Measurement length of an object will not be changed by motion

[swansont]

If a thought experiment disagrees with the predictions of relativity, it means you have done something incorrectly in your thought experiment (often his involves insisting on absolute simultaneity)

 

The precondition is that we should have a correct theory about the electromagnetic radiation of moving charged particle, because that is the foudation for us to measure and understand the electromagnetic phenomena. but we have not now.

 

 

A correct theory is one which agrees with experiment. Name one physical experiment which disagrees with relativity.

[Jeremy0922]

A correct theory is one which agrees with experiment.

 

 

Firstly, the conceptions of a correct theory would not be self-contradictory,

then agrees with experiment,

and deduces new cognition,

......

A correct theory should satisfy all factors above.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Jeremy0922

[swansont]

Firstly, the conceptions of a correct theory would not be self-contradictory,

then agrees with experiment,

and deduces new cognition,

......

A correct theory should satisfy all factors above.

 

SR is not self-contradictory. If you see a thought experiment contradiction, you've done something wrong.

 

SR agrees with experiment. You have yet been able to name an experiment which disagrees.

 

I'm not sure what "deduces new cognition" but if you mean advances understanding and opens up new lines of research, it does that, too.

 

 

The theory is not wrong just because you don't like it or some of the implications of it. Do you have any science to discuss?

[Jeremy0922]

SR is not self-contradictory. If you see a thought experiment contradiction, you've done something wrong.

 

 

In my openning post of this topic, the measrure length of a moving rod does not relate to light speed and its velocity, so the conception "space contraction" from SR is contradictory to the experiment.

This factor is enough for us to affirm that SR is wrong.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Jeremy0922

[D H]

Your opening post is wrong in the sense that it does not agree with experimentally observed results. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Jeremy0922]

Your opening post is wrong in the sense that it does not agree with experimentally observed results. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

 

For science discussion in this topic, you seem to lack sincerity!!!

[John Cuthber]

In my openning post of this topic, the measrure length of a moving rod does not relate to light speed and its velocity, so the conception "space contraction" from SR is contradictory to the experiment.

 

What experiment?

Have you actually measured the length of a fast moving object?

Are you just saying that things don't contract because you can't understand that they do?

 

Have you heard of this effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Jeremy0922]

What experiment?

Have you actually measured the length of a fast moving object?

Are you just saying that things don't contract because you can't understand that they do?

 

 

 

see posts above

[John Cuthber]

No.

You look at the posts above.

Lots of people have asked you what experimental evidence you have and you have not offered any.

At best this makes you look like an idiot, the alternative is that you are a troll and will get banned.

 

So, what experimental evidence do you have to support your position?

[Jeremy0922]

No.

You look at the posts above.

Lots of people have asked you what experimental evidence you have and you have not offered any.

At best this makes you look like an idiot, the alternative is that you are a troll and will get banned.

 

So, what experimental evidence do you have to support your position?

 

the experiment shown in openning post of this topic.

[swansont]

the experiment shown in openning post of this topic.

 

 

You have not physically done the experiment, it is a mental construct and you have set it up with an unphysical constraint. That's where the problem is. At the most basic level, you have a math problem. The only way to get an inconsistent answer is for the math to be wrong. IOW, you did not solve the problem correctly.

 

 

As D H said, garbage in, garbage out.

[John Cuthber]

the experiment shown in openning post of this topic.

 

That's not an experiment is it?

It's some wrong maths.

 

Do you understand that if you start from something which is wrong (as you have) you will get contradictions (which you have).

That's the point of SR- it gets rid of those contradictions.

As has been pointed out plenty of times, unless you can actually show an experiment (a real one- not a made up picture of one) you will just keep looking foolish.

 

If your next post doesn't actually show a real experiment (or a reliable link to one) then I'm calling "troll".

Edited December 2, 2010 by John Cuthber

[Jeremy0922]

According to SR, If we don't known the length and the velocity of a moving rod, please tell me how do we measure them by the experiment?

Edited December 11, 2010 by Jeremy0922

[swansont]

According to SR, If we don't known the length and the velocity of a moving rod, please tell me how do we measure them by the experiment?

 

Bounce light off of it would be one way.

 

I thought you were going to provide us with evidence from a physical experiment.

[Jeremy0922]

It is my great pleasure to discuss with you a physical expert. In your posts you gave me a lot of professional knowledge and suggestion, and I think that made my opnions became clearer.

Thank you swansont, sincerely.

 

Bounce light off of it would be one way.

It is good idea, if you give us in detail

 

I thought you were going to provide us with evidence from a physical experiment.

 

I am so sorry I have not found it you hope now, but

I think that experiment is a simple physical experiment by which the length and the velocity of a moving rod with constant velocity could be measured according the definition of average velocity of motion. I feel that is not difficult for anyone to understand and accept, and belongs to common knowledge for science researcher.

If you disagree above answer you could stop further discussion with me.

[uncool]

the experiment shown in openning post of this topic.

You mean thought experiment.

 

There is a huge difference between an experiment and a thought experiment. In an experiment, things are actually directly tested. In a thought experiment, a situation is not actually performed, but just thought about.

 

And what you say on the opening post needs to be formalized by quite a bit. At the moment, I believe that it is circular - by assuming that velocity doesn't affect the differences in time, you assume that special relativity is false.

=Uncool-

[John Cuthber]

In principle, it's a very simple experiment. Take a flash photograph of a fast moving object as it goes past a ruler.

In practice it's more tricky that that. Getting any object to move fast enough for the effect to be measurable is hard enough.

 

 

The problem with your original idea is, as uncool says, you have assumed that SR is false and the used that to show that SR is false.

Logically, that is nonsense.

[Jeremy0922]

You mean thought experiment.

 

There is a huge difference between an experiment and a thought experiment. In an experiment, things are actually directly tested. In a thought experiment, a situation is not actually performed, but just thought about.

 

And what you say on the opening post needs to be formalized by quite a bit. At the moment, I believe that it is circular - by assuming that velocity doesn't affect the differences in time, you assume that special relativity is false.

=Uncool-

 

 

I will think better of your kind suggestions, thank you.

 

In principle, it's a very simple experiment. Take a flash photograph of a fast moving object as it goes past a ruler.

In practice it's more tricky that that. Getting any object to move fast enough for the effect to be measurable is hard enough.

 

 

The problem with your original idea is, as uncool says, you have assumed that SR is false and the used that to show that SR is false.

Logically, that is nonsense.

 

 

Thank you discuss with me and give kind suggestion.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Jeremy0922

[Jeremy0922]

Recently, the velocity of neutrino was measured according to the definition of average velocity, and found it is faster than light. You could find the paper on arvix websit.

"Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897