Talk:Special theory of relativity

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

...clear contradictions in [SR]?

The last sentence of the History section claims that a "computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity" with a link to a site where you can buy the fellow's book. Perhaps there should be a description of what has been invalidated. Also, the guy could be a crackpot and his book might not present a very convincing argument for invalidating a cornerstone of modern physics. User:MFlem 19:28 May 11, 2011 (BST)

I agree. On YouTube is a video of a kiwi hauling a tree up the side of a mountain, a piece of computer programing by a computer engineer. Setting aside the entertainment value of it you can make a computer do anything, up to and including invalidating much of the SRT. What is needed is an explanation of the theory itself, and direct evidence either supporting or refuting the theory. Karajou 14:40, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Special Relativity has been shown to be true in every challenge by generations of scientists for over 100 years. This article takes the word of a single person, a non-physicist, whose website has disappeared and whose book is no longer in publication, to make the extraordinary claim that he has "... invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory." Curators should please delete that sentence or lose any credibility as a reputable information source. If you don't want to delete it, please provide VERY STRONG evidence to back it up, together with an alternative theory that explains all the associated phenomena. Once you do that, please expect a call from the Nobel committee :-)

Please provide VERY STRONG evidence to back up your claim that special relativity has been shown to be true in that century of challenges by those generations of scientists you cited. Since you're demanding we back up our claims, I think the same demand is required of you. :-) Karajou (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2018 (EST)

Okay, I'll bite. Here's a long, but no means comprehensive list of references to experimental confirmations: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html If you have the patience, here ere are two very nice videos at a high school physics level that walk you through 2 experiments, one on the decay of mu-mesons, and the other on the kinetic energy of electrons:

Time Dilation - An Experiment with mu mesons The Ultimate Speed

Meanwhile, the computer engineer cited has NO experiments. His theory makes NO predictions. His one publication isn't even available anymore. Yet he's cited as just an authoritative a source as 100+ years of science.

Ok, first of all, you didn't do it. You didn't provide the proof of those challenges by generations of scientists for over 100 years, which are bound to be papers anyway, and not YouTube videos. But, setting that aside, I agree that the article needs some corrections, and preferably based on the following format:
  • Introduction of the subject
  • Detailed description of what it is, to include the math formulas.
  • History, as in who discovered it, who applied it, confirmed it, and so on.
  • Specific fields, concepts, and subjects STR has been used to find and confirm.
  • Criticisms; did STR fail in any or all predictions? Have to be specific on this one, as STR could work for some things, and not for others.
You are more than welcome to do it, up to and including the elimination of that computer engineer. Karajou (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2018 (EST)

Well the first reference: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html is a list of hundreds of papers describing experiments and measurments. But whatever, we agree that the article is deficient.