Dear Ed,

my guesses are:

1. Special relativity involves some counter-intuitive phenomena like non-simultaneity which, when not taken properly into account, give rise to apparent contradictions.

2. As its name implies, SR is limited to certain conditions, e. g. constant velocity, and overlooking these limitations leads to the conclusion: "Einstein must be wrong!"

3. Einstein is some kind of a super-hero. To challenge a super-hero was the ideal of the medieval knight, and this archetypal longing might still exist today, perhaps mostly unconsciously.

I'm curious how many answers will say: "Because it is wrong indeed!" ;-)

Dear Ed,

my guesses are:

1. Special relativity involves some counter-intuitive phenomena like non-simultaneity which, when not taken properly into account, give rise to apparent contradictions.

2. As its name implies, SR is limited to certain conditions, e. g. constant velocity, and overlooking these limitations leads to the conclusion: "Einstein must be wrong!"

3. Einstein is some kind of a super-hero. To challenge a super-hero was the ideal of the medieval knight, and this archetypal longing might still exist today, perhaps mostly unconsciously.

I'm curious how many answers will say: "Because it is wrong indeed!" ;-)

Dear Ed:

Einstein's so-called 'physical' solution was totally bogus as he invoked "rigid rods" (impossible and contradicting his own theory) and a 3D infinity of 'microscopic-clocks' throughout space (without any Swiss micro clockmakers).

So, we can see,once again. that mathematicians only propose Equations with symbols that bear no relation to reality (as in QM). This is NOT physics that is an experiential science but a variant of imaginative theology.

Herb, Thank you. One could say that Einstein simplified (what, anyway, was not relevant experimentally to his objectives), but... he was a true physicist -- who often accept what does not exist yet, and move on, to describe what is essential to know, even if people are not logically ready for it. Dirac described antimatter before it was discovered.

But all such questions, and others from a Newtonian tradition, should have been put to rest in 1865 already, with Maxwell's equations, even before Einstein was born. Why they persist today? There is no reason in TODAY's science.

Freud hypothesized that when rational Man (plural, meaning humans) make irrational decisions, the reason is NOT in the conscious mind, which would not support it, but the subconscious. Jung added the superconscious, as an archetype, as the source, also not consciously. This view agrees with Joerg, above.

To be against special relativity is NOT to disagree with Einstein, which is always possible, and exists, and opens new venues, like Hubble himself did. It is to disagree with nature, evidenced in electromagnetism and light, daily experiences at rest.

Physics, viewed as a collective effect, is larger than its parts. Question Einstein, even his incipient methods, but do not question special relativity -- it has sufficient proof in electromagnetism, that we know today to be the basis of mechanics, and can share the same mathematical treatment in the Lagrangian formalism [1], hence should be true there too.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

[1] https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/fys/FYS3120/index-eng.html

Dear Ed:

Sorry to see you have such an uncritical attachment to the Saints of Science, such as "St. James", "St Albert" and all the other modern theologians. You would have made an excellent medieval Cardinal.

EM was FIRST developed as an experimental science of facts that was then cloaked in abstract, meaningless symbolism (aka mathematics).

“Why is special relativity still denied today?"

It is because with SR and later GR, Einstein took physics back to the mathematical idealism and absolutism of Plato, fundamentally reversing the revolution in philosophy (idealism vs. materialism) brought on by his immortal disciple Aristotle. This transition was brilliantly depicted by Raphael in his painting of the School of Athens; where the central fogures, an old and uncertain Plato points his fingers to the heavens, while young and confident Aristotle gestures down towards the earth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens#/media/File:Sanzio_01_Plato_Aristotle.jpg

Very little metaphysics and even physics could have developed in Europe without this revolutionary transition.

With his SR for example, Einstein brought back the notion of axiomatic and absolute truth of Greek geometry and “pure” mathematics into physics. Physics, with its materialist orientation always dealt with necessarily “approximate” observational data seeking progressively better relative truth and shunned absolute truth; because realistically speaking human knowledge (no matter how much developed) will always remain partial and defective. Hence imposing absolute and axiomatic truth on physics was bound to bring contradictions, antinomies, Zeno type paradoxes or at least great confusion, as we see in the case of SR for example; even after 100 years. Einstein himself realised this when he said: “Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?” A. Einstein, in "Relativity, The Special and General Theory" (Three Rivers Press, NewYork, 1961).

The absolute invariability of the speed of light automatically leads to the notion that other related parameters, such as time, mass; space (distance, length, etc.) must vary to keep the speed of light an absolute constant. This also necessarily leads to the notion that the rest mass of photon must be an absolute zero. This puts limitations on manipulations in physics. If you add the mass of 10^100 photons in a confined volume , the total mass will still be zero! If you multiply anything by zero you get a zero; divide by zero you get infinity and all the confusion, fantasies and paradoxes set in! Just imagine the possibility that if we consider the rest mass of the photon to be non zero, but very very small (a non-zero quantity) and we could use infinitesimal calculus to manipulate the mass of photons and the addition of a large number of photons would give us finite mass that we could deal with, without getting into paradoxes and all the confusion!

The conscientiously thoughtful physicists will forever remain plunged into the greatest intellectual difficulties, until Platonisn and mathematical idealism in physics is undone! https://www.amazon.ca/Einsteinian-Universe-Dialectical-Perspective-Theoretical/dp/9840418254

Hello Herb and Abdul,

Not to try to persuade you, but facts are what you were once willing to believe.

Note, also, that duplicate thought exists, Abdul, and can be used to check authenticity, not just one mere mortal's work checked by another bunch of mere mortals. In this case, Maxwell's equations in electromagnetism were already covariant with special relativity before Einstein was even born!

Herb, one can also derive the EM field and prove that magnetism exists, without Maxwell's equations at all, just with one electron and using exexperiments as well as the Lorentz equation. Very simple math, not even Calculus is used. The objections you mention do not come up.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed;

What is your physical evidence that a 'magnetic' field exists?

Math (simple or otherwise) is THE problem, NOT the solution

and is NO proof of physical existence. [Perhaps, you are a Platonist with an imaginary idea of existence = 'Forms'?]

You need to read more widely instead of just 'scientific' papers. How about starting with "The Daemon in the Aether" by Martin Goldman (1983) [a full biography of 'St. James' Maxwell?

Hello Herb,

What is your definition of magnetic field? If it is the same as Faraday, I don't know why you are asking. If it is not, I don't know either. I don't participate in guessing games at RG. Please explain if I misunderstood you.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Have you actually read anything I have sent you about EM?

If not I am not wasting anymore time on this.

Hello Herb,

I answered your question, you asked "What is your physical evidence that a 'magnetic' field exists?"

You should be ok with my answer, in any case. No need to see a page in one of my links.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

[ the question] “Why is special relativity still denied today?”]

[some answers] “…1. Special relativity involves some counter-intuitive phenomena like non-simultaneity which, when not taken properly into account, give rise to apparent contradictions.”

“…I'm curious how many answers will say: "Because it is wrong indeed!"”; etc.

the answers are seems as rather strange. The SR is denied [not, of course by some “refuters” that don’t understand what they refute and, since they are usually very active, in the reality only very effectively “confirm” the SR writing senseless comments in numerous discussions about the SR/GR] not because of it contains some “counterintuitive”, but adequate to the objective reality points, as that is the Voigt-Lorentz-Poincaré- Einstein “relativity of simultaneity”, but because of from the SR simply any number of meaningless logical and physical consequences directly and non-ambiguously follow.

The most known are, for example, the “Dingle problem in the SR”, “twin paradox” [more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322798185_The_informational_model_twin_paradox DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.34064.51201/1 ], which is simply some version of the Dingle problem, though, the “Bell paradox”; at that these paradoxes above aren’t some paradoxes, they are just concretizations of that the main the SR postulates that there is no the absolute Matter’s spacetime and that all inertial reference frames are totally and completely equivalent are fundamentally wrong.

Including such evidently counterintuitive consequences from these postulates, as the postulated “fundamental relativistic effects” as the “space contraction”, the “time dilation”, the postulate that Matter’s spacetime is the imaginary [mathematically] Minkowski space, etc. are nothing else then some fantastic suggestions that have no any relation to the objective reality; including Matter’s spacetime is the absolute real [mathematically] [5]4D Euclidian empty container where Matter exists and changes.

What is the SR [and essentially the GR] and what and how indeed acts in Matter becomes be clear only in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494

The adequacy of the SR/GR was very actively discussed on the RG, of course, and that these theories, first of all the SR, aren’t adequate, was shown already, an example see SS posts in, e.g., https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_special_relativity_be_categorized_as_metaphysics?view=5b0d29e88272c9ea0b387816 also.

So even most of numerous true SR/GR believers that were a couple years ago have understood already what these theories are; and it seems as even rather strange that this thread appeared…

Cheers

Dear Ed,

The theories of Physics were unpopular through most of its history, because these went against God, against apparent truth and even against it's old truths when necessary. Physics was guided solely by logic and by the criteria that concepts and the external reality corresponds. This uncompromising stance against prevailing authorities and the ruling ideas of the time ironically and dialectically is what pushed physics forward.

What worries me most about the fate of physics is that since the incorporation of axiomatic mathematical idealism (by Einstein) in the theories of relativity by the turn of 20th century; physics has gained astronomical popularity! Big money, powerful governments and the Vatican ironically are the greatest patrons of physics and sponsors of mega projects to (repeatedly) “prove” the pet theories. The merits of the discussion and debates on theories of physics are now decided by popular votes as we see even in various RG forums.

Most of all, theology has become the primary arbiter on the questions regarding the theories of physics:-

“Big Bang and religion mixed in Cern debate”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19870036

“By 1982, when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F. Hoyle, V. Ambartsuminan and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents. In fact in the introduction to the published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers” : G Burbidge, In “The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology.

Hello Sergey,

You are entitled to your opinions, but they do not correspond to reality. Time dilation, just to name one of your objections above, occurs every day when you see muons, for example,

"the fact that you can see cosmic ray muons at all is enough to prove that relativity is real. Think about where these muons are created: high in the upper atmosphere, about 30-to-100 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Think about how long a muon lives: about 2.2 microseconds on average. And think about the speed limit of the Universe: the speed of light, or about 300,000 kilometers per second. If you have something moving at the speed of light that only lives 2.2 microseconds, it should make it only 0.66 kilometers before decaying away. With that mean lifetime, less than 1-in-10⁵⁰ muons should reach the surface. But in reality, almost all of them make it down."

In https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-prove-einsteins-relativity-for-less-than-100-f5acfb5ea639

The objections on RG are a reason why this very question is valid: people can deny Einstein, can find flaws (real or mistaken) in his reasoning, in the experiments he used, in the words he used and corrected (relativistic mass), and so on, but not in special relatity per se -- Maxwell already confirmed special relativity, before Einstein was even born!

So, let us not personalize physics, like politics, philosophy, or humanities in general. Here, we make experiments, we find regularities we call mathematics to represent, and verify with nature -- not with persons. Nature has the last word, no matter how beautiful or ugly it looks, no matter who said it, or when.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed:

I saw no response from you about Evidence for the physical existence of a magnetic field.

Please repost it again or was it just another of your fantasies?

Dear Abdul and all,

You present interesting points in the discussion, in my view.

You wrote, "The theories of Physics were unpopular through most of its history, because these went against God".

I see othwerwise, most scientists, until recently it seems, believed in God, unique or plural, En Kai Pan, the Matrix, the most high, personal or abstract, or both.

Socrates, Omar Khayyam, all Muslim scientists (including who named the stars, and invented alcohol), to Newton, for example, Galileo, Ramanujan, Einstein (despite writing no to a little girl) most scientists believed --and stii do -- on a higher power, personalized as themselves themselves, even.

But all with a higher ideal "out there" ...which they served.

Today, many scientists believe in the same God, plural or named, such as Freeman Dyson, "out there"...

Why would it seem ootherwise? Let us investigate...

The atheists, on the other hand, always existed, too. Today, in some TV shows, and universities, they provide a lot of noise for their numbers.

But, few mathematicians and physicists, can claim to have made no errors, while Ramanujan , who saw God in every mathematical equation, as a word of God, could. Even in his unpublished and at-first lost papers, it was never his message, he was just the mailman, delivering with effort, but not originality -- that word, in every equation, came from God, and was mathematically right.

Today, many have dreams or visions, like Kekulé, or the discovery of solutions, or not conscious knowledge like Maxwell

Maxwell, wrote a set of equations for a natural phenomena, electromagnetism, that were covariant with special relativity before Einstein was even born. You do not believe this happened randomly, of course, for the entire set of equaions! This is not, either, the only example in history, nor the most recent.

So, it is time we accept that work, of Maxwell, Voigt (who proved first and published, that Maxwell's equation obeyed what is now known as Lorentz transformation), Lorentz, Einstein, Max Planck (editor of the physics magazine and supporter of Einstein), and many others, in more than 150 years!

If not, if they are all wrong, then certainly nature can convince anyone, and muons, as I linked above, in an $100.00 experiment. Or, one can just hold a permanent magnet in their hand, and ask, "where does this magnetic force come from?"

One can also get Feynman's old answer, in an interview, or a more compelling answer today, but anyway the magnetic force exists, and yet ... there is no magnetic source, the divergence is zero anywhere. The answer is special relativity, so, why deny it?

There is a power, outside of oneself, which compels electromagnetism and conservation laws. It is the topology, we can claim. But, what cocompels topology? It is random, some say, but not everything is random, even, we find, not even randomness itself.

Maybe that reasoning and experimental verification, is what makes special relativity so hard to accept, the negative pregnant of materialism? There is a higher power, even time and space obeys it, and it is not just special relativity. Something seems to be out there...

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Hello Herb,

My response to you is above, right after and right before yours, RG does not (yet?) provide a self-reference, but you should be able to see it.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

You do not want to personalize science, but it is already personalized.

Even if you believe in "nature" there are different versions of "it".

People such as Hoyle were not accepted because they were not in favour of Big Bang. They were not invited for the Vatican conference on Cosmology. Big Bang is about creation without referring to a creator. I do not think Vatican has much objection to Big Bang.

I think you are correct when you say that most of the Scientists believe in a God personalized or not. Herb's references to St Albert etc., are not out of place.

Cheers!

Nalin

Hello Nalin,

Nothing is out of place, if you follow what physics is saying, no randomly colliding worlds a la Velikovsky.

In life, some summarize, everything is beautiful and useful, also one. Forget the contradictions, they are just "contra".

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

You don't like self quoting, thus I'll not refer to my works, they are in my profile.

Your logic gives the answer to your question:

• special relativity holds for charged moving particles, all derived formulas need such entities
• however a giant inductive step has been done and everybody wants to convince us that those formulas still hold for other -neutral- particles

So, I have to re-write my simple demand from CERN (which is paid by taxpayers):

• Please accelerate a neutral particle to a speed close to c._

Hello Demetris,

The same special relativity formulas that hold for a simple negative charge, hold for a simple NET charge, and hold for each charge of a neutral atom, and the atom itself, we see that in collisions.

And muons also are singly charged, but are not electrons, and special relativity holds. There is no "giant inductive leap"" - charge or no charge, electron or not, special relativity holds.

How about neutral elementary sub-atomic particles? How about quarks? Fractional charge? How about the Higgs boson? The existence of these particles were proven and/or explained ahead of time by a theory using special relativity, it cannot be against it. Thus, the same answer, special relativity holds, when used correctly.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

agree with @ Joerg Fricke

regards

Dear Ed,

I humbly refuse to enter into a discussion on the question of a “higher power” , but I respect your faith as I would for any other religious person, as a social aspect. The merit and the force of my comment lies not in your recommendation of it, but because it drives most physicists (religious or not), crass materialists, and even noisy “atheists” like Dawkins et al., inexorably to abject faith; only in another name!

The fault for this phenomena does not lie with particular individual, but with the collective world view (epistemology) of "causality" [or what Hegel called “the view of understanding”] that they all share! Causality and good old common-sense is the crudest and most basic mode for interaction of life (even in its most primitive form) with which it negotiates and finds its way through Nature. But beyond ordinary existence, causality in an iterative way ultimately leads to a “first cause” – i.e., the “effect” of a “cause” that is unknown or unknowable and hence a mystery. It is of little importance what name you give to this mystery. A dialectical view of the world does not require any ultimate mystery!

It is true that most physicists in history were believers. Physics found an opportunistic chance to grow during the struggle between theology and rationalism. Physicists offered to reveal the “handiworks” of God in the realm of Nature. “The heavens sing the glory of the Lord and the firmament showeth His handiwork”! But physics even after searching for few centuries found no hand behind the “handiworks” in terrestrial Nature ! The brightest sons of physics even had to pay the highest price just for the right to do this search!

But after all these searches and episodes, physics is now obliged to take a ride on mathematical magic-carpet with Albert Einstein to the periphery of the universe to find His fingerprints only, not the hand! But all this centuries long hard labour by the physicists is to what avail? The priests who had to do nothing at all now come to admonish the physicists, “you silly people, we told you so long time ago!”

Hello Abdul,

I do not to want to crowd any answers to you, so I will be brief. I did not say I am a believer nor, like Freeman Dyson, that I believe in many gods, I also did not talk about faith -- the word does not even occur in my posting.

So, why would you say them? It is not a logical reason, it must be illogical. So, I just need to deny saying, you may correct your posting.

Also, physics is not what you say, looking as a physicist: it does not take rides on a "mathematical magic-carpet". Nature is the arbiter, even if the mathematics is pretty, even if Hegel agrees.

You have contraversed your position -- from saying earlier above that "The theories of Physics were unpopular through most of its history, because these went against God" to now admitting that "It is true that most physicists in history were believers". What is the cause of this change? Yourself realizing that your words were contrasensical.

The same happens with special relativity -- it is contrasensical to argue against it. However, you may argue against Einsten, he was a simple, mortal man. Like you and I.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Interested.

Hope you good luck

regards

Dear Ed,

I am sorry to say that you are trying to score an easy point in this discussion. I did not "contraverse “ in my position . It is true that many physicists even now are believers, but physics in general until Einstein was in conflict with theology and the established order, even though the established order (class) enjoyed its fruits. The more progressive and radical the ruling class (bourgeoisie for example); the better physics developed and the higher was the level of conflict with theology.

I do not have to remind you the sad history of many physicists and how even such a docile person like Darwin was treated and even now books have pictures of Darwin with a tail. But the bourgeoisie since the turn of 20th century turned to parasitic and regressive monopoly capitalists and hence forcing physics to preach theology, back to absolutism, Einsteinianism and Platonism! So, where did I contraverse?

For me causality is good enough for most simple systems of physics, where the cause and its effect can be clearly and easily identified, like in classical mechanics and even Newtonian physics; as a first order of approximation of reality as long as it is in conformity with historical/social practice, industry etc. As I said, life in all its form depends on a sense of causality to negotiate with Nature. But quantum dynamics, uncertainty, contradictions, the chance and necessity of dialectics etc., is a much better and all round description of Nature and objective reality at all levels of reality and existence and without any mystery!

Hello Abdul,

QM obeys special relativity, and topology too. Trying to fit a "war of the classes" where we are discussing special relativity is off-topic. Physics is not philosophy, or dialetics. Physics is the study of nature, and using nature to explore further.

