Special Relativity Is Refuted

I do not use the rangefinder itself.
I use the technology that is used to build a rangfinder.
Such as the clock, rise time of the laser pulse, the time of perception of the receiver, ultra-fast electronics, etc. ...
Please read carefully the description of the device that I described.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@OnlyMe,

Now I realize that you did not understand my experiments.
Maybe my English is poor.
I try to explain the experiment with rangefinder.

A regular rangefinder that show 5 m from a target located to 5 m, on the land.
This is a waterproof rangefinder to use in wet conditions.
Now we put underwater the rangefinder and we hope it does not damage.
What do you think how much it will show the distance to the target that is 5 m distance to the rangefinder and it is also under water and?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Emil, this has been asked and answered repeatedly by several posters. What I think is it will not show what you expect. There is nothing that you have posted that provide credible evidence to refute the position and comment I and others have given.

Until you provide some credible augment that demonstrates "our" position wrong. There is no purpose to continue the conversation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not your English that's poor, it's your thinking that's poor.

 

Troll!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Self-portrait?

 

I read most...well half...of the thread and I have two things to say. When the mathematics conflict with experimental results then the math is virtually always wrong(it could have been a flawed experiment, but the more experimental data you get the smaller the likely hood of that becomes). Mathematical models only have relevancy when they accurately describe reality as we observe it. If they don't then they are either wrong or irrelevant, either way empirical evidence always trumps mathematical models in science. As I'm fond of saying, in science the scientific method is god and empirical evidence is the pope.

The other thing is that if anyone here has legitimately proven relativity false then get yourself published for Atheismo's sake! Not only would you completely revolutionize physics as we know it, but you'd win about half a dozen prizes and upwards of a couple million bucks. The fact that such a paper has never been published, by anyone, indicates that no such disproof exists.

 

That and the fact that a light source can travel a distance in the same time the light the source emitted travels. :shrug:

 

I posted this elsewhere so why not here …

This thread seems familiar to several I have followed in different forums. I would like to mention two options that I think pertain to the issue of SR and this discussion. The two statements address what some might say about SR and “reality”, reality being akin to the foundational truth or the invariant laws of the universe, and some might stop short of that but say the SR is mathematically correct but does not correspond precisely to reality, :go figure:.

1) The math of SR works perfectly but then it should since it relates motion as observed in two inertial reference frames by using the speed of light as the common denominator in the Lorentz adjustment equations to calculate the variables (length and time) in each frame relative to those same variables in the other frame.

2) The math of SR works perfectly because it is a quantification of the foundational truth or “reality” of the universe. The light sphere that emanates from a single event and that is observed by different observers, one in each frame, will be observed as spherical and will expand at the speed of light in each frame, but the spheres in each frame will not be congruent in absolute space due to the relativity of simultaneity, i.e. there is no absolute space or absolute rest frame in “reality”.

What I think is that some of those who accept the mathematical soundness of SR will also say that they believe that SR is in fact reality, thus selecting both #1 and #2 from my two choices. Of course those people are not scientists since to science “reality” is a philosophical concept and under the scientific method one of the important strengths of science is tentativeness.

I accept #1 and not #2.

The Lorentz transformations should plot out a spherically expanding light wave front in the other frame because the observers in both frames are supposed to see the light expanding at c in all directions, i.e. the spherical wave front.

I would like to say that if I were to see a spherical light wave front expanding from a point of emission in my frame, which I will consider the rest frame, then I could easily imagine that the same event that causes the emission of my light sphere, if observed from moving frame will produce an oblate spheroid light wave front in the moving frame. Obviously this would violate Special Relativity because it would require a variable speed of light in the moving frame and that violates the postulates.

So in order for SR to be "reality", and in order for there to be a light sphere expanding in both frames, the point of emission must move with the frame. So the logic and reason used to imagine that my frame’s light sphere would appear as an oblate spheroid in the other frame is in error and I must imagine instead that the universe does not care what I think is logical. The point of emission is dependent on the relative motion of the inertial frames (moves with the frame) according to the math that reconciles the two SR postulates, i.e. according to Lorentz transformation.

