Many models use Einstein's Special Relativity as basis to build up
other interconnecting theories. However, some SR critique state
Special Relativity itself is based on misinterpretation of results in
experiments and most of all, in the derivations of the equations.
I'd just like to focus on the latter. I'm a fan of Einstein and I'm
seeking counter-arguments to the arguments set forth by
Anti-Einsteiners and Warp Speed supporters. What do you think of
the following from anlysis by someone who stated there is a flaw in
Einstein's SR derivation, as stated below?

from a text somewhe

"Fatal Flaws in Einstein's Special Relativity Derivation

In an attempt to form a credible foundation for his theory of Special
Relativity, it was imperative that Einstein presented viable
mathematical and logical support for his ideas and claims. Yet, upon
examination of Einstein's own account of this supporting logic,
numerous fatal flaws can be readily identified. Of these flaws,
perhaps the most critical of all is an improper mathematical
manipulation that can be clearly seen in the following simplified
example:

Linel: x=a+b - original expression w/o speed of light
Line2: x=a+b*(c^2/c^2)- "harmless" multiplication by 1
Now, let the symbol y stand for the expression (b* C2)
Line 3: x = a +y/c^2

Here, we begin with a line that has nothing to do with the speed of
light, either because the speed-of-light term was never present or
because it dropped out of the derivation by this point - both reasons
are functionally equivalent. Next, we arbitrarily choose to multiply
one of the terms in Line 1 by the expression c^2/c^2 . The
justification for this manipulation is that it is merely a harmless
multiplication by 1 since any expression divided by itself is 1. Then,
to keep the expression, c^2, from immedi ately canceling itself out
again - top and bottom - we group all of the top symbols together and
hide them from view inside a new variable, y. This hides the upper C
expression and leaves the lower one alone in plain view, transforming
the original expression in Line 1 into one that now appears to be
intimately connected with the speed of light 2 since it now has a term
that is divided by C^2.

Of course, this is merely a contrived sleight-of-hand that can be
easily exposed in a variety of ways. For example, why was the
multiplication by 1 done in the particular form of c^2/c^2? Since this
rather odd way to represent the value 1 was completely arbitrary, why
not e^3/e^3 or sqrt(f)/sqrt(f)? For that matter, why even perform such
an odd, arbitrary manipulatlor, at all, especially since it introduces
the very real danger of confusing this arbitrary symbol, c, with the
symbol c that did represent the speed of light earlier on, but which
naturally dropped out of the derivation? This raises the very
important point that the arbitrarily introduced symbol, c, is as
meaningless as the symbols e or f would have been if we had chosen
them. The fact that c is often used to represent the speed of light
(and that is did earlier in the derivation) does not mean that it
always does so whenever and however it appears. Pythagoras' famous
theorem for the hypotenuse of a right-angled tri angle, a^2 + b^2 =
c^2, has not hing to do with the speed of light, of course, but only
with the sides of a triangle. The symbol, c, only represents the speed
of light if that representation follows from the logical structure and
continual flow of a derivation; otherwise, it is a meaningless symbol
- nothing other than an arbitrary letter chosen at random from the
alphabet.

Yet, this is precisely the logic used by Einstein to ensure that the
"speed of light" was re-introduced into his derivation after the true
speed-of-light term dropped out entirely. One of the reasons that this
fatal flaw has gone unnoticed by the scientific community is because
Einstein omitted the two key lines showing the speed-of-light term
dropping out and the subsequent improper operation to artificially add
it back. As a result, on the surface it appears as if the same
speed-of-light term continues se amlessly throughout the derivation,
though this is actually far from the case. In actuality, the
"speed-of-light" term found in Einstein's widely accepted equations of
Special Relativity is merely a random, meaningless letter from the
alphabet - and nothing more. For those interested in the mathematical
details, the first key section of Einstein's derivation is presented
below in a simplified form, surrounded by analysis that exposes not
only the above fatal error, but numer ous other critical errors and
imp roper operations leading up to it as well.