People and societies will evolve and change, and physics may offer ground rules, such as conservation laws, non-simultainety, time dilation, but the end result belongs to each one.

Some think one may have to retry, and live again until one learns, others think it is a meaningless race to nowhere. Physics does not touch that, yet. And that has nothing to with special relativity, but you can start a topic on that, if you wish.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

Sorry, if I have hurt your sensibilities. And this will be my last comment here.

You asked a question, but in retrospect it seems that it would have been better if (like the Vatican I mentioned above) you had specified the criteria for the participants. It seems that your question was to reprimand the people who deny (the truth of) SR and gain quick support in its favour. I tried to show that your question involve many other factors of the real world and there are good reasons why someone (that includes me) would “deny” SR as you also apparently admit this fact. My mistake was to consider this question in the context of the “real” world and not in the context of the “thought world” of Einstein. Sorry for the disruption and wish you good luck.

By the way; your assertion that “QM obeys special relativity, and topology too.” ,is without any basis – these two are fundamentally incompatible and opposed. [The real merit of Paul Dirac's contribution to QED lays in his incorporation of complex conjugates for spin ½ entities than anything else, including SR]. This is an attempt by some to big up the theories of relativity, the same way they claim that GPS is impossible without the theories of relativity.

On the question and the attempts by many physicists at “fieldification” of QM; I have more faith on the last judgements of Einstein than anyone else: “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,

Cheers, Abdul

Hello Abdul,

It is common in your postings to make an affirmation about what I wrote, but using a false version of what I wrote. For example, I never used the word "faith", as I noted above. And when I wrote, “QM obeys special relativity, and topology too.” , of course it is sourced and considered true, otherwise I would not have written it. It may not be what you want, but it is true since Dirac, 1920, and the Nobel Prize recently.

I welcome, though, your points, insofar as they follow the question -- why is special relativity still denied today?

If you write that it contradicts Hegel, this is not an argument in physics. Wrong play.

You also wrote, "I humbly refuse to enter into a discussion on the question of a “higher power”", but that IS what physics is about, higher power than the Vatican, or anyone you can cite, and even "God" as understood by mere mortals, and books written by mere mortals. Does not the Koran say that God is unknowable? So, God is no limitation to physics. The same if you follow the Christian tradition ("only the Father knows"), or are an atheist, or any religion or lack of it. Religion is a false barrier.

And, the first one who wrote the word God was you, as you see searching this thread. But that word, which was an anathema to Hegel, becomes his confirmation! As a physicist, I cannot deny that dialetics exist, I can see it in action versus reaction going to synthesis, but it was all in my mind, there is actually no action-reaction but conservation laws, a global truth with collective parts that must adjust to conserve a quantity, as time and space have to change to keep the speed of light c=1.

It seems that this is the fulcrum that physics took away forever from philosophy -- special relativity is part of a "higher power", governs space and time, and that we all must obey, like or not.

But no one is blocking, you can do what is forbidden, by routing around. And that is another lesson from physics that philosophy does not like -- quantum mechanics. And it works relativistically, though, and obeys topology. The "higher power" reaches everything, even the permanent magnet bar at rest in your hand. The origin of magnetism is the movement of electrons, there is no other source, but there are collective effects, quantum effects, and all obeys "higher powers" we are beginning to understand.

In other words, there are rules, they exist independently of us mortals, but we can watch the game and figure out how to use the rules to win. Embrace special relativity, it is a "higher power", it is not malevolent, and you can even avoid it, but it is easier if you understand its dominions.

The old philosophical principle wins, Know Thyself, and your own body obeys special relativity, and that affects your MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). See https://books.google.com/books?id=XtHFDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=mri+special+relativity&source=bl&ots=AU-g8TMh_B&sig=T2oBuy3pIG83T8rIRX9lZaBdVSs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjSwpzLkoPcAhXQna0KHawlACYQ6AEwCnoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=mri%20special%20relativity&f=false

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

If you or someone from CERN answer my laboratory question for accelerating neutral particles close to c, then I'll quit, humbly apologize for everything I have written and I'll shout loudly for the glory of relativity.

Meanwhile, Magic, clear magic!

Hello Demetris,

How can you use space and time to discuss space and time? Clearly, you need a reference that is independent of space and time. That reference is the speed of light, c=1, valid in ANY inertial reference frame.

But, there is always a challenge to meet, people are never satisfied if they do not want to be, we learned that with flat-earthers. They still exist today. But, is it reasonable? Is it useful? Does it move science forward?

Today, new developments in electromagnetism and lasers may risk being delayed by this reactionary lack of acceptance of special relativity. But if we see how magnetic fields exist, why light exists, why muons can be measured, how nuclei confirm their energy and momentum, atomic clocks in plane travel, ... we see why a 150-year-old understanding in special relativity is needed, with more people working in science. Then, as with before atomic physics, old philosophies will take time but continue to crumble. So, let us no longer build a fear of the unknown.

The test you propose is not defensible nor needed scientifically, and, so, you are welcome to wait. But students, or faculty colleagues, do not have to wait. It does not move science forward either, to not teach special relativity, to wait.

A new society of haves and have-nots is formed, but our job ought to be to avoid it, and try we shall. There is no impediment in science, it is another imaginary fear. We already know we live in a 4-dimensional universe, maybe 6D, may be more. We will find out.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Christian

“then a denial of STR seems only possible with a sufficiently high ignorance of analytical mechanics”

Please do not throw stone in a glass house.

Being (highly) ignorant is acceptable as one can learn, but accepting a theory with flimsy argument is not.

I tried to make this issue resolved in another forum through a step by step investigation but it seems relativistic physicists are not interested at all. And then your comment …

Dear all,

The following paper gives the correct conclusion about SRT.

Article Special Relativity Theory: Only for Geniuses?

Special Relativity Theory can account for the transfer of distorted light signals between inertial reference frames, which give the apparent change of ruler lengths, due to a velocity. Due to the mutual claim that every frame can claim that it is standing still and that the other is moving, all the rulers are deformed the same way in appearance. Hence, the deformations do not represent physical changes whatsoever in the inertial reference frames themselves.

The Special Relativity Theory cannot account for a physical change of the length, time, and mass inside the inertial reference frames, because the requirement for such a claim is that the speed of light would be constant and identical for all the inertial reference frames, whatever their velocity, and even at the same place and time. This is physically impossible.

The initial claim of the Special Relativity Theory to look at other inertial reference frames through the deformation of light signals between the inertial reference frames cannot suddenly be forced to become real changes inside the frames, just because of a non-proven assumption.

The proofs that are given are in fact often applications of electromagnetism upon charges, and not applicable to the Special Relativity Theory, because of its sole context with light beams. Also often other proofs are in fact just showing that light is affected between inertial reference frames.

It follows from the non-existence of an intrinsic time dilation, that the alleged Lorentz invariance is invalid. Nowadays, electromagnetism has been doped by this additional Lorentz invariance. However, since it was found by Jefimenko that only the clock tick rates can change by some velocity-dependent factors, which can differ from the Lorentz factor by its construct, it follows that the Lorentz factor can only by applicable by coincidence.

Hence, the adaptations that were made to the original Liénard-Wiechert retarded potentials, should be removed as well.

Notice that the latter equations are about the alleged CERN findings:

Allegedly, the fast particles in CERN’s accelerator would be a proof that mass is increasing with velocity, because the faster the particle, the more energy has to be put in the electromagnetic fields that tend to accelerate the particles further.

It is however important to stand still about what is really happening. The particles are charges, because only charges can be forced in a circular path and be accelerated by the help of electromagnetic fields.

The way how CERN accelerates charges is by using electromagnetic fields, that will induce at the right place and moment the charges, by the induction laws given by Maxwell.

So, in the first place, it is important to notice that there are no light signals between the inertial reference frames, but electromagnetic fields. These fields are subject to a propagation speed that equals ‘c’, the speed of light.

The fields are propagating with the speed of light, and when a charge is moving at a high velocity, these fields will be retarded about the charge. In literature, this is a well-known effect of electromagnetism, as confirmed in the Liénard-Wiechert retarded potentials or the Jefimenko equations of retarded fields. Note that the actual textbooks don’t represent the correct Liénard-Wiechert retarded potentials, which were derived in 1898 and 1900, and which were not ‘injected’ at that time by the relativistic ‘Lorentz’ factor.

At the place where the charge is present, the fields will run behind. At every location around the charge, this retardation will have another effect: the result of the retardation at the front and the rear will give a different deformation of the electric field than how the retardation deforms the electric field of the charge’s sides, transversal to the motion. The magnetic field, due to the induction by the speed of the charge, will be deformed as well, according to the deformation of the electric field.

The consequence of the deformation of the electric field is that at high velocities close to the speed of light, there is no field left at the rear side, in order to be accelerated by means of electromagnetic waves. Since at the transversal side there is a large electric field, the charge can only be moved in that direction, but therefore cannot accelerate it further.

We must conclude that, besides the fact that the Special Relativity Theory is only about the transmission of light between inertial reference frames, and that also the assumption of a constant speed of light in all circumstances is fictive, it is also settled that the retarded electric fields are at the real origin of the impossibility of a further acceleration, for speeds close to the speed of light.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Ed,

I am afraid that you have not yet understood why relativity theories are the best servants of the concept of Earth as a Prison Planet (:"we cannot travel with speed>c" and other tails).

Unfortunately I have to use references, but, since you do not like such a procedure, I leave this question.

Cheers to our prison guards!

Dear Demetrius and Mees,

There are no prison guards except for those who see them, I conclude. I never spoke against self-referential references, just to the impression that they can be evidence of "no other venue", no peer-review, unpolished work, rejected work, or at best, a draft, a preprint, not to be cited except as "private communication." You are welcome to add yours, if you think it helps.

