one of the results explained by length contraction? If so, why can't you explain them all?

Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
11. ### RealityCheckBannedBanned

Messages:
800

Adin/Mods: That post from Tach is empty and just plain insulting as he is trying to 'connect' me in some way with another members' stances about which I have made no statement either way.

Tach persists in not addressing the salient poinst I made to him nor does he admit the faux pas by saying time dilation and doppler effects "are one and the same effects".

Is that the standards and would-be-scientist-role-model behaviour you tolerate from him? If so, why not from those he personally attacks and insults while he avoids the science in the discussion and they just want to discuss the science/OP as presented in context?

Is his obvious and incessant 'baiting' in lieu of actual science discussion not a cause for your attentions?

Otherwise threads will be snowed under with his and other likeminded trolls aimed at getting threads/discussions 'shut down' because the trolls are losing the plot and/or losing the debate on the science.

Your early attention to 'prevention' of such troll and bait posts would be greatly appreciated by more than just this member.

Thanks.

.

Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
12. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
Sure I address your "points", I debunk them as soon as you spout them. What's your issue? Emil thinks that SR does not apply because light speed in a medium is not invariant, you think that SR doesn't apply in your universe that contains only one object, come to think of it, your ideas are kookier than even Emil's.

13. ### RealityCheckBannedBanned

Messages:
800

If I recall correctly, I read a discussion on this very aspect over at physforum.

It was agreed there that the Terrel Rotation and other cross-frame effects due to signal delay and such like 'information transfer' effects across space are just 'apparent' observable reality and not 'directly' evidenced reality.

So that is what is being observed here.

There IS 'directly' observable reality of 'time dilation' and 'doppler' effects, but NO equally 'directly' observable reality for 'distance contraction'.

That was all that I and others were pointing out.

No more and no less than that disparity in directness of observable reality between the latter and the former two effects.

So you have just confirmed that we cannot GET (hence we do not HAVE currently) any such equally direct' observable evincing of distance contraction as we have already got for time dilation and doppler effects.

Great! We agree.

So...where to from here? Any scientific suggestions as to how we can circumvent the problem and actually evince one way or the other DIRECTLY whether such 'distance contraction' exists/occurs in fact (as distinct from in theory); or will it ever remain a 'theoretical perspective' as compared to the 'reality perspective' concepts of time dilation and doppler effects?

Thanks for your courtesy, time and trouble in coming back to me on-topic and with that info, mate! Much appreciated, really.

Cheers!

.

14. ### RealityCheckBannedBanned

Messages:
800
You debunked nothing in context, only in your strawmen and confusion-based armwaving and pointing without understanding that your references do not imply what you 'understand' they imply for the point made in context.

Your science-empty posts and false claims and accusations and unjustified painting/associating members and scatter-gun insults are becoming tiresome, mate.

Enough already, or the admin/mods will surely have something to say about them and you soon enough.

.

15. ### EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,789
Let the "logical deduction", and make mathematical deduction for SR in a medium where the invariance of light speed is not true.

16. ### EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,789
OnlyMe, we agree that in the a medium the invariance of light speed is not true.
What you have additional argument for the invariance of light speed is true in vacuum?
Have you done any measurement in medium and vacuum, which gave separate results?

Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
17. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
Time dilation is verified experimentally through the transverse Doppler effect experiment. I remember explaining this to you.
Length contraction is verified experimentally on a daily basis through the construction of the undulator devices inside synchrotrons. I have also explained that to you.
The fact that you wallow in a continuing denial of mainstream physics doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

18. ### RealityCheckBannedBanned

Messages:
800

And I have pointed out that in your own referenced synchrotron 'explanation' the operative word was "sees".

So "Apparent" because of lightspeed limit and particle's 'decay countdown' internal processes which speed affects 'tick rates' directly even if there WAS no 'undulator' there. The distance itself is not evinced to be 'contracting' per se, only 'seen' to be and later 'explained' that 'seeing' based on theory not direct evinced effect like for time dilation and doppler effects are. That's it.

.

19. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
RC simply doesn't understand or accept Relativity.

You can explain it to him till you're blue in the face, and it won't make any difference.

It was just this kind of thing that got him banned at PhysForum.

20. ### RealityCheckBannedBanned

Messages:
800

You posted at the same time as my last to Tach answering his claims in context.

Read my post above yours in the whole context of our latest exchange before making any further comments like that. He has already made one faux pas claim which he is still not admitting to himself let alone anyone else. Thanks.

.

21. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
I did. Your post simply reinforces my point.

You neither understand or accept Relativity.

22. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
I thought the debate was tied to the contraction of a distance? The first two links involve length contraction of objects/particles. I could not access the second two. I don't currently have access to FLASH links.

Just to be clear. Personally, I do not disagree that distance contraction does exist. I do disagree with any suggestion that it meets the same level of proof as is present for time dilation. And would suggest that time dilation itself represents the strongest argument in favor of distance contraction, abscent direct proof.

23. ### RealityCheckBannedBanned

Messages:
800

Tach has already made one faux pas claim (saying time dilation and doppler effects are one and the same effects) which he is still not admitting to himself let alone anyone else.

Thanks.