New article shows a fatal math error in SR

You say I am off topic but then go on to repeat a fallacy I specifically addressed. No experiment can prove a model, no sound scientist would ever claim otherwise. An experiment can disprove a model but the best it can do in support of a model is to confirm that under the given conditions the model predicts an answer consistent with observed behaviour, up to a margin of error. An experiment consistent with a model to experimental accuracy today does not preclude a different, more precise, experiment being inconsistent with it tomorrow. Newton physics was concistent with all observations for 250+ years and then it wasn't due to newer, better experiments.

An experiment can only be said to imply a model if the investigation is to compare and evaluate 2 or more specific models and one is falsified and the other not. Even then the nonfalsified model is not proven.

So you saying some experiment was used to "prove" special relativity is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The fact you continue to peddling such a position despite repeated correction illustrates you aren't interested in honest discusssion and finding out better sciencr, you are just grinding an axe. It shows you are dishonest.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
You say I am off topic but then go on to repeat a fallacy I specifically addressed. No experiment can prove a model, no sound scientist would ever claim otherwise. An experiment can disprove a model but the best it can do in support of a model is to confirm that under the given conditions the model predicts an answer consistent with observed behaviour, up to a margin of error. An experiment consistent with a model to experimental accuracy today does not preclude a different, more precise, experiment being inconsistent with it tomorrow. Newton physics was concistent with all observations for 250+ years and then it wasn't due to newer, better experiments.

An experiment can only be said to imply a model if the investigation is to compare and evaluate 2 or more specific models and one is falsified and the other not. Even then the nonfalsified model is not proven.

So you saying some experiment was used to "prove" special relativity is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The fact you continue to peddling such a position despite repeated correction illustrates you aren't interested in honest discusssion and finding out better sciencr, you are just grinding an axe. It shows you are dishonest.
Click to expand...

Let's just quickly refute you and force you into submission.

The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous aether” which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the Earth's motion through the aether became significant in promoting the acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz, Ritz, and Abraham).

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
 
Your quote is exactly consistent with what I said. It does not say the experiment proved sr but rather lead to sr being considered the most elegant and viable explanatory model available at the time. Nowhere does your quote say sr was proved.
 
chinglu said:
Let's just quickly refute you and force you into submission.
Click to expand...

Your posts continue to be great examples of your complete ignorance about this topic and science in general. In this case, the text you actually cut and pasted contradicts the position you hold. Good work.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Your quote is exactly consistent with what I said. It does not say the experiment proved sr but rather lead to sr being considered the most elegant and viable explanatory model available at the time. Nowhere does your quote say sr was proved.
Click to expand...

Let's see.

1) MMX claims to prove isotropy in ECEF.

2) GPS proves no isotropy in ECEF.

The article shows that MMX does not prove isotropy in ECEF because it is blind to the GPS sagnac.

Which part of these statements are false?
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Your quote is exactly consistent with what I said. It does not say the experiment proved sr but rather lead to sr being considered the most elegant and viable explanatory model available at the time. Nowhere does your quote say sr was proved.
Click to expand...

Read the entire website. It clearly claims a null result is consistent with SR.

A.A. Michelson and E.W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether”, Am. J. Sci. (3rd series) 34 333–345 (1887). http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf.

This is the classic paper describing this famous experiment. Contrary to popular myth, their result is not actually “null”—in their words “the relative velocity of the Earth and the aether is probably less than one sixth the Earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-forth”. While some people claim to see a “signal” in their plots, an elementary error analysis shows it is not statistically significant (see Appendix I of arXiv:physics/0608238). So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR.

Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), pg 258.
A repetition of the MMX with the optical paths in perspex (n = 1.49), and a laser-based optics sensitive to ~0.00003 fringe. They report a null result with an upper limit on aether of 6.64 km/s.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.[1] It attempted to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary aether concept has no role.[A 1] The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution".[A 2]

Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity. These include experiments from 1902 to 1905, and a series of experiments in the 1920s. In addition, recent resonator experiments have confirmed the absence of any aether wind at the 10−17 level.[2][3] Together with the Ives–Stilwell and Kennedy–Thorndike experiments, the Michelson–Morley experiment forms one of the fundamental tests of special relativity theory.[A 3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment
 
chinglu said:
Read the entire website. It clearly claims a null result is consistent with SR.
Click to expand...
Which is not the same as proof. All any experiment can do is show to be consistent with a model. No amount of experiments prove a model, they are only consistent with it. Which is precisely the point I've been making to you which you fail to understand.

The observations of the solar system made in 1700 were consistent with Newtonian gravity. They did not prove Newtonian gravity, they only agreed with it. Eventually we developed technology to make observations inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, thus disproving Newtonian gravity. At worst an experiment disproves a model, at best it is consistent with it. Being not falsified is not the same as being proven, that is a false dichotomy you don't seem to understand.

chinglu said:
The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent aether theory
Click to expand...
Yes, an experiment can be evidence against a model. Entirely what I've been saying.

chinglu said:
and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity
Click to expand...
So when the current ideas are falsified people look elsewhere and come up with new ideas and hopefully eventually one of them is consistent with all current data. Doesn't mean it is proven, only it is not yet shown to be wrong.

chinglu said:
the Michelson–Morley experiment forms one of the fundamental tests of special relativity theory.[A 3][/I]
Click to expand...
Yes, a test. If SR had failed it would be out. It didn't fail, while a lot of alternative suggestions of the time did fail.