But it is not just about travel, or Lennard potentials, isn't it? Your own bodies obey special relativity, and that affects your MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). See https://books.google.com/books?id=XtHFDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=mri+special+relativity&source=bl&ots=AU-g8TMh_B&sig=T2oBuy3pIG83T8rIRX9lZaBdVSs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjSwpzLkoPcAhXQna0KHawlACYQ6AEwCnoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=mri%20special%20relativity&f=false

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Great answers, Abdul Malek and Herb Spencer! In fact, they expose some of my basic criticisms. I'll soon post my answer, in order to clarify that Einstein's relativity theory (both Special and General) does not explain some experimental results. Here in Brazil it is late night, so I had to sleep. Please, wait until tomorrow to read my post.

Best wishes,

Fabio M. S. Lima (Brazil)

Dear Ed,

Since you didn't reply on any of my arguments in a scientific manner, thank you very much for your confirmation that you fully accepted them.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Ed:

Thank goodness you are NOT a defence lawyer in any murder trial. You simply offer personal assertions as evidence. The police know how difficult it is to organize a "proof" for even a single illegal event.

Hello all,

Thank you for your participation so far, and hope for more contributions, all helpful -- will help myself and readers to understand why special relativity is true in physics but not accepted by some. There are many reasons why not, albeit not in physics. I am curious of every answer, as we must all accept each other.

As you know, people can ask their own question in RG. This question is not about Einstein or mistakes he did, which were too many to count, but why special relativity holds in physics, in all areas including an MRI of anyone's body, which MRI defines whether you will live or not, in some cases, and how to extend your life, but some people may object, not accept.

This a meta-question on collective effects, on a group interacting with another group, which can be viewed using physics of fluids (see my other questions and papers at RG, especially on the collective subjective, intersubjective, objective, and abstract effects and use of the scientific method), and.also philosophically.

For example, using history as a social computation of interactions, computing an end state from a start state, using dialetics as a possible explanation of the struggle, Freud, Jung, eastern psychology, Vatican theology, Ismamism, atheism, economics, or quantum mechanics in trying all possible paths -- but, the end reality is the same. The MRI is still used, recognized by a medical doctor, or redone, payed for, people's lives are saved, clocks are synchronized properly, and time flows.

Special relativity (which had a better-concept-name as Einstein first proposed it, as a "Theory of Invariants", and Max Planck observed as his own physics weltanschauung in 1900) was not "turned ON" by Einstein. We have been living with it... for 13.772 billions of years.

Will, one day, special relativity be turned off?

Yes, at any time today... when bodies are not used to carry intelligence, as in reference frame observer transfer that can be done by anyone today, all of a sudden going at 0.7c with an electron, and seeing NO magnetic field, from rest in a lab frame and seeing a magnetic component in an electromagnetic field, or, presumably but not proven experimentally, when time evolves after eons ... and there are not even black holes anymore, at the end of this universe.

Time seems to mark the existence of this universe. Will other universes, co-existing with this universe, exist? If... they do not have mass, if... intelligence is not only carried by a simple brain, or by silicon, nor by matter, such intelligence, presumably, would not be a prisoner of time.

But, this is not the place to use words that are unacceptable by a scientific study, to proselytize by sock-puppets or cabal, to appear to win no matter the cost of experience, to assert how dumb Einstein was, that we should listen to the wise words of so-and-so, read these files, instead of losing time ...

Yes, we should strive to build collectively, to mine the gold of truth using fair, polite, on-topic, cogent public discussions. If that is not done, if those simple rules of debate are not followed, the loss is first, theirs.

To anyone who does not agree with this, you can continue to observe, or even join in, albeit in fair terms. Otherwise, life itself may become harder, even to all of us, life iitself is a school.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Hello all, in answer to Mees specifically, also in this forum, and copied from another forum,

My question was simple, why do you use "apparent" in the first sentence? You know you cannot include "apparent". You are pre-judging. But, it results, with proper analysis, that length contraction can do thermodynamic work for the non co-moving observer, length contraction is not apparent. Special Relativity holds.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

SRT is a thought experiment for light beams between inertial reference frames. Louis deBroglie found that each inertial reference frame can mutually consider that the ruler of the other inertial reference frame is shorter, and consequently, according to SRT, have a delayed time and larger mass. So, there is a problem in the case of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. There is no problem in the case of a Lorentz contraction.

Hence, it are only the light signals of communications that Einstein used in his thought experiment, that give this impression of length contraction, whereas there isn't any.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Hello Mees,

We are not discussing Einstein, but special relativity being physically right, but not obvious to all. Special relativity pre-dates Einstein, and post-post-dates Einstein (read why in the question), it always existed for 13.772 billions of years, and will continue, presumably, to the end of time itself.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Christian,

Yes and no, actually...

I didn't specify that, because one cannot say if an inertial frame is moving or standing still because of the local Galileo relativity principle.

However, I meant "there isn't any" as : there is no Fitzgerald - Lorentz contraction.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

However, it is not

Hi Erck,

You try to sell that relativity would allegedly exist before Einstein. It is maybe so, but also plain wrong.

Your first error is that it is Einstein who made time as being a variable, whereas time is not variable. Only when one tries to measure speed by means of light signals, one get the impression that time is changed, because of what I explained above, and which the genius Louis de Broglie found.

What remains is that pre-1905 relativity is Galileo's relativity. But also that is wrong, except locally.

Galileo's relativity is only applicable at one place at once, so it is invalid at several distant places at once.

Galileo gave the example of the inside of a ship, in which the flies will fly the same way wrt the walls, whatever the speed of the ship is. He forgot about the ship at 100 km distance.

If one connects the ships with a rigid pipe, the flies will not always fly the same way wrt the walls, as seen from each ship.

If one connects the ships with a bellow, at every place, it 'appears' that the flies fly the same way and that falling stones don't move wrt the walls. But seen from either ship, the flies move differently.

We must conclude that Galileo's principle is false in more than one frame at once, hence, special relativity is unfounded, and a local aether is reality.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Christian

Well said, in that case I repeat my question as it was asked two weeks ago in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_special_relativity_be_categorized_as_metaphysics.

What is the experimental evidence for length contraction?

Hello Ziaedin,

The experimental evidence for length contraction was given by Feynman, others, and by myself, some postings above -- that length contraction can produce thermodynamic work. We do not have to go back to this issue, it is well-known and considered not a novelty. Time to move on.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Christian,

You still seem to believe that dissidents have agendas. That is not so, and the proof is simple: they are all contradicting mutually, and they get no wages for their work.

Mutatis mutandis, mainstream scientists are all saying the same, and they all get wages for doing so.

So, the self-maintenance of this system would rather indicate an agenda. However, if you think that I refer to "conspiracy", I must admit that the sole system I described suffices to maintain this, provided that is applied consequently.

And it is: no "serious" journal accepts any dissident theory, whatever the evidences are.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Hello Christian,

There are dissidents who get wages for their (err) work, membership dues, advertising revenue, book sales, and notoriety. But, maggots can clean wounds. I think of it as a collective effect, as studied by using physics of fluids, including the increasing gun movement in the US. But, there is a Deborah Number.

Btw, on length contraction, I updated the link on the common misconceptions question, adding the difference in the situation as to the comoving observer, and the thermodynamic work measurable for non-comoving observers, it is not an optical illusion. If you can, please verify. It affects #19 and #20 mostly, avoiding double-entendre.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

You mean, arguments like photons are massless - no, photons have mass - no, photons do not even exist. Or, time dilates, no time does not dilate. Or, space curves - no space does not curve. Or, c is a constant, no c is not a constant. Or, photons travel at v = c, no photons do not travel at v = c. We've seen all of these arguments right here on RG. You can get your answers by following those threads.

Some think SRT only works with steady speeds, and falls apart when accelerations are taken into account. Some say the clear and simple math of SRT does not necessarily have to translate to reality. Maybe it's just a simple construct that is not representative of the truth.

Hey, some people also fight any type of evolutionary theory, tooth and nail. At least in matters like special relativity, it's not for purely religious reasons. Although some of those arguing seem extremely adamant, almost like religious zeal. Dogs piddle to mark their spots. We all do similar things to that.

Hello all,

Special relativity holds in physics, in all areas including Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of anyone's body, which MRI defines whether you will live or not, in some cases, and how to extend your life ... but some people may object, not accept, cast historical arguments, or discuss vain philosophies made by mere mortal man, when the realites of today was not even known.

Why?? Why mention what is today ignorance -- we should at least try not to repeat the same errors.

There is a clear life danger, like not accepting a blood transfusion, or defending vaping for medical drug inhalation. is it work the risk? What if one accepts, what is the risk?

Those questions are more important than creating buzz, justifying research, antagonism, being "historically accurate", or just speculation. A Medical Review Board (MRB) would stop these named examples. Should one stop denying that MRIs work, when they do exist, work, and are needed to save lifes?

But, the end reality is the same. The MRI is still used, recognized by a medical doctor, or redone, payed for, people's lives are saved, clocks are synchronized properly, and time flows according to Lorentz's equation, we live in at least a 4D universe, where time can become space and vice-versa, may discover new dimensions, new laws.

Special relativity was not "turned ON", qua a theory of invariants, by Einstein or Maxwell. We have been living with it... for 13.772 billions of years.

Contemplating its refutation, though, still happens, and so must be useful for the system. We accept such reality, it is in our legacy.

Well, this IS the scientific method ... although not expected for an Oracle, it is how science approaches the truth, and corrects, and re-approaches, etc.

This past does not taint the future, it confirms the future! Any false refutation is an answer, a sign that says "Not this way!".