Detailed Analysis of the Flaws in Einstein's Derivation

A simplified summary of only the salient points in Einstein's
derivation is supplied and discussed below, with the full derivation
available in his book, as mentioned above. The derivation begins with
the classic equation of motion, Distance equals time times velocity:

d = t v

This equation is presented twice, once for a stationary reference
frame (subscripted s) and once for a moving reference frame
(subscripted m); and, in both cases, the speed of light, c, is
substituted into the velocity parameter:

d(s) = t(s) c
d(m)= t(m) c

These two equations are meant to represent two different perspectives,
one stationary and the other in motion, much like the earlier thought
experiment with the light beam and the speeding train. Since
Einstein's Special Relativity Theory allows for distances to shorten
and for time to slow down, time and distance are also subscripted to
show that they may vary from the stationary to the moving reference
frame. However, since Einstein further postulated that the speed of
light never varies in any reference frame, the constant, c, has no
subscripted difference.

Although this is a reasonable enough beginning, the logic soon becomes
derailed by a series of arbitrary value assignments to different
variables, while only partially following through on the effect of
these assignments. This creates a situation where some new expressions
resulting from these assignments are mixed in with other old
expressions whose variables should also have changed, but were
neglected and left unchanged.

The invalid operations that follow from this are further distorted by
later arbitrary reassignments of new values to some of these same
variables, ignoring the fact that, in many cases, these reassignments
now alter the already questionable logic and equations that have been
derived thus far. That is, entire expressions that would now have to
be changed before being used further are instead left unchanged. Some
examples that can he found in the full derivation a

(subscript note: m=moving, s=stationary)

Setting d(m) = 0 but ignoring that, according to the earlier equation,
d(m)= t(m) c, this means t(m)= 0 also.

Setting t(s) = 0 but ignoring that, according to the earlier equation,
d(s) = t(s) c, this means d(s) = 0 as well.

Setting d(m) = 1 but ignoring the earlier assignment of d(m) = 0, as
well as the fact that this earlier assignment led to the development
of certain expressions that are no longer valid if d. is now
arbitrarily changed yet a second time.

These errors result in the creation of a mixture of variables that
are only partially updated to reflect arbitrary value assignments,
with further distortion due to a mixture of entire expressions that
are also only partially updated after further value reassignments
are made.

Yet, despite these sizable problems, the most significant error is
yet to come. However, this error is not readily seen in Einstein's
published derivation because the two key lines that would clearly
show the improper manipulation tia\e been omitted. Nonetheless,
it is straightforward to recreate these two omitted lines. We
begin by pausing at a key line that appears a little further
along in the derivation, but which arises from an odd leap of
logic that is difficult to follow from the preceding line. This
key line (in simplified form) is:

d(m)=(v^2/c^2) d(s) - Key line representing large leap of logic

This is a sizable and largely unexplained leap of logic from the line
that precedes it. This is also a crucial line since the expression,
v^2/c^2, is the key term that ends up in the final equations as the
only difference between the pre-existing Relativity Theory and
Einstein's new Special Relativity Theory. Although Einstein points out
that he made this leap of logic by substituting an expression from
earlier in the derivation, he does not actually show his work. Below
is this same leap, but with the two omitted lines now shown (again, in
simplified form):

d(m) = x d(s) - Omitted line where speed-of-light, c, drops out
entirely


d(m) = (xc^2/c^2) d(s) - Omitted line showing improper attempt to
re-introduce the speed-of-light

And, since xc^2 = v^2 (from earlier in the derivation), this gives:

d(m)=(v^2/c^2) d(s)

Key line shown earlier, but now with omitted lines shown above

What might be the reason that the two omitted lines above were not
shown? It is very significant that these two lines show the
speed-of-light term dropping out entirely, then a completely
arbitrarily multiplication by c^2/c^2 . Although it could be argued
that this is merely a harmless multiplication by the value 1, the
important point is that this is an arbitrary attempt to reintroduce
the speed of light. Prior to this, the speed-of-light constant, c,
which was substituted into the Motion equations at the start of the
derivation, had dropped out of the derivation entirely. This means the
derivation had stopped being one involving the speed of light in any
fashion. Yet, the steps taken in the omitted lines are a deliberate
(and erroneous) attempt to arbitrarily add it back in. However, since
the symbol, c, was essentially merely drawn in and did not follow from
the original flow of the derivation, it cannot be considered as
anything other than an undefine d symbol merely the letter 'c' the
alphabet - and nothing more.


