Split from Time dilation dependence on direction

[Charles 3781]

I offer this thought, in all humility - if Special Relativity theory can generate the above 6 long, complicated pages of debate among highly intelligent people,  without their being able to reach any agreement about what it actually means, as appears to be the case -  could this be because the theory isn't right?

 

(mod: reference is https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105185-time-dilation-dependence-on-direction/ )

 

[swansont]

No.

It’s not a debate, it’s one person denying and evading discussion of the science. There are no actual objections based on science. At best it’s the fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity, and the validity of a theory does depend on whether some random person is able to understand it. At worst it’s trolling, and I shouldn’t have to explain why that’s not a valid barometer.

You show a theory isn’t right by showing that its predictions disagree with experiment. Not by failing to understand.

 

 

 

[Markus Hanke]

10 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

could this be because the theory isn't right

This is an amateur Internet forum, it is not representative of the state of the scientific community (even though some members here are professional scientists). Within the scientific community itself, there are no doubts or disagreements about the validity of Special Relativity - it is one of the most well understood and thoroughly tested models in the history of science.

Or perhaps I should put this differently - since relativity is fundamental to all of particle physics, you wouldn't exist and be here to ask this question if relativity was wrong. It really is that simple.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is an amateur Internet forum, it is not representative of the state of the scientific community (even though some members here are professional scientists). Within the scientific community itself, there are no doubts or disagreements about the validity of Special Relativity - it is one of the most well understood and thoroughly tested models in the history of science.

Or perhaps I should put this differently - since relativity is fundamental to all of particle physics, you wouldn't exist and be here to ask this question if relativity was wrong. It really is that simple.

This isn’t entirely accurate. There are always a few people in the community who disagree. But their objections are invariably either unsupported by evidence or they rely on ambiguous observations, drawing invalid conclusions. There are a few creationists, for example, who have biology credentials. 

[Markus Hanke]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

This isn’t entirely accurate. There are always a few people in the community who disagree. But their objections are invariably either unsupported by evidence or they rely on ambiguous observations, drawing invalid conclusions.

Fair enough - though I couldn't imagine which bona fide physicist would possibly disagree with SR, given the overwhelming evidence, and on which grounds.
That notwithstanding, the consensus on the subject matter is clear and unambiguous.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Fair enough - though I couldn't imagine which bona fide physicist would possibly disagree with SR, given the overwhelming evidence, and on which grounds.

Not sure about SR, but Tom van Flandern, who used to work at the US Naval Observatory (where I now work) was a proponent of the idea that the speed of gravity was much larger than c, which is at odds with GR. He also held other decidedly non-mainstream views. Consensus is rarely unanimous, which means you can’t blindly take the word of someone with a degree. There’s always some due diligence involved.

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

which means you can’t blindly take the word of someone with a degree

Indeed.

[Janus]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Not sure about SR, but Tom van Flandern, who used to work at the US Naval Observatory (where I now work) was a proponent of the idea that the speed of gravity was much larger than c, which is at odds with GR. He also held other decidedly non-mainstream views. Consensus is rarely unanimous, which means you can’t blindly take the word of someone with a degree. There’s always some due diligence involved.

This reminds me of a quote by Robert Heinlein:

“Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.”

van Flandern got his degree in Astronomy, specializing in celestial mechanics.  Yet he thought this expertise carried over to understanding the nature of gravity itself.