Tom Roberts wrote } on
Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:37:38 +0000:

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote } on
Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:04:06 +0000:
I have not performed a rigorous and systematic search for experiments
which appear to violate SR.

This was obvious.

I know of no sensible and efficient way to do that,

Fine, the author of the relativity FAQ does not know how to perform a
literature search on relativity...

You display one of the prime characteristics of idiots and crackpots
around he inability to read accurately. How do you expect others to
take you seriously?

Re-read what I said, DO SO ACCURATELY, and you'll see that your claim
here is not at all what I said.

My apologies by writting something doing you star ad hominem attacks.
Probably you missed the context of my reply and the "..." in the last
part, indicating continuation on the phrase...

If you cannot fill the "..." by yourself, maybe you prefer i directly
paraphrase you.

Notice i simply substitute "I" and "me" by "Tom Toberts (the author of
the FAQ)" in your previous message:

{FAQ STATEMENT
Tom Toberts (the author of the FAQ) has not performed a rigorous and
systematic search for experiments which appear to violate SR. Tom Toberts
(the author of the FAQ) knows of no sensible and efficient way to
do that, except for asking people to send Tom Toberts (the author of the
FAQ) references to such experiments they know of.
}

One problem with searching for experiments that claim to violate
relativity is that most of them are not in journals that are included in
the academic search engines.

Really?

The 5 top journals i cited are indexed in main academic search engines.

There exist a small number of dissident journals are not listed in
mainstream engines. But its number is small, their names known and they
got direct presence on the web.

So one is reduced to google and its
million-to-one noise to signal ratio. And many such articles are not on
the web....

Maybe you, Tom Robert, the author of the relativity FAQ is reduced to
*that*. Others are not.

For instance, i go to Google Scholar

http://scholar.google.com/

and type "violation special relativity" and next click on search button.
The engine returns about 16700 entries.

The first is a paper on Nature, the second on Physics Letters B, the
third is an Arxiv preprint, etc.

Where is the noise? Oh wait, the author of the relativity FAQ was using
normal Google for searching scholar works :-) right?

Another problem is determining effective search terms, as authors of
such articles are highly idiosyncratic....

As showed above a simple search term gives interesting results to
analize. But, of course, *specific* search terms are needed to find nice
experimental results that at present time cannot be explained using SR or
SR based theories, e.g. Maxwell electrodynamics.

With a bit more of effort one can find also alternative equations and
theories tentatively used to explain those anomalous experiments do not
fit into relativity. For instance, theories giving an extra {-v GRAD A}
term to the magnetic force.

Several authors have noticed that this extra term can be derived from
first principles when the equivalence between space and time of
relativity is explicitely *broken*.

I repeat: if you think there are papers I missed, please send me
references.

I think even modern enginners are aware of *difficulties* with
relativity. From page 638 of [1]

{BLOCKQUOTE
Few physicists are aware of this fact. So at the end of the twentieth
century, whether we like it or not, we have to use the Newtonian [##]
electrodynamics for metallic and dense plasma conductors, leaving the
relativistic electrodynamics to deal with particle physics
}

Relativity working in some experiments but not in others. How to
understand this apparent duality?

There exists a recent Physical Review paper (Phys. Rev. E 1998, 57, 3683)
explaining that EM forces are *not* retarded [#] and that LW potentials
need to be addmended with a duality principle.

My work [2] derives the dualism principle from first principles.

Relativity works for the limit

PHI -- PHI(r,t)

where one derives spacetime concept and the Lorentz invariance. But this
is valid only for *some* experiments. Just like observed in the lab...

Many people have found my FAQ page to be useful. If you don't, go
elsewhere. shrug

Probably you missed the start of my original message when i said that the
FAQ was "a very valuable resource".

Tom Roberts


[1] Advanced Electromagnetism: Foundations, Theory and Applications.
World Scientific 1995. Terence W. Barrett, Dale M. Grimes.

[2] http://www.canonicalscience.com/


[#] No matter how many times you and Carlip claim the contrary thing.

[##] The authors explicitely means a non Maxwell-Einstein
electrodynamics. The equations contain c and reduce to Coulomb
electrodynamics in the limit c -- infinite.


--
I follow http://canonicalscience.com/guidelines.txt