Warp Speed has arrived

The Speed of Light is Not a Limit

As the preceding analysis shows, there are numerous improper
mathematical operations, as well as a fundamental fatal flaw, at the
very heart of Einstein's own derivation of his Special Relativity
Theory. We have grown so accustomed to hearing about the thought
experiments, paradoxes, and mysterious experimental evidence
supporting Special Relativity Theory that it has all become accepted
and commonplace almost passing as commonsense itself. As a result, it
can be difficult to imagine how there might not be a universal
speed-of-light limit on objects, forgetting that there is actually no
clear reason for such a limit. There was no clear need to introduce
this concept in the first place a century ago, and we have struggled
to maintain support for it - and all the mysteries following from it -
ever since.

In actuality, there is nothing stopping objects from traveling well
beyond light speed - to any arbitrary speed at all in fact. We won't
achieve this in our current generation of particle accelerators that
push particles along using a method that has an inherent
speed-of-light limit itself, and there are no other processes on the
planet that would cause objects to attain such speeds. So far, our
spaceships have carried a limited amount of chemical rocket fuel and
have used the "accelerateand-coast" approach to traveling great
distances - not even attempting to reach such tremendous speeds. But
then, if there is no such speed limit in the universe, why don't we
see objects of such tremendous speed in the heavens?

In answer to this question, there is no particular reason why such
speeding objects cannot exist in the heavens, although there is also
no particular reason to expect to encounter objects of such tremendous
speed relative to us. Since our solar system likely formed from a
single swirling disk of gas and particles, all early matter in our
solar systen, would have swirled about more or less in unison. As time
progressed, this matter congealed into planets of different orbital
periods, and random collisions se nt chunks of matter off on collision
courses with still other objects, but there is no reason to expect
this process to result in relative speeds that exceed or even approach
light-speed. Any object having such a rapid speed relative to us would
likely have to originate outside our solar system, and perhaps even
outside our galaxy since our galaxy also may have formed from an
enormous disk of gas and particles rotating in unison.


This also means that the dream of warp-speed space travel multiples of
light-speed - is not science fiction and does not require some exotic
or futuristic new technology. Warp speed has been within our grasp
ever since the early days of the space program. We simply have not
achieved it because we haven't tried, and we haven't tried because
Special Relativity Theory said we couldn't - and we believed it. All
that is required is continuous acceleration from an extended fuel
burn; a spaceship would accelerate faster and faster as its fuel
burns, just as common sense tells us it should. The spaceship will not
undergo a mysterious "relativistic mass increase" as it increases in
speed, it will not need to bum more and more fuel to compensate for
such "mass increase," and it will not have any special difficulty
approaching or exceeding the light-speed "barrier." The only question
about our ability to achieve light-speed - relative to our solar
system for example - is whether the sp aceship can carry enough fuel
to re ach such speeds before exhausting its supply."

On 18 Nov 2003 00:26:40 -0800, (cinquirer) wrote:




Pythagoras' famous
theorem for the hypotenuse of a right-angled tri angle, a^2 + b^2 =
c^2, has not hing to do with the speed of light, of course, but only
with the sides of a triangle.


You are a GENIUS.

w.

cinquirer wrote:

Many models use Einstein's Special Relativity as basis to build up
other interconnecting theories.

Right, for example Quantum Electrodynamics, one of the best tested
theories in physics ever.


However, some SR critique state
Special Relativity itself is based on misinterpretation of results in
experiments and most of all, in the derivations of the equations.