In science, the past errors confirm the correct path by also pointing to the errors previously made and saying "Not this way!" In science, thus, a NO is not a catastrophe, nor a crisis, it is an answer. A YES is also not the truth, it is NOT YET FALSE. In logic, it is called modus tolllens, when you use a negative to deny a falsity, in addition to modus ponens, more commonly used, to affirm a truth.

For example, Wheeler and Taylor textbook says:

"Ouch! The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass--belonging to the magnitude of a four-vector--to a very different concept, the time component of a four-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself.", in Edwin Floriman Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler, Spacetime Physics: introduction to special relativity, op.cit.

in (with further examples of such surviving errors) my RG question of two years ago, recently updated (errors still being reported!! anyone can add theirs):

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_worse_yet_enduring_misconceptions_about_mass_and_energy_in_special_relativity

These areas of special relativity may be surprising to some ... but they should not be controversial today, ALL references are provided. All known in physics, of course, correctly. It is the scientific method, anyone can participate, even students. In computer science, it is called linting.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear all,

MRI's have to do with charges, so, electromagnetism.

The fields are propagating with the speed of light, and when a charge is moving at a high velocity, these fields will be retarded about the charge. In literature, this is a well-known effect of electromagnetism, as confirmed in the Liénard-Wiechert retarded potentials or the Jefimenko equations of retarded fields. Note that the actual textbooks don’t represent the correct Liénard-Wiechert retarded potentials, which were derived in 1898 and 1900, and which were not ‘injected’ at that time by the relativistic ‘Lorentz’ factor.

At the place where the charge is present, the fields will run behind. At every location around the charge, this retardation will have another effect: the result of the retardation at the front and the rear will give a different deformation of the electric field than how the retardation deforms the electric field of the charge’s sides, transversal to the motion. The magnetic field, due to the induction by the speed of the charge, will be deformed as well, according to the deformation of the electric field.

The consequence of the deformation of the electric field is that at high velocities close to the speed of light, there is no field left at the rear side, in order to be accelerated by means of electromagnetic waves. Since at the transversal side there is a large electric field, the charge can only be moved in that direction, but therefore cannot accelerate it further.

SRT is about deformed light signals between frames of masses, not charges.

Hence, the alleged Lorentz factor is not about charges.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

What transpires from these discussions is that SR like any other theory works in certain areas but does not in some other areas. It is better not to consider whether SR or any other theory for that matter, represents or is an approximation of, "nature"

What transpires from these discussions is that SR like any other theory works in certain areas but does not in some other areas. It is better not to consider whether SR or any other theory for that matter, represents or is an approximation of, nature.

Dear scientists

The scientific level of the comments is getting better and better in this forum. It reminds me of when I, out of ignorance, asked some questions in a religious group. The comments and accusations were not too different from some of the comments that is posted here.

Please do not forget RG is a scientific platform. You are responsible to present experimental evidence not the list of anti-science organizations in response to a clear question. This is really demeaning to all.

Why do you think experimental evidence is not a much stronger response to a question?

Gerck,

Maybe should you use scientific arguments instead of insinuating politics or conspiration.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Hello all, and Ziaedin in particular,

I never used politics to justify arguments, but we must be aware that others do, and try to reverse my arguments that way, as playing a silly "echo game" we see when beginners play chess, for example, thinking they can continue the charade without consequence...and pass as real players.

Every time you, Ziaedin, see light, and that is cited and explained here, that is experimental evidence of special relativity. Open your eyes, and see.

Other experimental evidences are listed and explained here, such as a magnet.

I also see a link explaining MRI in depth, needing special relativity and explaining it on the level at high-school.

Many other experimental evidences are listed, including the fact that special relativity did not start with anyone, special relativity has been going on for 13.772 billion years. We find evidence of the Big-Bang, its hard experimental facts, in light itself, and listed abundantly in the thread.

Even a home experiment was suggested, easy, to confirm time dilation! Using muons, and gaining experimental evidence with your very eyes, that the seemingly strange result, as it was with the Coriolis force, is real and palpable by you.

So, it is not just a question of opening your eyes, and see the light as relativistic itself; that requires some math equations, but not more than high-school level, as explained more than once, above.

Also, listed, is that the relativistic energy-momentum relation (EMR) E = Sqrt[m2c4+p2c2] is confirmed by particle accelerators with high precision, and that is sourced, visit CERN, ask people, also mathematically correct the EMR relation I copied and pasted from the thread, due to .HTML inconsistencies, if you need, or read online.

Although there, multiple times, how could you, Ziaedin, have missed it all? All of them, not one you saw? Why??

Ask yourself... the probability of that happening to fair, rational observers is the product of probabiliities, each time you missed an example, which we can suppose it is independent when counting each independent posting that you missed, for all the postings in this thread, which number you can calculate, and is near zero.

There is no politics in my statements, and yet, some say to see them... Why? That probability, objective, is zero. The occurrence is zero in my links.

I identified, also using other threads -- the same group of people who do not see what is plainly there, also see what is clearly not there.

Why? At play here is an intersubjective view. See ref. [1] now.

Saw ref. [1]? If not, please read now and note its date.

Intersubjectivity [1], is a mode of reality, it is valid and appears in computer science [1], online protocols for millions of people [1], maths, and is part of our studies. My group found it plays in physics, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, all sciences, humanities, and all areas, even for machines and AI.

And, anti-scientific organizations do exist, we see their effects, as well as anti-semitism, and pro-gun, pro-tobacco, pro-war. They are easy to spot, one recognizes them by their fruit.

Better to list them, and not ignore them, and use that knowledge, than to suffer their reality mode.

It is also hip to be contrarian, one seems more likely to get a response, always hard to please, that is, though, how it often starts... to find sympathesizers to, now, their cause, their mode of reality, intersubjective.

But, it is not real, as a reality mode, to others, others see the experimental and logical evidence, and recognize them. It is not bitter, they expand the intuition, they promote health as they do not deny the experimental evidence of MRI, for their own benefit. They can show ignorance, but try to avoid willful ignorance, bias and hubris. One can say, they are the good students, life is a school.

Although... it is very real to the other side, in their reality mode, and it is bitter, they cause harm to intuition, like their sayings and mottos, repeated, denying seeing what they see, denying evidence, as if to convince by words, not logic, not experiment.

"Do not feed the trolls" is a technical solution to resolve these reality modes [1], and RG may respond to them --we do not need it, as any RG thread shows, when properly identified, by their postings, and they are cunning to hide it, and handled.

And anyone at RG can identify such people, qua trolls and anti-groups or, simply copy-cats, curmudgeons, pretend professorial tones of old, often on what seems to be soapbox, or with books to sell at Amazon, lectures to give, and papers to send at near every posting.

Their relentless proselytizing, is also seen in the wild, not invented or an illusion, or an artifact. It is all a force of nature, our group finds (references later in text)

This can manifest itself directly and indirectly. As in trying to harm a thread under false pretenses, complaining about editing when an edit button is offered to everyone, as well as a delete button and reposting when an addition is extensive, intentionally misspelling names, making an issue to use pronouns before proper names, or titles, under non-existing chivalry rules or otherwise, pretending to not seeing what is evident, to misquote and then attack the ghost, repeatedly complaining about the false absence of what has been said, comparing with what was not said, posting nonsense, attribute seeing what is not there, attributing phrases that were never said by their authors, not correcting when asked, using authors' arguments in reverse, crowding the space with useless messages, adding megabytes of their own (or their cabal) links to explain their phrases and call it referencing, using sock-puppets confirming collectively the same erroneous messages, multiplying redudant questions in RG and elsewhere, and redundant papers that appear peer-reviewed but made to order, medals and prizes which merit is that they were fully paid for, switching to apparently useful mesages in order to attempt to cloak, frequently off-topic, accusatory, using language that is unsuitable, demanding their chosen fallacious evidence, demanding the impossible, asking for what was already provided, recommending confusing messages, daring to claim, shout and be noisy (of all people!) that politics is being used against them, saying it is "all wrong" without specification, and bias, and Evangelism, and so on, over and over again.

This was all seen in other threads[1], not just on special relativity, not just here. It can be considered a natural occurrence.

As Stefferud said [1], "... we are dealing with OBJECTIVE relaitoniships in the TM world, and InterSubjective models in the Internet world is a very critical observation that appears to me to explain how we are unable to agree on much of anything in an objective way. Simply, we aree all seeing things in our own special subjective way, so that the thing we are trying to nail down is a set of INTERSUBJECTIVE relationships."

Yes, one can see that could be a cause of honest dissent here, but what to do here?

Special relativity is not an intersubjective relationship, it cannot not apply when one uses MRI, even to doubters. There is no turn OFF button. Doubters do not, objectively speaking, but not intersubjectivelly or subjectively, matter here. Special relativity is an objective clause, not even the known universe, atoms, and light itself escape, it is a wide range rule.

A simple software can spot them, Information Theory can treat them as noise and recover the signal, buried as it may seem to be, because they must lack one quality -- coherence. And if they show some measure of coherence, simple signal analysis will do.

And I would be not surprised if that is so handled in the server, sooner or later, just like we handled spam. But, we can always resort to identify and handle it at the client, even without software. Just like spam.

Defense methods are also a collective effect, and interests me as a social example from the physics of fluids. In addition to collective effects in photons, lasers, electrons, and physics, they are also important, for example, in superconductivity. We try to see particles (err, waves..) that are not in isolation. Try to serve yourself from a ketchup bottle and you will see a collective effect at play.

So, I chose to answer, I am understanding it better, and I summarized above, for everyone's benefit and help. This was seen before [1], and malice is not to be considered as a first fiddle, but it provably exists, so let not anyone be naive about it. A denial, in these cases, is close to a confirmation.

