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)

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)

Harold Ensle:

We here at the kabal have successfully squashed dissent for all
practicle purposes. Resistance is futile.

Australopithecus Afarensis wrote:
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.

Yes, there is. Inertia.

A lot of mass, like the universe, creates inertia.
This inertia makes objects harder to move.
Especially to move back and forth. Like the
escapement of a clock does. A clock is an
inertiameter. Look with Google for posts from
Hayek and inertia or inertiameter. I explained
from every possible angle.


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?

Inertial increase. Just as for mass. A mass or
energy in an higher inertial field would have more
energy. This cannot be because of energy
conservation, so it has to move slower.

A car 1000 kg moving at 10 km/h has so much
energy. Let this car move into a zone with double
inertia, so that its mass seems 2000kg. now it can
only move at 5 km/h or something needs to add
energy to it.


Hayek.

"Australopithecus Afarensis"
Message-id: lWiQa.12225$zy.2594@fed1read06

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.

Could you explain why you have to go through math of
GR to see time dilation during acceleration? It puzzles
me because if you accelerate toward a clock (together
with this clock to avoid Doppler effects) your intuition
should tell you that this clock will run faster (as it does),
otherwise what kind of intuition is it?

Opposite in other direction where you have "time dilation"
as a very simple intuitive thing. Since what your intuition
should tell you is just what is observed, you apply the
principle of equivalence to tie gravity to time dilation and
so there is nothing else left to understand.

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.

Not if except of treating it only qualitatively you start
calculating things and start worrying about conservation
of energy. Then you will see that bending of light has to
be tied to time dilation, and that exact amount of bending
(increased by curvature of space) is determined by
inability of nature to create energy from nothing. This way
you gain intuitive understanding of reasons for curvature
of space. Everything without any "math of GR" yet.

A good exercise to understand (intuitively) those things
is to drop a stone and observe its kinetic energy growing
while it is falling down. When you already see that its
kinetic energy changed from zero to something, try to
guess where this kinetic energy came from, knowing that
there is no "attractive gravitational force" in the nature
(as Einstein discovered) and so it couldn't create this
energy. And yet this energy is a fact. Isn't it strange?
It turns out that you know already everything to solve
this puzzle (all you need is in my text before this
paragraph since the rest is only elementary physics
which I assume you've learnt in high school). What's
the solution (where the kinetic energy of this falling
object is coming from)? (Qualitative solution suffices :-).

-- Jim

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Harold Ensle" wrote in message
...

I took another look at these and I am astonished at your inability
to understand my statements.

Antirelativity and the Stupidity Machine:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/Reading.html

This one was merely a case of reading my post OUT OF CONTEXT to usual
discussion involving ether theories. You purposely played stupid (well
maybe you weren't playing) in order to claim some kind of self contradiction
on my part. Of course, it was all clarified later in the thread, but you
ignored
it. Why? Because these are not real fumbles. They are your response to
your own transparent inferiority complex. You really should seek some help.

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Instantly.html

This one was actually quite good, if there was someone who could
understand it. What is truely amazing is that on several occasions you
actually grabbed the key arguments that should have caused the case
to be understood. It was as if your subconscious new this and thus
responded with kneejerking emotion to cover-up the fact that *this*
was the argument.

This comment was in response to the Doppler analysis of the twin
paradox. In this scenario, the argument is that the travelling twin
instantly sees the Doppler shift whereas the stay-at- home does
not until the light gets to him. Of course, I brought up the *obvious
point* that if the travelling twin is at rest (which is perfectly allowable
in SR) then he would see the opposite occurance.

For some reason that this person sees it as a fumble.....apparently because
he doesn't understand the argument (He has never given any explanation
for any of these choices BTW).

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...nnotApply.html

Here was another critical argument that just eluded Dirk. I simply wrote
that
a person at rest could not apply the Lorentz transformation to himself.
This is obviously true, so how could it be a fumble?

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...easonable.html

This was just an off-the-cuff personal opinion, which was somewhat
prejudicial, but ironically Dirk certainly fits the comment himself,
as he has so masterfully demonstrated here.

H.Ellis Ensle

"Harold Ensle" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Harold Ensle" wrote in message
...

I took another look at these and I am astonished at your inability
to understand my statements.

Antirelativity and the Stupidity Machine:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/Reading.html

This one was merely a case of reading my post OUT OF CONTEXT

The context is amply provided at the bottom:
et

Dirk Vdm