Such comments come *only* from people who don't understand SR.


I'd just like to focus on the latter.

I hope you are able to understand the arguments...


I'm a fan of Einstein and I'm
seeking counter-arguments to the arguments set forth by
Anti-Einsteiners and Warp Speed supporters.

You can spend you whole life doing this, and still you will have
answered only about 1% of the crackpots out there, I estimate.


What do you think of
the following from anlysis by someone who stated there is a flaw in
Einstein's SR derivation, as stated below?

from a text somewhe

Where did you get it from?


"Fatal Flaws in Einstein's Special Relativity Derivation

In an attempt to form a credible foundation for his theory of Special
Relativity, it was imperative that Einstein presented viable
mathematical and logical support for his ideas and claims. Yet, upon
examination of Einstein's own account of this supporting logic,
numerous fatal flaws can be readily identified. Of these flaws,
perhaps the most critical of all is an improper mathematical
manipulation that can be clearly seen in the following simplified
example:

Linel: x=a+b - original expression w/o speed of light
Line2: x=a+b*(c^2/c^2)- "harmless" multiplication by 1
Now, let the symbol y stand for the expression (b* C2)
Line 3: x = a +y/c^2

Completely sensible mathematical manipulation.


Here, we begin with a line that has nothing to do with the speed of
light, either because the speed-of-light term was never present or
because it dropped out of the derivation by this point - both reasons
are functionally equivalent. Next, we arbitrarily choose to multiply
one of the terms in Line 1 by the expression c^2/c^2.

I don't remember that Einstein did ever do something like this
arbitrarily.


The justification for this manipulation is that it is merely a harmless
multiplication by 1 since any expression divided by itself is 1. Then,
to keep the expression, c^2, from immedi ately canceling itself out
again - top and bottom - we group all of the top symbols together and
hide them from view inside a new variable, y. This hides the upper C
expression and leaves the lower one alone in plain view, transforming
the original expression in Line 1 into one that now appears to be
intimately connected with the speed of light 2 since it now has a term
that is divided by C^2.

Of course, this is merely a contrived sleight-of-hand that can be
easily exposed in a variety of ways.

What's contrived about this? It's a sensible mathematical manipulation.


For example, why was the
multiplication by 1 done in the particular form of c^2/c^2? Since this
rather odd way to represent the value 1 was completely arbitrary, why
not e^3/e^3 or sqrt(f)/sqrt(f)?

I would think because of physical reasons. We'll see this if he comes to
what Einstein actually did.


For that matter, why even perform such
an odd, arbitrary manipulatlor, at all, especially since it introduces
the very real danger of confusing this arbitrary symbol, c, with the
symbol c that did represent the speed of light earlier on, but which
naturally dropped out of the derivation? This raises the very
important point that the arbitrarily introduced symbol, c, is as
meaningless as the symbols e or f would have been if we had chosen
them. The fact that c is often used to represent the speed of light
(and that is did earlier in the derivation) does not mean that it
always does so whenever and however it appears.

Completely right. But that the speed of light appears in Special
Relativity is based on physics, not on such mathematical arguments.


Pythagoras' famous
theorem for the hypotenuse of a right-angled tri angle, a^2 + b^2 =
c^2, has not hing to do with the speed of light, of course, but only
with the sides of a triangle. The symbol, c, only represents the speed
of light if that representation follows from the logical structure and
continual flow of a derivation; otherwise, it is a meaningless symbol
- nothing other than an arbitrary letter chosen at random from the
alphabet.

Yet, this is precisely the logic used by Einstein to ensure that the
"speed of light" was re-introduced into his derivation after the true
speed-of-light term dropped out entirely.

Where did this happen, exactly?


One of the reasons that this
fatal flaw has gone unnoticed by the scientific community is because
Einstein omitted the two key lines showing the speed-of-light term
dropping out and the subsequent improper operation to artificially add
it back. As a result, on the surface it appears as if the same
speed-of-light term continues se amlessly throughout the derivation,
though this is actually far from the case. In actuality, the
"speed-of-light" term found in Einstein's widely accepted equations of
Special Relativity is merely a random, meaningless letter from the
alphabet - and nothing more.