There are solutions and they are technical, inescapable as much as we want, Shannon's Tenth Theorem, to reduce noise, qua these in RG, to a value as close to zero as we please.

It may take time and effort, but technical solutions are out there, as surely as you can read flawlessly your computer files, as you can phone text clearly, all full of noise in the channel, all but cleared using Shannon's law -- his Tenth Theorem. There are wide ranging rules in the universe, not even black holes escape, there are no wandering worlds a la Velikovsky, and many things are bigger than us, mere mortals.

Special relativity is one of those rules of wide range, universally valid*, and they bring a sweet fruit, like the Tenth Theorem. And there is an interesting paper making its way in our group, that experimentally is showing that the universe is not random, there are wide ranging rules.

Here, universal refers to the validity region, in terms of the known universe, not eternity, which infinite time does not exist physically.

So... everything is fine, beautiful, and useful in life. The maggots clean wounds.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

[1] How different persons can view the same data differently, and to harmonise the different viewpoints in Physics, Cybersecurity, and other areas of work and life, in Technical Report On ABSTRACT, OBJECTIVE, SUBJECTIVE and INTERSUBJECTIVE Modes

Gerck,

Continuously copy-pasting your erroneous claims in order to monopolize this thread is an unacceptable attitude.

It only shows the absence of any scientific substantiation and a lack of respect for all the participants of this thread.

I insist on immediately stopping such actions on RG.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Mees: Have no concerns, we have seen your posting matter before, it is listed as "..., complaining about editing when an edit button is offered to everyone, as well as a delete button [and reposting] when an addition is extensive,.." .

Actually, deleting and reposting is a recommended practice, when the additions are lengthy or dispersed. Minor additions, such as this one, can be simply edited. You can decide, it is your posting after all.

Well Erck, in the interest of all the participants, you could use the delete button for all of your previous repetitive posts, in order to add some relevance to the debate in this thread.

Dear Ed

You have mentioned Feynman’s work, born 1918, and MRI, developed late 70s as the proof of length contraction. Assuming what you said is correct, this is like putting the cart before the horse.

Please tell me who proposed length contraction and based on what scientific experiment it was accepted by all long before Feynman was born.

We have looked into this before and I have shown that the original idea was baseless and it was proposed based on a clear mistake. That is why I was astonished to see your question. With such a baseless origin why you should ever doubt that somebody doubts any relativistic theory?

Ziaedin and all: In case of any questions, you do not have to wait for an answer, nor wonder for a missing reply. Considering how old special relativity is, more than a century, your remark was probably asked before, and, probably is listed and commented here (please pay no attention to the word misconceptions, it may be a doubt as well):

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_worse_yet_enduring_misconceptions_about_mass_and_energy_in_special_relativity

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Hello all,

See also in continuation of this thread:

1. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_college_students_learn_about_electromagnetism_before_mechanics

2. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_we_need_to_abandon_the_Standard_Model_in_Physics

3. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Would_it_be_more_insightful_for_students_to_learn_conservation_of_momentum_laws_before_Newtons_laws

and others.

Dear C. Baumgarten,

Your conclusion "The history of some theory is interesting - but for historical reasons only" is terrible. I fully disagree!

But you're not alone: most young scientists would agree with you, as they are not instructed in philosophy of science and history of physics in most universities, today. These courses yield an important cultural complement for those interested, e.g., in the investigation of the foundations of physics (mainly, modern physics). Your speech is typical of those who are not interested in put modern physics theories in disguise, as you accept them as infallible truth.

A critical posture is necessary for any scientist who is really interested into changes and fundamental innovations. How could you elaborate a novel theory which disagrees with Einstein's relativity if you take it as undisputable truth from the beginning? We would be calculating dozens of epicycles yet if all scientists in the past had thougth in science as you are thinking. Galileo would be ashamed with such retrograde attitude...

Hello Fabio and all,

Your arguments create a pretend moral equivalency between a legitimate scientific theory and a crazy, completely fabricated story invented by anyone. Many scientists have defended that science is not history, which is a narrative mainly by the winners of ephemeral social conflicts, not what nature says for billions of years.

History or philosophy are not a reason to reject any scientific theory, they are not trustworthy. Science is based on testable links, valid for friends and foes alike, and ALL say special relativity is right, while NONE say it is wrong, when correctly viewed.

If you like philosohy or history, it is probably a disservice to use them to pretend to justify such solipsistic views, leading to further discredit to their use alongside science.

The lessons of proven historic principles, such as reciprocity, speak against a confusion of "critical posture in science" versus courses of supposed liberal arts and outdated philosophies that still clutter our curriculum. They take students' time from studies on what will matter to their lives. Reciprocity will make such courses, that offer none, become deprecated.

Dear Gerck,

You've said "Science is based on testable links (...), and ALL say special relativity is right, while NONE say it is wrong".

I really like the first part, but the second part is wrong. This full agreement with experiments was very good until the beginning of the 2000's [history is important!], but now it has become a myth, as I'll gently explain.

Special Relativity is a theory based upon two postulates, one of them is that always v

Link to Hansen paper:

https://www.nature.com/news/quantum-spookiness-passes-toughest-test-yet-1.18255

Dear Christian,

Nothing above was personal. I don't even know you. This is just a debate.

Your answer fits class B(ii), in my text above, so we all are expecting you answer the corresponding question.

F. M. S. Lima

Please join Facebook group , ''SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY" to fully comprehend the limitations of SRT. Otherwise , Please read my publications.

Fabio and Pradeep: It seems that this thread was not read by you.

As written many times above, if a great physicist would say today that special relativity is wrong, the trustworthiness of that statement would be zero -- in physics, it does not matter who says what, or if the equation seems beautiful, nature is the arbiter. In special relativity, nature has spoken in too many areas to count, that special relativity is the right view. We live in at least a 4D world, not a 3D.

For questions in special relativity, see https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_special_relativity_still_denied_today#view=5b40e82d201839daee3ce063

Dear Christian and Gerck,

Again, please, answer B(ii). If you refuse to accept the Hansen's group experimental result, I would like to ask: suppose one undisputable experimental result against SRT had been found (...), i.e. a reliable one which you had to agree; what would be your scientific (NOT personal) attitude?

Fabio

Dear Ed and Christian,

A theory like special relativity or GRT, for that matter is a towering achievement only if , just like a skyscraper, if it has no foundational error or impeccable , otherwise ,the entire superstructure crumbles on ratiocination. Let me check whether my foundational check proves this right. Relativistic gamma being reciprocal of a square root function, it has two values , one positive and the other negative. Hence, absolutely amended form of the time dilation equation, modulus has to be applied on the relativistic gamma. Under this sophisticated revised form of the special relativity equations, one finds domain of relativistic mechanics for particles greater than one kilogram, ie spaceships is one-third the speed of light.Please read my publications for this revised result. P.K.

Fabio and all,

I answered your B.(ii) already, above, and many times before, even before you asked.

To your new question, "suppose one undisputable experimental result against SRT had been found (...), i.e. a reliable one which you had to agree; what would be your scientific (NOT personal) attitude?

Let me ask you first, suppose one undisputable experimental result against evolution had been found (...), i.e. a reliable one which you had to agree; what would be your scientific (NOT personal) attitude?

You see, non-sensical questions can lead to non-sensical answers. I refuse to participate. It is a question commonly used by anti-evolutionists in the US (30 percent of the population). See Facebook, for example.

Now, let me just reply to some of your questions, not on the link I gave.

I write about "magnetism", not a supposed "magnetic field". If you have a question on the latter, lookup Faraday, and that was my answer.

Today, we know that the existance of magnetism is due to the movement of at least one electric charge, according to the Lorentz transformation and the Lorentz force equations. Maxwell's equations do not explain it.

This is also valid for an object macroscopically at rest. A permanent magnet bar on your hand, is explained by special relativity.

Read the thread, I suggest, and the link in my previous answer, to answer any question you may have.

About quantum, in my area of work, a non-relativistic quantum theory is a known no-starter. Quantum effects prove the existance of special relativity on the smallest levels, and big too. But papers, even in Nature, may begin with dog-whistle calls, that would be a bad day for Einstein, false on many levels. It is an editor's fault. Not something to quote... Nature is usually better.

Of course, expect people to hack special relativity! It is not that it does not apply, it applies in ways you did not imagine before.

For example, the laser hacked the quantum mechanics of Bohr, it was thought to be impossible. You see, history is important, just not authoritative in science.

And science students in the US, at least, are today overloaded with humanities. A top university in the US, Ivy League, still has 12 +1 mandatory humanities for physics. All the while, still teaching about Newton's laws, as if valid, as if giving the right intuition.

One could think that science today risks becoming old history, 500 years old. But, some will advance, and that is enough on an avalanche process. The gap will create a tension, and we, collectively, should inchworm ahead.

Hello all: While revisiting old points is good, and thanks to RG one may have an easy way, I want to bring a new point.

The reverse is not proven (yet?), but the quantum model of electromagnetism must follow special relativity!

This is of fundamental importance, as special relativity is setting the stage for both a quantum model and for electromagnetism.

In other words, there must NOT be a non-relativistic quantum theory, making special relativity a necessity also for the quantum description.

Formulations of special relativity may change, and many have [1], with misconceptions, whereas many were considered right, but a consistent picture emerges.

This is in the context of our lab, approaching electromagnetism from a new angle, based on proven identification methods from information theory, and collective effects.

Part of this new approach has been presented in a research draft, before quantum aspects are considered, and they show a much more simplified start point, highlighting the fundamental need for special relativity in the theory.

This can be followed well even by freshman in college and, yet, allows advanced theories to be pursued.

