Universe and Special Relativity

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mhelland</i>
<br />Special relativity and the universe postulate are fundamentally incompatible.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why do you care? Special relativity is a falsified theory, replaced by Lorentzian relativity. -|Tom|-

I care because that doesn't seem to be the general consensus of physicists.

You know as well as I that changing minds is a matter of politics and information. Another easily understandable arguement would be just another chip at the establishment.

So do you see a problem with my argument?

mhelland@techmocracy.net

Tom,

By the way, how has SR falsified? By the speed of gravity?

And do you consider yourself an aetherialist?

mhelland@techmocracy.net

Tom is out of town for a few days.

[mhelland] "I care because that doesn't seem to be the general consensus of physicists."

Few technologists really have the time and/or inclination to study kook theories. At least not until one comes along that starts getting some traction. Then everyone starts jumping on.

Even when someone actually comes to this site, it is difficult to get them to learn the details of why we think SR has been falsified. For some reason they would rather try to convince us that SR has been falsified. Go figure.

[mhelland] "You know as well as I that changing minds is a matter of politics and information. Another easily understandable arguement would be just another chip at the establishment."

The life we kooks lead is not easy.

[mhelland] "By the way, how has SR falsified? By the speed of gravity?"

As far as experimental/observational evidence goes, yes. But it is controversial. Few in the mainstream are even aware of it. Of those that are, few accept it other than as an interesting data point (not an entirely unreasonable attitude). And none talk about it (because that immediately evicts them from the mainstream). Like you said, politics.

LB

Hey Larry,

Thanks for the info.

Do you know specifically if the meta model falls into an aether theory or an emmision theory or something else?

Also, something we should all contribute to:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-relativity

mhelland@techmocracy.net

MM is more like a theory of everything. But it contains "sub" theories (dealing with electromagnetic waves and gravity) that have features that might be called descendants of aether theories.

We call it the elysium to differentiate it from the old style aether. It is not an absolute frame, but it does create a locally preferred frame around each mass. There are other differences.

LB