What a nonsense! There are clear physical reasons why the speed of light
has to appear in the equations of SR!


For those interested in the mathematical
details, the first key section of Einstein's derivation is presented
below in a simplified form,

Where did he get this derivation from? Reference?


surrounded by analysis that exposes not
only the above fatal error, but numer ous other critical errors and
imp roper operations leading up to it as well.

Detailed Analysis of the Flaws in Einstein's Derivation

A simplified summary of only the salient points in Einstein's
derivation is supplied and discussed below, with the full derivation
available in his book, as mentioned above.

Where in this book, exactly?


The derivation begins with
the classic equation of motion, Distance equals time times velocity:

d = t v

This equation is presented twice, once for a stationary reference
frame (subscripted s) and once for a moving reference frame
(subscripted m); and, in both cases, the speed of light, c, is
substituted into the velocity parameter:

d(s) = t(s) c
d(m)= t(m) c

Didn't Einstein use x instead of d? I'm not familiar with his book, only
with some articles by him.


These two equations are meant to represent two different perspectives,
one stationary and the other in motion, much like the earlier thought
experiment with the light beam and the speeding train. Since
Einstein's Special Relativity Theory allows for distances to shorten
and for time to slow down,

Not "allows for". *Implies*.


time and distance are also subscripted to
show that they may vary from the stationary to the moving reference
frame.

That's not "since his theory allows them to shorten resp. to slow down",
but simply this is a *coordinate transformation*, and Einstein wanted to
take into account the possibility that t has to be transformed, too.


However, since Einstein further postulated that the speed of
light never varies in any reference frame, the constant, c, has no
subscripted difference.

Well, this postulate was supported by observations.


Although this is a reasonable enough beginning, the logic soon becomes
derailed by a series of arbitrary value assignments to different
variables, while only partially following through on the effect of
these assignments. This creates a situation where some new expressions
resulting from these assignments are mixed in with other old
expressions whose variables should also have changed, but were
neglected and left unchanged.

The invalid operations that follow from this are further distorted by
later arbitrary reassignments of new values to some of these same
variables, ignoring the fact that, in many cases, these reassignments
now alter the already questionable logic and equations that have been
derived thus far. That is, entire expressions that would now have to
be changed before being used further are instead left unchanged.

Babble. Come to the point.


Some examples that can he found in the full derivation a

(subscript note: m=moving, s=stationary)

Setting d(m) = 0 but ignoring that, according to the earlier equation,
d(m)= t(m) c, this means t(m)= 0 also.

Where did this happen, exactly, in the book?


Setting t(s) = 0 but ignoring that, according to the earlier equation,
d(s) = t(s) c, this means d(s) = 0 as well.

Same question.


Setting d(m) = 1 but ignoring the earlier assignment of d(m) = 0,

O.k., that's enough. The one who wrote this was apparently unaware that
Einstein was talking about *coordinate transformations* there and simply
looked what values d(s) and t(s) have when certain values are assigned
to d(m) and t(m), or vice versa. He didn't claim anywhere that d(m) = 1
and d(m) = 0 and d(m) = c t(m) have to be valid *at once* - these are
different cases for which he examines the consequences for d(s) and t(s)
(again, I haven't read his book, but that's what he was doing in
articles - and this makes sense!)

This is a quite common error among people arguing against SR: they don't
understand that Einstein talks about coordinate transformations, and
often don't even understand the *concept* of coordinate transformations.


I won't bother to comment on the rest - someone who doesn't understand
even such basic points isn't qualified to judge SR.


[snip rest]


Bye,
Bjoern

cinquirer wrote:

Many models use Einstein's Special Relativity as basis to build up
other interconnecting theories. However, some SR critique state
Special Relativity itself is based on misinterpretation of results in
experiments and most of all, in the derivations of the equations.