Testing a model by experiment is not proving it true, only proving it not false. Not disproving something does not prove it. Maybe there is some subtle issue with English there and obviously English is not your first language but the misunderstanding you have is not language dependent. Publishing a model doesn't mean it is considered 'proven true'. A model correctly predicting experimental results does not mean it is proven. That is not how science works. It might be how you think science works but you are wrong. You are always wrong.
 
It (71) used to be between "Backward Euler Method for One Dimensional Non Linear Burgers Equation with Moving Mesh" (64) and "Real Option Model of Real Estate Market via Meixner Process" (82)

It has also been removed from Vixra, so it seems likely both actions were initiated by the author, not the sham journal or sham preprint site.
http://vixra.org/abs/1307.0073

Thanks to the withdrawal, this site (also authored by Andrew Banks) now only features a broken link and unsupportable claims. http://www.proofofabsolutemotion.com/

AMP has a sister journal AMA. Is it better?
http://www.scienceasia.asia/index.php?journal=ama&page=article&op=view&path[]=32
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Which is not the same as proof. All any experiment can do is show to be consistent with a model. No amount of experiments prove a model, they are only consistent with it. Which is precisely the point I've been making to you which you fail to understand.

The observations of the solar system made in 1700 were consistent with Newtonian gravity. They did not prove Newtonian gravity, they only agreed with it. Eventually we developed technology to make observations inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, thus disproving Newtonian gravity. At worst an experiment disproves a model, at best it is consistent with it. Being not falsified is not the same as being proven, that is a false dichotomy you don't seem to understand.

Yes, an experiment can be evidence against a model. Entirely what I've been saying.

So when the current ideas are falsified people look elsewhere and come up with new ideas and hopefully eventually one of them is consistent with all current data. Doesn't mean it is proven, only it is not yet shown to be wrong.

Yes, a test. If SR had failed it would be out. It didn't fail, while a lot of alternative suggestions of the time did fail.

Testing a model by experiment is not proving it true, only proving it not false. Not disproving something does not prove it. Maybe there is some subtle issue with English there and obviously English is not your first language but the misunderstanding you have is not language dependent. Publishing a model doesn't mean it is considered 'proven true'. A model correctly predicting experimental results does not mean it is proven. That is not how science works. It might be how you think science works but you are wrong. You are always wrong.
Click to expand...

Can you prove exactly how GPS refuting MMX preserves SR?
 
rpenner said:
It (71) used to be between "Backward Euler Method for One Dimensional Non Linear Burgers Equation with Moving Mesh" (64) and "Real Option Model of Real Estate Market via Meixner Process" (82)

It has also been removed from Vixra, so it seems likely both actions were initiated by the author, not the sham journal or sham preprint site.
http://vixra.org/abs/1307.0073

Thanks to the withdrawal, this site (also authored by Andrew Banks) now only features a broken link and unsupportable claims. http://www.proofofabsolutemotion.com/

AMP has a sister journal AMA. Is it better?
http://www.scienceasia.asia/index.php?journal=ama&page=article&op=view&path[]=32
Click to expand...

Tell you what, I am going to give your gang another to kick around.
 
Tach said:
Please do so, I will make sure that it gets retracted just the same.
Click to expand...

No problem.

Although I can make SR not bounce the ray off the mirror, I would have gotten mired down.

I have much better ways.

But, I will say, when I am done, I will put it on vixra, and you will have to kneel before the facts presented, which will refute SR.
 
chinglu said:
No problem.

Although I can make SR not bounce the ray off the mirror, I would have gotten mired down.

I have much better ways.

But, I will say, when I am done, I will put it on vixra, and you will have to kneel before the facts presented, which will refute SR.
Click to expand...

Chinese delusions of "dethroning Einstein".
 
chinglu said:
Why don't you refute every article on vixra.

That will mean you prove your case.

You want to do that right?
Click to expand...

Chinglu, do you believe that Vixra is a reliable source? From a quick glance, I've found a couple of "gems" from the site. I didn't cherry-pick these - they're the first three that appear under the Classical Physics section:

http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0147

"The Double Angular Momentum". The author has also written a wide variety of papers on the "Spin Tensors".

http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0128

An article that consists of one page, posting a random formula for which no background is given. It relates totally unrelated mathematical and physical constants, and contains only references to the author's own papers.

http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0107

An article "disproving" vector calculus, a branch of mathematics. No comment is needed on this one.

I mean come on: one of the first "papers" that appears under the most populated section, quantum gravity, is written by a resident crank from this forum, Sylwester Kornowski. Who has now, apparently, discovered the origin of the cosmos.

http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0138

Go ahead. Find one serious "research paper" on the site for each of the ones I have posted. I couldn't find any. As a final gift, this paper works out the mass of the electron-neutrino without even using the words "mass eigenstate"

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0150v1.pdf

We don't have to refute every article to show it's full of nonsense. Any site that lets articles like these get published is junk. You wouldn't get scientific information from the "time cube" guy, but you haven't disproved all of his claims, now have you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top