Lorentz Transform is here to stay. However, can anybody explain time
dilation caused by gravity or acceleration? All explanations boil down to
speed change. Other than going through the math of general relativity,
there is no intuitive explanation.

I know the general relativity does explain the Mercury orbit, but by
applying Lorentz Transform to classical Newton's gravitational equation, you
can get the same result as well. Also, one success of general relativity is
to explain the bending of light around the sun and gravitational lens. That
is nice, but light also bends going from one material to another with
different index of refraction. Bending of light can be explained with
slower speed of light around the sun without introducing time dilation.

What would cause the light to slow down? Would any massive object change
the permittivity of free space around it since the speed of light is
inversely proportional to the square root of this constant. Of course, this
would affect the electric field in the free space around the sun. Has it
been observed that the electric field seem to be stronger over there?

Right after the Big Bang, just right after this hot fireball condense into
matter and anti-matter, the permittivity must be very low. Electric force
must be a lot lower to prevent matter and anti-matter to annihilate each
other. Also, the speed of light would be must faster back then. Is this
what Big Bang's brief moment of inflation?

* * *

"Harold Ensle" wrote in message
...

You would think that with the Michelson-Morley
experiment and particle experiments, relativists
would be satisfied to the experimental basis of
the theory. BUT NO, they have to make up complete
propaganda, claiming that problems that are actually
solved by classical physics are, in fact mysterious,
until relativity came along to save the day (or even
stranger, claiming to have perfectly acceptible
solutions to non existent problems).

Dieks&Nienhuis[1] essentially claimed that there was
no classical solution to the Sagnac effect and that
relativity was required to resolve it. They "proved"
this with a rather odd argument relating to Galilean
invariance, but apparently forgot that source
independence of light is compatible to classical
physics, and the fact that Sagnac[2] used classical
physics to predict the result in the first place
apparently did not sway them in their convictions.
One can only guess why none of the reviewers brought
up this point. Of course, myths die hard as one will
still find this experiment touted as specific
relativity evidence today (for example on Roberts' FAQ).

Shadowitz[3], in his text on relativity claimed that
relativity was required to resolve the homopolar
generator paradox. (This is where, when the disk is
rotated near one pole of a magnet, a current is
induced, but if the disk is stationary and the magnet
is rotated, no current is induced.) The idea that
relativity with its natural reciprocity would suddenly
be able to resolve this might arouse some suspicion,
but it is all irrelevant, since it is easily resolved
classically, as Faraday[4] explained (and could be
similarly shown by any E&M student).

Burcev[5] and independently Bierman&vonKenschitski[6],
being experts on relativity brought it to the world's
attention that relativity did actually predict the
non-null result of the Kantor[7] experiment. Of course,
a year later Babcock&Bergman[8] and two other groups
were unable to repeat these experimental results, and
it was only then apparent that relativity predicted
a null result.

My question is:
With such a precise simple theory like relativity,
how was it possible for published experts to come up
with completely contradictory results? If the experiment
had not been repeated, no doubt we would believe to
this day that relativity predicted the non-null results
all along.

Let this be a lesson to all you SRist want-to-be's.
You can prove anything with relativity, but make sure
to wait until after the experiment has been performed
(and VERIFIED)!

H.Ellis Ensle

[1]Dieks&Nienhuis,Am.J.Phys.58,650(1990)
[2]Sagnac,Compt.Rend.l'Acad.Sci.157,708&1410(1913)
[3]Shadowitz,"Special Relativity"(W.B.Saunders,Philadelphia 1968)
[4]Faraday,Brittanica Great Books 45,650?(check index)
[5]Burcev,Phys.Lett.5,44(1963)
[6]Bierman,vonKenschitski,J.Opt.Soc.Am.53,1008(1963)
[7]Kantor,J.Opt.Soc.Am.52,978(1962)
[8]Babcock&Bergman,J.Opt.Soc.Am.54,147(1964)