What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Physics is an experimental science, and as such the experimental basis for
any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
theory and experiments in modern science is a multi-edged sword:

1. It is required that the theory not be refuted by any experiment within
the theory's domain of applicability.
2. It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which cover a significant fraction of the theory's
domain of applicability.
3. It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which examine a significant fraction of the theory's
predictions.

Special Relativity (SR) meets all of these requirements and expectations.
There are literally hundreds of experiments which have tested SR, with
an enormous range and diversity, and the agreement between theory and
experiment is excellent. There is a lot of redundancy in these experimental
tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SR which are not included
here. This list of experiments is by no means complete!

Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these
experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An
important aspect of SR is its universality - it applies to all known physical
phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was
originally invented to explain. In these experiments you will find tests
using electromagnetic and nuclear measurements (including both strong
and weak interactions); gravitational tests are the province of General
Relativity, and are not considered here, see Experimental Tests of GR.

There are several useful surveys of the experimental basis of SR:

Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations,
World Scientific (1997).
G.Holton, "Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory",
Am. J. Phys., 30 (1962), p462.
D.I.Blotkhintsev, "Basis for Special Relativity Theory Provided by
Experiments in High Energy Physics", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi, 9 (1966),
p405.
Newman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 no. 21 (1978), p1355.

Zhang's book is especially comprehensive.

Textbooks which have good summaries of the experimental basis of
relativity a

M.Born, Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.
Moller, The Theory of Relativity.
M. von Laue, Die relativitätstheorie (in German).

"cinquirer" wrote in message
om...
Many models use Einstein's Special Relativity as basis to build up
other interconnecting theories. However, some SR critique state
Special Relativity itself is based on misinterpretation of results in
experiments and most of all, in the derivations of the equations.
I'd just like to focus on the latter. I'm a fan of Einstein and I'm
seeking counter-arguments to the arguments set forth by
Anti-Einsteiners and Warp Speed supporters.

Fan support isn't very scientific, now is it?!
What really matters, if you find that point of the theory important, can
*you* provide a satisfying derivation.

What do you think of
the following from anlysis by someone who stated there is a flaw in
Einstein's SR derivation, as stated below?

from a text somewhe

No reference?

"Fatal Flaws in Einstein's Special Relativity Derivation

In an attempt to form a credible foundation for his theory of Special
Relativity, it was imperative that Einstein presented viable
mathematical and logical support for his ideas and claims. Yet, upon
examination of Einstein's own account of this supporting logic,
numerous fatal flaws can be readily identified. Of these flaws,
perhaps the most critical of all is an improper mathematical
manipulation that can be clearly seen in the following simplified
example:

Oh oh, also the reference to Einstein is lacking, and I don't readily
recognize this one...

Harald

cinquirer wrote:

Many models use Einstein's Special Relativity as basis to build up
other interconnecting theories. However, some SR critique state
Special Relativity itself is based on misinterpretation of results in
experiments and most of all, in the derivations of the equations.
I'd just like to focus on the latter. I'm a fan of Einstein and I'm
seeking counter-arguments to the arguments set forth by
Anti-Einsteiners and Warp Speed supporters.

1) Learn the difference between Special Relativity and General
Relativity.

2) Cut the crap and cut to the chase,

http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system

3) SR and GR are self-consistent axiomatic geometries. They
contain no internal mistakes and cannot be "disproven" any more than
Euclid can be disproven. There are only two legitimate routes to
falsifying Einstein,

a) Find an empirical exception to a prediction. Nearly 100 years
of trying at every scale achievable have uncovered nothing even
remotely anomalous.

b) Empirically falsify a founding postulate. No axiomatic system
can defend its postulates. Euclid cannot be used for large scale
navigation because the Earth's surface is non-Euclidean. Relativity
has only one weak postulate, the Equivalence Principle. Complete
gravitation theory exists that does not need it and gives the same
predictions otherwise. Einstein could fall to a footnote tested on a
benchtop,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm

4) Nothing that violates causality is an optimistic road to pursue
unless you are prepared to drastically rewrite all of physics - and
you must still embrace accumulated observations to date. You cannot -
CANNOT! - disprove relativity or something functionally identical to
it. You can only include it within a superset theory, as Einstein
contracts to Newton when the speed of light can be approximated by
infinity.

