[ExI] Faster than light??
dennislmay at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 23 17:15:43 UTC 2011
John Clark wrote:
"If Special Relativity is untrue then General relativity certainly
is, I'd say that was pretty damn Earth shattering."
Special Relativity and General Relativity requiring replacement
is big news for orthodox mainstream physics - but not everyone.
Time travel would be Earth shattering.
More about General Relativity:
I wrote the author and he explained a more about his work.
In an unbiased atmosphere his work would have effectively
ended General Relativity as a viable theory. General Relativity
plus dark matter cannot produce galaxy velocity profiles
- while remaining consistent with statistical mechanics and
the assumptions underlying dark matter. Observational
evidence effectively ends the debate for those not wedded to
John Clark wrote:
"...I will say that I'd be very sirprise if the luminiferous Ether
made a comeback after more than a century."
The math is indistinguishable from Special Relativity so in
that respect it never left. I was fortunate enough to have had
this explained to me in great detail in undergraduate Special
Relativity. Many have come to the erroneous conclusion
that because Special Relativity has achieved mainstream
orthodoxy that it defeated LET in some technical aspect.
That is not the case at all. Special Relativity's sole claim
is that without observational evidence of preferred reference
frames none are required. Any observation of any signal
being able to exceed the speed of light would be that
observational evidence differentiating the two theories.
LET would still require additional work - SR would be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat