Perspicacious wrote:
mountain man wrote:[..]

This example shows that the question to be asked should be:
Could it be that either quantum mechanics or the theory of
relativity, or perhaps both be "wrong," in the same sense
"wrong" as Newton's mechanics was found to be "wrong"
in the face of quantum mechanics?

Full paper available from:
http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/

or as the .pdf
http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/myth.pdf

Pete,

It is very unlikely that special relativity is wrong in
the macroscopic realm.


Well you notice he put quotes around it "wrong" and nothing about "in
the macroscopic realm". Although I must admit I do like your caveat
here as well.


The greatest evidence for special
relativity is ... ? ?


A tough blank to fill in.
Cosmic ray muons & neutrons maybe? Are we talking about time dilation?

Or the huge amount of literature available on the subject maybe, as
evidence that the discipline and techniques exist?

In terms of "cientos mexicanos dijeron" I would say the greatest
evidence is the nuclear bomb.

No evidence is needed - it's an axiomatic theory with excellent
application to the world - like Euclid's Elements, the postulates of SR
require no experimental proof.

Good morning -


PS -

shevek4 wrote:
Perspicacious wrote:
It is very unlikely that special relativity is wrong
in the macroscopic realm.

No evidence is needed - it's an axiomatic theory with
excellent application to the world - like Euclid's
Elements, the postulates of SR require no experimental
proof.

I wholeheartedly agree. And it's also true that outdated
and tortured ways of reasoning should be replaced with
modern, powerful, easy to understand axiomatic systems.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1100

I prefer heliocentric orbits above geocentric epicycles.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf