None of that is required. SR doesn't come with a proper mathematical proof so that it can be disproved by the method of contradiction. To bring down the glass house of relativity it is enough to show that the speed of light is not a constant. Then Einstein point is moot that the alleged space and time changes. In short show a c+v is possible.
SR is mathematically consistent, since it is basically the geometry of the SO(3,1) Lie group's vector bundle (yes, technical talk). If someone claims SR is inconsistent then they need to basically prove geometry is inconsistent. Good luck. Proving SR are the incorrect model of nature is much more realistic. That means doing an experiment which contradicts the predictions of SR. I have yet to see anyone present their experimental findings. Despite all the "OMG, SR is wrong!" threads and posts noone has met either of those requirements, prove SR is inconsistent by mathematics or prove Nature doesn't follow SR by experiment.
And I have yet to see someone explain the actual mechanism behind the alleged relativistic effects. Clocks running slower only implies clock retardation not time dilation, length contraction has yet to be verified. Relativistic mass increase observed at accelerator experiments merely implies there is something impeding the velocity increase. People are correct to distrust such a crazy sounding theory on basis of their intuition alone.
So you don't deny that the quantitative predictions of special relativity, in terms of difference in measured times and mass variation in particle decays etc, are accurate? You can never prove, one way or another, what the underlying mechanism is of a phenomenon. You can only show you have a model which provides accurate predictions for the results of experiments. Is there a giant ball of hydrogen in the sky which is undergoing fusion due to its enormous gravitationally induced internal pressure or is there some other reason a bright light appears in the sky? You seem like you're accepting the results of SR but you just don't like its explaination. Fine. But then you can use that argument against ANY bit of physics. Do electrons give off electromagnetic radiation when they accelerate or is it some other weird effect in matter? Is heat the microscope motion of particles or something which looks like that but isn't? Is gravity the exchange of gravitons or invisible fairies which push things towards one another? If special relativity passed every experiment from now until the extinction of the Human race it would not demonstrate the fundamental nature of Nature, but only that you can interpret Nature in the way SR describes. If you can come up with a model of invisible fairies which push things around and it matches all the predictions of GR, great. Which is right? That's not science, that's philosophy. You agree SR is right about the when and where, you just don't like its how.
No, I think that all spacetime nonsense is crap. The cause of relativistic effects according to me lies in matter not in spacetime. Obviously I can't prove this but nobody has been able to give a mechanism behind relativistic effects either. It just follows the lorentz transforms closely. And if I remember correctly, Einstein borrowed the Lorentz transforms from the ether theory, he did not come up with them on his own. In any case nobody has ever verified whether a c+v velocity exists or not in a perfect vacuum. If it ever happens you can kiss SR goodbye.
Why not assume that the photon is the only particle that can be at c, so it's always <=? It's just that if you want to shift things so they can have > c velocity, what else will you have to shift around so the model hangs together, instead of, you know, heading for infinity at > c? In which case, why isn't the universe already at infinite distance from itself? Let's see... nope, still there.
I don't get your point. I'm merely stating that a c+v for a photon has never been tested in a perfect vacuum.
When you say "never been tested", what kind of a test do you think is appropriate? How would you determine, for starters, that you have a "perfect" vacuum? /gob_smacked
That is the whole point of all this. Even if a c+v exists we don't know. The test is obviously an object traveling at v emits a wave of light in perfect vacuum. What is its velocity? c or c+v? A perfect vacuum is required to remove the possibility of re-emission of the photon by stray atoms between source and detector and hence to observe the original photon. Obviously not doable by today's standards. Since the only place where you'll most likely find a true vacuum is near a black hole.
Your third sentence is already outside the realm of "real or physical". How do you tell or hypothesize "there's a wave of light in a perfect vacuum"? How do you hypothesize a perfect vacuum near a black hole? What definition of "perfect" are you implying, one that is otherwise free of energetic states?
I'm merely considering ideal apparatus for the experiment. The perfect vacuum is the one which is free of straggler atoms and all objects of mass between the emitter and the detector. Obviously not possible practically. I am implying that it is possible that the atoms between source and detector of light could be resetting the velocity of a c+v wave back to c, giving the illusion that speed of light is invariant which it might not be.
So you're implying an undetectable variation of c, exists during transmission of light through a vacuum? If it can't be detected, how can it change the theory we use to detect light?
Yes, now you got my point. Obviously a c+v wave will travel more distance in less time than a c wave. This should be detectable. Remember its just a thought experiment, if you detect a c+v Einstein's point that space time changes to keep c invariant is moot. Then the so called relativistic effects must be caused due to the objects of mass themselves not due to some spooky space time.
Reading comprehension problem? I did not say "other posters". Staff of this site have a hair trigger to squelch any postings which contest Relativity. You haven't seen this? You been living in a deep cave with no internet Sciforums until today?
Einstein stole the Lorentz transformations and claimed them for his own. Lorentz transformations were based crucially upon the concept of a preferred reference frame and a variable speed of light. The Lorentz length transform is based on the idea that an atom's electric field does not have a constant speed of propagation, so the moving atom can partially overtake its own field. So, as his chief cornerstone, Einstein stole a transform which directly and totally contradicts his own avowed theory basis. The Lorentz length transform is only possible where there is an absolute preferred reference frame and where an atom can observe a variable speed of light. It is impossible to explain a real physical model for the Lorentz length transform which does not rely on a preferred reference frame and also a variable speed of light. If you can do it, then, start explaining it. I want to read your explanation.
Well, when I got learned about it, the story was that mass does cause relativistic effects, a large mass bends spacetime around itself. The equation you have no doubt been told means "energy is equal to m times c squared", says that in general, mass energy has a limit, so the energy in space and time does too. This appears to be consistent with a mass large enough to "bust" the energy limit and distort spacetime so much it wraps around the massive body. It's something like how, when you fill a large container with water, the walls of the container (i.e. space) change shape - so mass tells us "space is not rigid" after all, and throwing an object into the air curves the path because gravity curves space (since it curves spacetime). All very proper and consistent.
I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree more, my space and time are absolute and invariant. In my view time doesn't dilate only clocks retard. Space does not bend since there is nothing there to bend.
When you say "my space and time are invariant", does the time change? Do you see space change? If you do, how do you explain the variation in absolute, invariant time and/or space? Have you noticed there's a moon that changes "shape" (or part of it that does)? How do you manage or keep track of changes, if time is invariant??
I think you misunderstood me. Perhaps you'll understand when I state myself this way. OK so SRT says time dilates with velocity. I say no, at higher energies or velocity I think the internal geometry of mass changes this in turn somehow causes the atoms of atomic clocks to vibrate slower thereby causing them to record less time. So according to me time dilation is physical in nature not mystical as SR implies.
Universal time doesn't dilate. Time is always "one" in U the set of observable "times". Or, to simplify this, when you ask the universal "clock" what is the time? It replies "yes this is time, there is a time, or would you like me to tell you when I was born or some bloody thing?". You need to go back to why MASS varies with velocity 'omz...