[snip]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

In article ,
cinquirer wrote:
Many models use Einstein's Special Relativity as basis to build up
other interconnecting theories. However, some SR critique state
Special Relativity itself is based on misinterpretation of results in
experiments and most of all, in the derivations of the equations.
I'd just like to focus on the latter. I'm a fan of Einstein and I'm
seeking counter-arguments to the arguments set forth by
Anti-Einsteiners and Warp Speed supporters. What do you think of
the following from anlysis by someone who stated there is a flaw in
Einstein's SR derivation, as stated below?

You're wasting your time if you try to change the opinions of
Anti-Einsteiners. Their dislike of the theory is independent of their
understanding of it or supporting experimental evidence. Most of them
seem not to understand it, but that's a symptom rather than a cause
because they have no intention of studying it, and no intention of
learning from people on Usenet.

At any rate, relativity was not based on any particular experimental
results. It has the two postulates; the principle of relativity and the
invariant speed of light. Einstein was inspired by Maxwell's equations;
the equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations and any absolute
aether frame drops out of any calculation of measurable things, so he
chucked the unobservable and, reasoning that Maxwell's equations had been
tested at high speed while Newtonian mechanics hadn't, generalized the
transformations to all of mechanics. Because a transformation is just a
change in perspective, and it seems silly to have one set of
transformation laws for one set of phenomena, and another set for
different phenomena.

But the motivation, inspiration, induction, or other processes leading to
the theory don't mean a lot. What matters is the postulates and
definitions of the theory, and whether predictions deduced from those
postulates match observations in the real world. A new theory is never
derived, because it would have to have been derived from the postulates of
another theory, and then it wouldn't be a new theory, it would be a
conclusion of an old theory.

Bergmann has a nice derivation of the Lorentz transformations from
Einstein's postulates in a cheap Dover book. He's concise, but
straightforward.

I have no interest in reading the quoted material and trying to figure out
what the author is doing or where he went wrong. Too much time for zero
benefit. Various results in relativity have been rederived by many people
in various ways, the consistency with the postulates is not in question.
What's left is for experiment to decide.

--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

4) Nothing that violates causality is an optimistic road to pursue
unless you are prepared to drastically rewrite all of physics

Just thinking...isn't that what Quantum Mechanics did?


--
Regards
Michael Hatzidakis

Subject:
Flaws in Einstein's SR Derivation?
Date:
Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:44:13 -0600
From:
Sam Wormley
Organization:
Educational Observatory Institute, Inc.
To:
Yreva18
References:
1 , 2




Yreva18 wrote:

It is seriously doubted that there are flaws in Einstein's SR derivation since
it reaches the same conclusion that was reached 2 years earlier by truly
intelligent men (Fitzgerald, Larmor) and resulted in the Lorentz
Transformation-Aether Theory (LTET). SR and LTET differ only in the fact that
LTET asserts that there is a medium (the Aether) which acts as the framework
for reality but which cannot be observed. SR asserts that because it cannot be
observed we can PRETEND that it does not exist.

A brief glance at the theories will reveal to the intellignet reader that they
result from the effect that motion through the Aether increases the path length
for round trips of information and change the rate at which clocks respond to
the passage of time. There are easily understood physical reasons why this is
occurs.

Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html

General Relativity Tutorial
John Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html

Relativity on the World Wide Web
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html

General Relativity and Cosmology FAQs
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

Developments in General Relativity: Black Hole Singularity and Beyond
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304052

Improved Test of General Relativity with Radio Doppler Data from the Cassini Spacecraft
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Physics is an experimental science, and as such the experimental basis for
any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
theory and experiments in modern science is a multi-edged sword:

1.It is required that the theory not be refuted by any experiment within
the theory's domain of applicability.
2.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which cover a significant fraction of the theory's
domain of applicability.
3.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which examine a significant fraction of the theory's
predictions.

