Debunking relativity

ships don't shrink, clock may slow down or speed up, but not because of relativistic effects

Because of what, then

According to almost everything I've ever read about the subject, the apparent relativistic changes have been confirmed repeatedly

Relativity Blues - The Stephen Crothers Song

whatever

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwn


you don't know physics...


Maybe try some real physics?

I have two degrees in Physics. Here is a problem about rotational motion that anyone who took high school Physics and got a good grade could solve:

A constant force of 2 Newtons is used to pull the end of a wire so that it unwinds from a cylindrical spool, which is free to rotate about its stationary, horizontal axis. There is no friction. The spool has a mass of 5 kg and a diameter of 10 cm. Assuming that the wire unwinds without slipping or stretching, and that the spool is initially at rest, what is its angular velocity after the end of the wire has been pulled a distance 1 meter. Assume that the mass of the wire is negligible.

If you really know Physics, it shouldn't take you more than ten or fifteen minutes to solve this.

A constant force of 2 Newtons is used to pull the end of a wire so that it unwinds from a cylindrical spool, which is free to rotate about its stationary, horizontal axis. There is no friction. The spool has a mass of 5 kg and a diameter of 10 cm. Assuming that the wire unwinds without slipping or stretching, and that the spool is initially at rest, what is its angular velocity after the end of the wire has been pulled a distance 1 meter. Assume that the mass of the wire is negligible.

By Principle of Work and Energy,

T₁+ ∫Mdθ = T₂
0 + ∫2(.05)dθ = (1/2)Iω^2

We need the Moment of Inertia, I, and limits of integration:

Moment of Inertia for a solid cylinder is I = (1/2)MR^2

I = (1/2)(5kg)(.05m)^2 = .00625.

The limits of integration are the initial and final angles the pulley rotates through. Since a point on the outside of the pulley rotates a distance of 1 meter. The number of revolutions of the pulley is 1/(2πR).

θ₁=0 and θ₂= 2π*revolutions = 2π* [1/(2πR)] = 1/R = 20 radians.

Solving for angular velocity, ω,

∫.1dθ = (1/2)Iω^2
.1(20) - .1(0) = (.5)(.00625)ω^2
ω^2 = 640
ω ≈ 25.3 rad/sec.
-------------

Am I right?

Relativity is a confusing topic and I completely understand people having doubts about it being certain truth. There are a lot of different experiments beside the Michelson Morley experiment that have been considered by theorists in it becoming widely accepted. There is the Fizeau Experiment, Abberation of Light, Sagnac Effect, Michelson Morley like experiments, and other experiments that have discounted previous theories about an aether with certain properties. Some theories proposed complete dragging of an aether, following the source from which it was bound. And this kind of aether seems to have been ruled out by a combination of the Sagnac Effect and Fizeau Experiment, but was completely compatible with the null result of the Michelson Morley Experiment. So the reason why the science reached a consensus on Relativity being the best theory so far has everything to do with several different experiments that were done. These different experiments almost seem to give contradictory results when applying models that seem intuitively sensible, like the aether theories do.

I think a good reason to be cautiously skeptical of the theory is that verification of one of SR's postulates requires us to verify that the one-way speed of light in an absolute vaccuum is in fact always measured to be a constant regardless of the velocity of its source which would be measured by a stationary observer. So we would need to create a a very good vacuum and light emitting source that is moving at various speeds and even speeds of a worthy fraction of the speed of light. Then we would need to measure the velocity of light coming off the moving source relative to our stationary equipment. To my knowledge this has never been achieved. But I could be completely wrong here too. I think if the second postulate has not been directly and through a wide range of relative velocities verified by experiment because of the shear difficulty of developing the experiments, that leaves room to doubt it as ultimately correct. Still the theory is widely accepted by the scientific community and so in my opinion it should be respected.

Relativity is a confusing topic and I completely understand people having doubts about it being certain truth

You have consistently claimed that you know physics:

"well, I actually studied physics at a university..."

I have now demonstrated that you don't, since you cannot even answer a physics question at the high school level. You have misrepresented yourself. You appear to have no qualifications to discuss this subject.

I can conceive of only one reason — that my judgement does not reach the
orthodox conclusion; and, that being so, it may be dismissed without further attention:
Special relativity must be right because trustworthy experts say so: the experts are trustworthy because, they say that special relativity is right, and I am untrustworthy
because I deny it.
It is a perfect example of a circular argument.

Brandon wrote:

A constant force of 2 Newtons is used to pull the end of a wire so that it unwinds from a cylindrical spool, which is free to rotate about its stationary, horizontal axis. There is no friction. The spool has a mass of 5 kg and a diameter of 10 cm. Assuming that the wire unwinds without slipping or stretching, and that the spool is initially at rest, what is its angular velocity after the end of the wire has been pulled a distance 1 meter. Assume that the mass of the wire is negligible.

By Principle of Work and Energy,

T₁+ ∫Mdθ = T₂
0 + ∫2(.05)dθ = (1/2)Iω^2

We need the Moment of Inertia, I, and limits of integration:

Moment of Inertia for a solid cylinder is I = (1/2)MR^2

I = (1/2)(5kg)(.05m)^2 = .00625.

The limits of integration are the initial and final angles the pulley rotates through. Since a point on the outside of the pulley rotates a distance of 1 meter. The number of revolutions of the pulley is 1/(2πR).

θ₁=0 and θ₂= 2π*revolutions = 2π* [1/(2πR)] = 1/R = 20 radians.

Solving for angular velocity, ω,

∫.1dθ = (1/2)Iω^2
.1(20) - .1(0) = (.5)(.00625)ω^2
ω^2 = 640
ω ≈ 25.3 rad/sec.
-------------

Am I right?
...

You misrepresented your qualifications (lied to us), since you were unable to solve a physics problem at the high school level. Knowing nothing of this subject that takes years of study to master, you declare that the world's scientists are wrong.

Relativity has been accepted by essentially all of the scientific community for more than a century. It is not impossible that it could one day be supplanted despite it's complete agreement with observed phenomena, but in that unlikely event, you won't be the one to show it.

Knowing nothing of this subject that takes years of study to master, you declare that the world's scientists are wrong.

Relativity has been accepted by essentially all of the scientific community for more than a century.

You've misrepresented your credentials. You cannot answer a high school level physics question and you were baffled by my cyclotron reference, which anyone who had studied the subject in high school would have already been intimately familiar with. You're a deliberate, willful liar. A minimum prerequisite for stating that most of the world's scientists are wrong about something they have considered settled for a long time, and which has been verified in thousands of separate cases would be the ability to operate in the science at a high school level.

Furthermore, you, yourself, have only appealed to authority, by quoting professor Dingle, rather than arguing the underlying physics as anyone who knows physics would. You have made no reference to Einstein's actual derivation, and never used an equation.

You presume to correct a century (more actually) of actual scientists on a subject you know nothing about it and use lies as your credentials. I'm done with you.