Mowgli

In other words, a complete new theory that explains everything that SR explains and then some. Clearly not one PRL article Seriously, the trouble with the current orthodoxy in phyiscs is that even if you find simpler explanation for certain phenomena, you will find it impossible to find any decent avenue to make it public, or even discuss it (this forum included). The reason is that some of the assumptions in the current theories (SR in particular) are accepted with such fervor that even a reinterpretation of the theories is met with contempt and (sorry) assumptions of ignorance. This is a sad state not only for the dissenter, but for physics in general. Let me sum it up with a long quotation:

Because, in order to compare two clocks, you have to put them at the same space point at two different times. Which means, you either have to move the "stationary" clock or slow down the moving clock, either of which will violate the conditions to apply SR. Or, necessitate model-dependent corrections. Note to mention that GR corrections always apply because we are always in a gravitational field.

You are right' date=' the GPS atomic clocks should run slower than similar clocks at ground level by 7.2 microseconds a day. However, they are also subject to the effect predicted in the general theory of relativity, and they should run faster by 45.9 microseconds a day. The clocks are actually corrected by 38.7 microseconds (not nanoseconds) a day, and they stay synchronized to the clocks on the ground. It is hard to call this correction a verification of special relativity because it is the result of two competing effects, the general relativistic effect being six times larger than the one we are trying to verify. It may be possible to incorporate the whole effect in general relativity. In fact, it may also be possible to incorporate the covariance of Maxwell’s equations in general relativity. I have no idea how to do it, so please don't challenge me on that. May be after I retire After correcting for GR effects and effects due to acceleration, right? Not quite model independent, is it? Once you know what it is that you are looking for in an experiment, it is hard not to find it. All experimentalists struggle with this bias problem. The greater ones recognize it and bend over backwards to maintain the highest levels of scientific integrity, but even they are not immune to it. Again' date=' more of a GR effect. Wonder why you didn't mention cosmic rays being able reach the earth despite their short lifetime? Or, more generally, the null results of MMX type experiments? Our inability to accerleate particles beyond the speed of light?

You would consider that model independent? What happens is that you measure a deay time in the lab frame, boost it back to the rest frame, and make a distribution. You take the time constant of this exponential distribution as the measured lifetime. The trouble is that you don't know what the "real" lifetime to begin with.

Such remarks and a general assumption of ignorance on the part of the dissenter are the typical responses to criticism. Not like religious intolerance? I should probably rest my case here. As kkris1 pointed out,

The way modern physics is taught shows a religious reverence to mystic knowledge and a deep rooted intolerance toward criticism. This attitude is neatly reflected in most major religions in the world with their believers showing absolute faith in their doctrines. However, unlike religions where you have competing faiths, there is only one physics, so the religiousness of its attitude is not immediately obvious. To be fair, a large part of the impatience with dissent in physics is well-meaning. Physicists cannot keep listening to every crazy half-baked idea that occurs to any bozo. But their absolute faith in the basic hypotheses and assumptions as facts of nature is a little troubling at times.

That wouldn't change my animation. What you are saying is that you point the laser gun to a spot on the ceiling, say near the left edge of my animation. Wait for the dot to appear, then start rotating the laser gun. The dot wouldn't instantly follow the direction in which you are pointing the laser gun. What will happen is that the original dot will stay on for d/c where d is the distance to the dot. A new dot will appear (again at the black point on the ceiling as in my animation), it will separate into two. The dot moving left will hit the existing dot at time d/c and disappear. The one moving right will continue. I know this is very counter-intuitive. I can make new animation showing this, if you like. But it will be very similar to the one I posted, except that there will be red line from the laser gun to the left edge of the ceiling to begin with.

You stole my thunder! An animation was precisely what I was going to spring on 5614 today. In the animation above, the laser pointer is at the bottom-center of the figure. I'm turning it so fast that the laser dot on the ceiling should travel at 10c (which is indicated by the white circle moving across the ceiling.) But it takes a while for the laser to reach the ceiling. The light is indicated by the small red dots which move towards the ceiling (10 times slower than the white circle). The dot appears when the light hits the ceiling. As you can see, the light from the laser first hits the ceiling at a point close to the top (indicated by the black dot), and subsequently, light on either side starts hitting the ceiling, making two dots (in yellow and green). This is the how one laser pointer creates two dots appears at two places at the same time. Note how the dots slow down considerably as they move away from the center. Light travel time effects dominate at shallow angles. But CPL.Luke is right. If the ceiling was a spherical shell and the laser was at its center, there would be only one dot moving at 10c. (At least, that's what I get when I try to work it out.) In effect, by having a spherical ceiling, you are cutting out the shallow angles; the laser is always perpendicular to the ceiling. In this case you can treat the laser as a solid rod, but with a constant delay equal to r/c (which differentiates to zero, thus not affecting the speed of the dot).

Unfortunately' date=' physics [i']is[/i] a religion. And, for that reason, neither obvious arguments against the underlying assumptions nor demostrable algebraic errors in the derivation will shake the followers' faith! Sorry

The trouble with your second diagram is that it ignores the length contraction. Trying to find a mathematical inconsistency with the coordinate transformation in SR is like trying to find faults with the matrix multiplication representing a 3-D rotation. It cannot be done. You best bet would be to find arguments, thought experiments or inconsistencies proving (or at least implying) that the logic leading to the SR coordinate transformation is in error. People have found algebraic errors in the derivation of the SR coordinate transformation. They went unnoticed mainly because the logic behind SR is accepted rather blindly. So it is assumed that it doesn't matter Einstein made a silly error, he still got the answer right.

Okay, since I was challenged to think about it, I did. Here is what I came up with: If you take your laser pointer, shine it on your ceiling and turn it so fast that the dot should be moving faster than the speed of light, you would see something quite weird. The dot will first appear on the ceiling almost directly above your head, then it will split and become two dots and going in opposite directions. Would you take my word for it? I didn't think so!

I was thinking about the fact that it takes time for the laser to hit the dot, not so much the relativistic limit. Kind of like, if you take a garden hose and turn around fast enough (say inside cylindrical room), does the spot where the water hits the wall move faster than the speed of light? I think as you turn faster and faster, you only make more and more water spirals. (But trying to work this out mathematically, I don't seem to be able to demostrate it, so I'm not so sure... )

Actually' date=' it wouldn't, if you think about it But I will let that pass. In my view, SR mapped the speed of light to infinity. In fact, Einstein pointed out this mapping in his 1905 paper. The mapping is most obvious in its consequences - nothing can travel faster than c (because c = infinity), and it takes an infinite energy to get to c (because you are trying to get to an infinite speed), time stands still if you travel at c (because it takes you no time to get any where if you are traveling at infinite speed) and so on. And, of course, adding or subtracting a finite speed to the speed of light wouldn't change it just like adding anything to infinity still yields infinity. This mapping of c to infinity is philosophically sound because our sense of space is based on the light inputs to our eyes. Any distortions in our perception of space can be thought of as "real" distortions while still thinking of c as infinity, which is what SR does.

This interpretation of SR always confused me. I thought SR dealt with objects (possibly with zero mass, as light) in motion, not with abstract concpets like information. The word "information" implies mind, consciousness, perception, intelligence, and whatnot. Why rope in information and all this baggage? Okay, I understand that the motivation is to safeguard causality - so that the "information" about the effect is prevented from reaching the observer before that about the cause. Still, the abstract nature of the word "information" takes the discussion down a slippery slope - into the usefulness of information, possiblity (or lack thereof) of using it for communication etc. Not physics, in my humble opinion.

Causation, may be not. Relativity, I wouldn't bet on it