Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MacM
Appeals to authority are not rebuttals. One test can disprove a theory in spite of 1 million which support it. I have no intention of digging through hundreds of tests pointing out what they do not demonstrate.
|
It seems that I have not been sufficiently clear.
Let me try again.
GR has been subject to a large number of tests, both experimental and observational.
It has passed all such test to date, with flying colours. (The only apparent exception that I know of is the muon thing which you referenced in another thread).
You are claiming that no test to date (other than, perhaps, the muon one) has examined some 'absolute frame' idea which you have.
I - and others - have asked you about the ways in which this idea of yours might be tested, in principle.
So far, you have not answered how such an idea might be tested, in principle.
I have no idea whether any - or all - the hundreds of tests of GR done to date would show inconsistency with your idea of an 'absolute frame' or not.
One key reason I have no such idea is that - it seems to me - your idea produces no (quantitative) predictions.
If there are no such predictions, it cannot be tested, even in principle.
Quote:
|
I am not going on wild goose chases. If you think any ONE of these tests are tests of reciprocity or length contraction then post it and explain precisely how it achieves that goal.
|
OK, let's start with any one of these hundreds of experiments (you choose).
We'll find the relevant papers which detail the methods and results, and you can supply us with predictions - from your idea of an 'absolute frame' - of what the experimental results would be (or rather, would have been). We can then see the extent to which that test was (or was not) inconsistent with your idea. OK?
Quote:
|
No. You have given NONE. You have merely listed a bunch of tests none of which were for the purpose or can be construed to support reciprocity or length contraction.
|
Well, who can tell? Without your quantitative predictions ...
Quote:
|
You really shouldn't assume anything. That is what got you in trouble at the outset. No the CMB may not be at rest, it is infact a dynamic place, but our solar system has an anisotropy to it showing we have motion relative to it and it is generally thought to be throughout the universe. I could not think of a better canidate to at least start to look at the absolute frame concept.
|
Without any indication of what sort of motion any piece of test equipment, or spot on the Earth, has (wrt any 'absolute frame'), how can you analyse any data from any experiment or observation (to determine whether there is any 'motion wrt the absolute frame' or not)?
Quote:
But certainly as long as you refuse to look you will not find it or any data to suport it.
Not sure of the sensitivity but I will research it and see if I can get an answer to that.
Correct and I am still awaiting any data to show the prediction regarding reciprocity or length contraction.
|
In respect of what?
SR's predictions re "length contraction" are clear (aren't they?), and they are beyond our ability to test, today (aren't they?).
"reciprocity" seems to be an idea no one else who has posted to these threads seems to understand (except to the extent that it's a non-issue - there are no inconsistencies). Perhaps you could have another go at stating, more clearly, what the observable effects of this "reciprocity" would be?
Quote:
|
Nothing but disclaimers to preclude being labled adversly. They clearly speak of an absolute velocity vs relative velocity to earth. Closing with "May nots" for CYA purposes does not alter the signifigance of their findings.
|
I suggest that the onus is on the claimants - in this case, anyone making a claim about an 'absolute frame' or 'reciprocity' - to show that these claims are consistent with all good, pertinent experimental and observational results.
A good place to start would be a clear, quantitative prediction of the results of an experiment or observation that we could, in principle, carry out today, with the technology we have (today).