The draft is available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325934158_There_Must_Be_Light

Reference:

[1]

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_worse_yet_enduring_misconceptions_about_mass_and_energy_in_special_relativity

To prove my contention ie Cosmic speed limit for a particle greater than 1kg is one third the speed of light , pls check the link below

https://www.universetoday.com/127844/18-billion-solar-mass-black-hole-rotates-at-13-speed-of-light/ Therefore , nature itself provides the ultimate verification . As long as anyone, cannot dispute the above,it is a theory. You will have Stephen Hawking to support my point. He has written in the book ," A Brief History of Time," any statement is a theory , provided it cannot be disproved. Incorrigible scientists do not want to reform science.

Ultimate convincing youtube video regarding my theory , the link being

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=amended+special+theory+of+relativity

Sorry, Pradeep:

You are the victim of Bad Timing.

You have written your SRT paper in "The Age of the Ambitious", when other intellectuals are only interested in pushing their own careers, so they are NOT looking for a better theory written by anyone else. They have no time to read your paper (or anyone else's). Their time is dedicated to personal career-enhancing activities, such as adding Another Brick in the Wall being constructed in their specialist journals, so that they can increase the number of their citations for the next departmental review.

You must admit your rivals are all behaving in a personal RATIONAL manner

Hello all: This is an opening to all researchers, what is today considered scientific in physics, and how to introduce valid, tested elements of thinking and proof.

This is also of particular interest in the Sciences today, and in institutional decisions.

This ‘new’ method was used by the Greeks, who could do something similar, already understanding without any rockets that the Earth is round, and even numerically calculating its accurate diameter. Without leaving the Earth, showing that physics is not armchair theory -- physics (qua "next physics") can have decisive, effective, unrefuted, universal results, without sensorial experimentation at all. Poincaré’s Conjecture, proved in mathematics, recently, is another evidence that something might be amiss in physics.

Today’s physics, practically request that, although its objective is limited to phenomena, its proof methods cannot be restricted by sensorial experimentation, to be somehow justified only by direct measurements of distant, or even unmeasurable, phenomena.

We must, at last, understand the importance of mathematics in providing not only calculations of direct experimentation, but also models with indirect proofs of experimentation. Not an elusive theory, no matter how intuitive it may look to philosophers of mathematics, but one supported by experimental proofs, such that the “Earth is round” and “we can calculate accurately its diameter”, without ever leaving the planet and directly measuring it. We cannot visit the whole universe, we cannot define biology sensorially.

We submit that this position is better, ontologically and epistemologically, than current physics is, or promise, qua Ellis and Silk (op. cit.). This article calls for such evolution, and dates it to modern physics, emerging in physics publications in the last 150+ years.

The paper [1] is now close to a final form, as a 300-word draft. The first version remains, as a long version with more details, and suggestions.

(sorry if you get this posting more than once, RG is in control)

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326398997_The_next_physics

Dear Christian

I totally agree with you that “a theory must be based on logical consistency”. What I have been trying to show is that there is no logical consistency in relativistic theory.

Re-examining an experiment is not historical curiosity. One motive can be inspecting if the established analysis is logical or not. If not, then the basis of the theory is unsupported.

Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, new relativistic experiments count on the original analysis which clearly shows the firm reliance on the initial conclusion, historic or otherwise.

In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual: Galileo Galilei -

Hello Ziaedin, Pradeep, and Christian: In maths, some expected (e.g., Hilbert) that "a theory must be based on logical consistency”. This point was DENIED and analyzed by Gödel , who proved that a theory more complex than arithmetic could be either consistent and incomplete, or inconsistent and complete, but not both. This is a classical result, and holds in logic terms.

In physics, long ago, one mirrored what Gödel proved later, and consistency was not the aim of physics, but completeness. Physics aims to be complete, therefore physics must be inconsistent. Let not this stumbling block perturb you, it is a rule of mathematics itself, and physics.

So, this is not a "fault" but a feature. The same happens in other areas such as, famously, in quantum mechanics and law.

Special relativity, or a theory of invariants as Einstein first called it, must be and remain inconsistent. It is also becoming more and more complete. Rather than deny it, inconsistenies must exist and resolving them has led to a more complete affirmation of special relativity, from magnetism, light itself, to MRI, the laser, and supercondivity.

My hypothesis is that this also condemns any attempt of a "Theory of Everything" in physics, as it would try to be both -- complete and consistent. We see a similar situation in the humanities, in essays and papers, that a wide thesis is harder to defend and, sometimes, impossible (Gödel).

In short, consistency is not the aim of physics, update yourself and books, physics works for completeness. This is the point we reached in special relativity, we grew and so the language used.

I have a list of common points that changed in special relativity, and now are well-known misconceptions, inconsistencies if you will, see link somewhere above, if needed. None of them disprove special relativity.

And I am also working on a list of NOT YET accepted misconceptions In special relativity! That list is not published yet, is disputable, and some may be incorrect, but it opens the mind to consider them -- they are, more likely, correct. None of them disprove special relativity.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

I am sorry but I should say some objections to the content of your draft.

We note that it is not an additional burden to request that the electron "also" obeys the Lorentz transformation in Eq. (1) above it already did in the 1865 description by Maxwell [3].

The term 'electron' had been introduced by J.J. Thomson in 1890th.

And first scientist who obtained the contraction of the moving charge (again not the electron) was Lorentz in 1895. Meanwhile Lorentz obtained the contraction of the moving charge from the physical principles (the surface of the charge should be equipotential surface) so the contraction of the charge in Lorentz's model is quite different than in the SRT.

This seemingly unphysical result is called the Aharonov-Bohm effect (AB) [1], a quantum mechanical phenomenon, with no known classical counterpart.

Prof. Boyer developed the explanation of the AB effect and his explanation hasn't been disproven.

This work does not say, however, that using the scalar and vector potentials is wrong; they may be used as a mathematical procedure, but may not be predictive of all experiments. One can use them, but they are an artifact that may limit the understanding.

Dr. Zimmerman (Robert K. Zimmerman. Reception of longitudinal vector potential radiation with a plasma antenna. Journal of Applied Physics 114, 044907 (2013)) reported on the experimental detection of the vector potential.

The second point: one cannot solve the Maxwell equations without the potentials because it is impossible to write the wave equation for the EM fields in the mathematically rigorous way.

Regards,

Hello Vladimir an all: Thank you. Please note:

1. The draft does not talk at all about some "contraction of the moving charge", in fact the electron is considered a point particle, with zero dimensions, and this is explained there. The draft also says that length contraction is not used at all, and why.

2. History of science is also discarded, it is not useful to the theory and can lead to inconstencies.

3. Regarding the AB effect, nothing is said about other explanations that use potentials, just that ppotentials, scalar or vector, are not considered. Also, all classical theories, as the word classical is understood, go back to Newtonian time, which is not supported in the draft.

4. No one can, physically, report on the experimental detection of the vector potential, it only exists in the mathematics in the human mind -- all we detect are forces!

5. I am glad you say that "one cannot solve the Maxwell equations without the potentials", but please note that this controversy is avoided by not using ANY of the Maxwell's equations. Less is more.

6. The draft claims, and proves, in a mathematically rigorous way, that magnetim and light can exist without a vector potential having to exist. This supports the AB effect experimental explanation chosen.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Herb, and all,

This will seem an answer not related to the Special Theory of Relativity at all, but is more to the point of Herb Spencer's argument a few days ago, which reflects more on human motivation, and what makes for rational human motivation:

Herb Spencer has put it into words, six days ago: " You have written your SRT paper in "The Age of the Ambitious", when other intellectuals are only interested in pushing their own careers, so they are NOT looking for a better theory written by anyone else. They have no time to read your paper (or anyone else's). Their time is dedicated to personal career-enhancing activities, such as adding Another Brick in the Wall being constructed in their specialist journals, so that they can increase the number of their citations for the next departmental review. You must admit your rivals are all behaving in a personal RATIONAL manner"

I think, to some extent, it comes down to defining "what is success"? and what are successful behaviors. If my goal is to become rich, or popular, or powerful, the amount of time that I spend defending Special Relativity, online is wasted. If my goal was to be interesting, I would need to mix it with a bit of magic... spice it up with some mysticism, and mystery... If my goal is to feel smart, I won't waste time wondering about an idea that confuses me. I can simply conflate it with some other idea that I've already determined is stupid, and tell everyone that is the case.

The goals of being rich, popular, powerful, interesting, feeling smart, are met, most rationally, without necessarily trying to understand what others are saying, or to find theories consistent with one another. It is enough to pay lip service to science, while devoting much of your time to self-promotion.

If the goal is to find the truth, your technique is somewhat the opposite of what you do to win in a physical fight. Our intuition, gained from "the real world" is to be unpredictable, to dodge, to maintain a fighting stance where your opponent does not exactly know where to strike you. However, if your goal is actually to discover truth, this is the wrong fighting-stance. Instead, you should be standing in one place, perfectly predictable, cooperating as the other pins you down.

Sometimes, "you are wrong" isn't exactly the right thing to say, but "you are bad" doesn't quite fit it either. But still it can be about behaviors... If one has a dedication to scientific principles, that starts by acknowledgment of hypotheses other than his/her own assumptions of what is true. That is a difficult process. It requires, not a religious faith, but a simple faith, that the other person who you are communicating with believes the words they are saying, and the words they are using have meaning. Sometimes that faith cannot be taken for granted. For instance, I have been told, many times, that the words I am saying "have no meaning." Once that happens, a scientific argument cannot take place. Similarly, when someone supports their argument by a claim of meaninglessness. Again, no scientific conversation is possible. When someone ignores the whole of my argument, takes one sentence from it, and then misinterprets the meaning of what I said, it is a behavior which I can identify as "not conducive to communication." But these are behaviors which are rational, when you realize they are arguing for the appearance of looking smart. If they were seeking truth, they would confess to error, and move forward... But society does not reward the confession to error, so it is more rational to be nonreflective about such things.