That is why I say that the reason that the math works perfectly is because the length and time variables are transformed using the speed of light as the common denominator. Couldn't you get perfect math by using the speed of a zephyr if we knew what speed zephyrs fly and if we could assume that all zephyrs fly at the same speed (just being facetious).

 

No it couldn't, because it wouldn't hold Maxwell's equations invariant, and it wouldn't give an accurate description of things moving at close to but less than lightspeed.

 

Good points.

 

That's one biggie of a conspiracy. How many people are we talking about here? Obviously every physicist in the world, plus the award committees, and we can't forget about every media outlet in the world...Holy mother of pearl, that's got to be hundreds of millions of people right there, and I'm pretty sure I'm missing some. How do they keep them all quiet?

I'm not a physicist, I study ethology where things moving at or near light speed are irrelevant, this is not my area of expertise. However my criticisms still hold. If your mathematical models don't accurately describe the wealth of experimental results that confirm General Relativity then your mathematical models are flawed, plain and simple. In science, any science, experimental results are the final arbiter of a theory, end of story. I know that many mathematicians don't like this, but that's the way it is.

Besides, if you truly can prove this then submit your results to peer review. If it works then it will be recognized because scientists are always looking to prove one another wrong. Better yet, set up multiple experiments and obtain results which support your model and submit those, but don't expect to revolutionize physics on an internet forum.

 

I don't have the resources, nor do I have the network to do that, but that doesn't change reality because I can't prove it. The reality is, during a duration of time, light travels and the source can also travel. The reality is, a meter is defined by light travel time. Deal with it! I couldn't care less if science acknowledges those points or not. You can lead a horse to water...

 

The reality is no one will ever take you for a prophet when you're not even willing to put your own prophecies to the test.

 

And I'm supposed to take the word of you, a person I know literally nothing about and who's spouting this stuff on an internet forum, over the experimental evidence which confirms Special and General Relativity....Riiiiight. So far all you've demonstrated so far is a stunning level of ignorance about how science works. You've said that mathematical models override experimental results when in reality the reverse is true. You've given us your mathematics, but so far they haven't been put to the test, until they are they're worth less than the bits used to store them.

Anyways, have you ever heard of the MacArthur Grant(the so called genius grant)? If you're truly as smart as you say you are then you should have no problem obtaining the grant money necessary to put your models to the test. And the best part for you is that because they don't accept applications for grants relying instead on anonymous nominations, you can ask one of your friends to nominate you. So instead of harping on about not having the resources you can take the easy(if you really are as smart as you say you are that is) steps necessary to get them and then earn your place in history as the very first person to rebut Special and General Relativity.

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?

 

Emil, my earlier post was perhaps a little more abrupt in the answer I gave than I would generally like.

Assuming, that the range finder is properly calibrated for the speed of light in any medium and the wavelength that it operates at is optimal for that medium the results should be the same no matter the medium.

If you use a range finder calibrated to function in air, in a vacuum without recalibrating for the difference in the measured speed of light in the two different conditions, the results would not agree. The same would apply in the case of an instrument calibrated for use in space, as in orbit, were it to be used in the atmosphere or in water without adjusting for the differing conditions and refractive indexes.

The accuracy here has less to do with the the light, than it does with properly calibrating for the conditions. Calibration in this case would involve how the results or two way travel time is interpreted. As long as it is calculated using the speed of light as measured for the involved medium the results should be the same. If no allowance for the changing conditions are made the results would be meaningless.

Sorry for the rather abrupt temper in my previous response.

 

It would probably be even easier to do all the calibrations based on wavelength, since the frequency doesn't get altered by passage through a medium. Wavelength is far easier to determine in any case, it's been done for more than 200 years using equipment you could set up on a table top.

 

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.

 

Good point!