Special Relativity (SR) meets all of these requirements and expectations.
There are literally hundreds of experiments which have tested SR, with
an enormous range and diversity, and the agreement between theory and
experiment is excellent. There is a lot of redundancy in these experimental
tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SR which are not included
here. This list of experiments is by no means complete!

Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these
experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An
important aspect of SR is its universality - it applies to all known physical
phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was
originally invented to explain. In these experiments you will find tests
using electromagnetic and nuclear measurements (including both strong
and weak interactions); gravitational tests are the province of General
Relativity, and are not considered here, see Experimental Tests of GR.

There are several useful surveys of the experimental basis of SR:

Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations,
World Scientific (1997).
G.Holton, "Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory",
Am. J. Phys., 30 (1962), p462.
D.I.Blotkhintsev, "Basis for Special Relativity Theory Provided by
Experiments in High Energy Physics", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi, 9 (1966),
p405.
Newman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 no. 21 (1978), p1355.

Zhang's book is especially comprehensive.

Textbooks which have good summaries of the experimental basis of
relativity a

M.Born, Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.
Moller, The Theory of Relativity.
M. von Laue, Die relativitätstheorie (in German).

I asked this because there seems to be some conflict in
the theory itself.

For example. I test drive a new Nasa experimental starship
that can travel at 80% the speed of light. After spending a
year in space. My time would be slower and when I come
back. You guys will age older than I. But since everything
is relative. How can I not say that I sitting on the starship
is stationary while the earth is the one that travels at 80%
the speed of light (again, since motion is relative) and it is
I who age faster than you guys on earth moving at 80%
lightspeed age slower?? If there is no Aether or something,
how do you know whether it is I or the earth that travels at
80% the speed of light?

c

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
In article ,
cinquirer wrote:
Many models use Einstein's Special Relativity as basis to build up
other interconnecting theories. However, some SR critique state
Special Relativity itself is based on misinterpretation of results in
experiments and most of all, in the derivations of the equations.
I'd just like to focus on the latter. I'm a fan of Einstein and I'm
seeking counter-arguments to the arguments set forth by
Anti-Einsteiners and Warp Speed supporters. What do you think of
the following from anlysis by someone who stated there is a flaw in
Einstein's SR derivation, as stated below?

You're wasting your time if you try to change the opinions of
Anti-Einsteiners. Their dislike of the theory is independent of their
understanding of it or supporting experimental evidence. Most of them
seem not to understand it, but that's a symptom rather than a cause
because they have no intention of studying it, and no intention of
learning from people on Usenet.

At any rate, relativity was not based on any particular experimental
results. It has the two postulates; the principle of relativity and the
invariant speed of light. Einstein was inspired by Maxwell's equations;
the equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations and any absolute
aether frame drops out of any calculation of measurable things, so he
chucked the unobservable and, reasoning that Maxwell's equations had been
tested at high speed while Newtonian mechanics hadn't, generalized the
transformations to all of mechanics. Because a transformation is just a
change in perspective, and it seems silly to have one set of
transformation laws for one set of phenomena, and another set for
different phenomena.

But the motivation, inspiration, induction, or other processes leading to
the theory don't mean a lot. What matters is the postulates and
definitions of the theory, and whether predictions deduced from those
postulates match observations in the real world. A new theory is never
derived, because it would have to have been derived from the postulates of
another theory, and then it wouldn't be a new theory, it would be a
conclusion of an old theory.

Bergmann has a nice derivation of the Lorentz transformations from
Einstein's postulates in a cheap Dover book. He's concise, but
straightforward.

I have no interest in reading the quoted material and trying to figure out
what the author is doing or where he went wrong. Too much time for zero
benefit. Various results in relativity have been rederived by many people
in various ways, the consistency with the postulates is not in question.
What's left is for experiment to decide.