A rallying cry of "It's science, stupid" is at odds with the scientific method, of acknowledging, understanding, and testing hypotheses, but hails back paradoxically to the Idols of the Tribe: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idola_tribus as litmus tests, to determine "who is in" (that is, who agrees) and "who is out" (that is, who disagrees).

I wonder whether there is any argument to inspire people to go against their rational nature, and become eager to confess to error. It has seemed in my 46 years that society does not punish those who err, nearly so much as it punishes those who confess to error. This is very much at odds with the scientific method, where the most enlightened statement is "Wow! I was totally wrong about what I thought." But only when accompanied by "Here is the truth, and here is why the differences between the two models were undetectable until the experiment was done."

Regards,

Jonathan Doolin

Dear Ed,

If you treat the classical charge as a point particle, you are not able to establish the covariance of the Maxwell equations.

I wish to say that the covariance of these equations was found by Lorentz. Lorentz gives some arguments why the charge contracts in such a way that it provides his Lorentz transformation (LT).

If the charge is the point particle what is the function \rho(x,y,z,t) that describe the charge density and transforms in accordance with the LT?

You write too that

> The draft claims, and proves, in a mathematically rigorous way, that magnetim and light can exist without a vector potential having to exist.

The light is the EM waves. The EM waves can be obtained only from the wave equation for the vector potential. So how are you going to derive the expressions for the EM waves without the vector potential?

Regards,

Hello Vladimir,

1. The electron is the only charge, in the draft, and is not treated classically, but relativistically. There is no other treatment in the draft.

2. The covariance of Maxwell's equations is considered an objective fact, not treated nor questioned in the draft. It was published by Voigt in 1886, much before Lorentz, and Lorentz regretted not citing it. The draft, however, also motivates it by noting that the velocity of the EM waves, c, depend only on constants of the medium, not on the speeds of source or observer, unlike classical sound waves. The Lorentz equation is used as an established fact as well, and this shows that magnetism results purely from the movement of one charge, with the correct values for the Lorentz force.

3. The charge is a point particle moving in constant velocity. The influence of electron size is considered but not used because it is not essential for the existance of magnetism. This is proven to exist, nonethess, by the Lorentz force equation after the far-field, where electron size is not significant.

The above should be clear.

Then, you wrote "The EM waves can be obtained only from the wave equation for the vector potential."

The draft proves otherwise. Neither the Maxwell's equations nor the vector potential were used, nor any other charge or matter, nonetheless, magnetism appears! The draft shows that magnetism is only due to charge in motion, could have been done with a positron.

At the end, you ask an open, interesting question, "So how are you going to derive the expressions for the EM waves without the vector potential?"

See in the next draft, says in that one. It could be a real-life cliffhanger, will the formalism support such a minimal model, going forward? But, the answer was already advanced. The force, which we can measure, will follow the Lorentz equation, at any point in spacetime, in any inertial reference frame. For non-inertial reference frames, we imagine that general relativity can be used, and this may be tried -- general relativity is sufficiently equipped to describe accelerated frames and the electron's relation with gravity, which has many open questions.

Another question is, how we can build the quantum model? The answer was also given in that draft, that we may use scalar and vector potentials, as usual, and gauge theory, but are not limited to them.

Thus, the draft avoids a teleological fallacy*. The draft already shows, however, that any quantum theory of the electron must be covariant, which already invalidates Schrödinger equation and Heisenberg matrices, as well as electromagnetism following Newtonian time.

* Teleological fallacy: When there is the claim that some object or idea has a purpose or necessary end point, in the absence of evidence for that end point.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Christian

“The strongest experimental support of STR has been found after the theory had been formulated. GTR even had ZERO experimental support when it was formulated.”

Suppose it is so. What I want to point out is that the original idea was not based on a logical analysis. Simply if somebody tell us 2+2 =5 we should not accept it. This is what I want to be clear. If later on it is strongly proved then we need to discuss, but imperative step is accepting the original idea was not scientific/logical.

For the record STR also had zero experimental support when Lorentz transformations were adopted.

Hello all: A divisiveness permeates practically any discussion here, at any level, including, especially, cross-disciplines. That does not have to be. The word is belief, and is used as a football. I suggest that, in sciences, physics and maths, we could understand belief as, no more and no less, than the probability that the evidence supports the claim. For example, when someone says they do not believe in SR, we should know what they mean.

Still, divisiveness can occur, and is good analytically, but no longer about belief itself. It is very old-fashioned, even in religion terms, to assume that we cannot understand what affects us. SR affects us, and the evidence correctly supports the claim. Does it not?

Dear Ed,

You write that (in your draft),

The covariance of Maxwell's equations is considered an objective fact,

From the other side, you asks:

Why is special relativity still denied today?

The answer is obvious: because people have some reasons to have doubts in the SRT. The covariance of the Maxwell equations is established by Einstein in Sec. 9 of his paper of 1905. But this covariance requires fulfillment of the relativity postulate: 'Let these equations be valid in the system K'.

So some people can have doubts that the postulate isn't absolutely true and therefore, the covariance of Maxwell's equations cannot be considered as the objective fact.

It isn't so actual for transformation between two frames when one frame moves with respect to the other with constant velocity. We have the only inertial frame connected with the Earth and where we are able to make experiment. But there are some experiments with uniformly rotating systems. In opposite to the case of two inertial frames, we are able to put the measurement devices to the rotating frame.

It is reasonable to calculate the EM quantities in the inertial and non-inertial (rotating) frame and compare the results. But if you look at the papers where such frames are considered (the basic one is the paper of Schiff of 1939 in Proc. N.A.S.) it is stated that the Maxwell equations are covariant and transform in accordance to the Lorentz transformations but in corresponding metrics. Because the transformed equations are so complex that nobody is able to solve them. Therefore, we can make calcualtions only in the inertial frame.

As you can see, we should have some 'belief' in this way of studying the rotating systems, the belief in covariance.

I give this example to show that you use some basic points of your draft without rigorous justifications. For example, if you ignore the finiteness of the size of the charge, you cannot derive the Liennard-Wiechert potentials which provide the EM radiation in the far zone.

Regards,

Hello Vladimir.

in zeroth order, there are many reasons why people deny what others see, such as the reasons by Joerg Fricke above, for exampl, to wit:

"1. Special relativity involves some counter-intuitive phenomena like non-simultaneity which, when not taken properly into account, give rise to apparent contradictions.

2. As its name implies, SR is limited to certain conditions, e. g. constant velocity, and overlooking these limitations leads to the conclusion: "Einstein must be wrong!"

3. Einstein is some kind of a super-hero. To challenge a super-hero was the ideal of the medieval knight, and this archetypal longing might still exist today, perhaps mostly unconsciously.

I'm curious how many answers will say: "Because it is wrong indeed!" ;-)"

First, on your question, it is not my draft, you can see it, I am not the author, and yet you deny it repeatedly, so belief is a good question here. Let's not believe this affirmation then, the evidence does not support the claim.

But, I will answer, as it is in my Lab, and I may be able to help.

You wrote, "I give this example to show that you use some basic points of your draft without rigorous justifications. For example, if you ignore the finiteness of the size of the charge, you cannot derive the Liennard-Wiechert potentials which provide the EM radiation in the far zone."

Your inference imagines that the only way to prove the Lorentz transformation is by supposing the Lorentz transformation to be true. This is incorrect, may be at the root of issues you see, and it is a teleological fallacy, a well-known problem. The Lorentz transformation can be proven without using an electron, and then taken a priori in the electron model, as done. This is not circular, nor teleological, and it is a reasoning well used.

Address that, I suggest, and correspond with author directly if you still have questions that you think might help.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Ed,

#1

SR (like any other theory), as some information incorporated into the structure of knowledge (that is, semantically an integral part of the brain structure of the individual), affects the interpretation of sensory (incoming) information - that is part of the qualia process for the individual. Either it can affect indirectly through the pre-treatment of the information flow (computation process of data from some detectors, for example) up to immediate sensory information, being already (systematic, formalized and maybe widely distributed) part of the umwelt (extrasomatic structure around the individual).

Information obtained in (human) cognitive process can not influence on anything in another way. Any knowledge as information can affect other information (other structures; on us, inclusive) only being part of the transformation of evolution (cognitive) process related to mankind as a dynamic system under consideration.

This is not equivalent to the affecting physical processes on us, which the theory in question is trying to interpret.

#2

Beliefs relate to individual axiomatic (simple) statements. This is the side of the binary opposition in each specific, in addition, individual case. The theory (as a complex structure) can easily be in a state of uncertainty (see the Dougem-Quine thesis) - what the actual state of the cumulative scientific system of mankind's worldviews is. Directly from the verification of the theory it is impossible to decide which of the axioms used in it are questionable and which are successful.

Extreme semantic simplicity and exceptional formalization of an idea leads to a minimization of the number of axioms in the knowledge system, which is the key to a monotonous (invariant) interpretation, accordingly, leads to assimilation by an extremely broad group of individuals. This state means "least beliefs". And this state is definitely personal for the system of any scale from each single human.

The larger the population of civilization and the more it's accumulated information - the more difficult the formation of memes ("standards") covering civilization almost totally is. With complication and further stratification of the intelligence even more problems of such a kind will arise, mainly because of the future erosion (divergence) of the concept of human.

Dear Christian

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I am glad that we agree on one point. There was no experimental evidence for STR when Lorentz transformations (LT) were adopted into it. The problem is that LT was based on false analysis, as I have shown.

These two issues have not been mentioned in Ed's and Joerg’s list in this forum. This is not a good defence of a scientific theory.