Difference between revisions of "Five Sets of Experimental Evidence Which Contradict Special Relativity"
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
[[Category:Scientific Paper|sets experimental evidence contradict special relativity]] | [[Category:Scientific Paper|sets experimental evidence contradict special relativity]] | ||
| − | [[Category:Relativity]] | + | [[Category:Relativity|sets experimental evidence contradict special relativity]] |
Latest revision as of 19:33, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Five Sets of Experimental Evidence Which Contradict Special Relativity |
| Author(s) | Neil E Munch |
| Keywords | Experiments, Special Relativity |
| Published | 2000 |
| Journal | None |
Abstract
1) The simplest known experimental evidence is that proper lengths on earth do not reduce to zero when viewed by passing photons at light speed c -- yet that's shown to be required by special relativity (SRT). 2) It is now agreed by at least one establishment physicist (Mermin) that the Michelson-Morley (M-M) tests were inconclusive; yet the presumed null M-M results were an underlying impetus for the acceptance of special relativity (SRT). Also, the recently discovered frequency "locking" of contra-flowing light beams raise questions about M-M test efficacy. 3) Forces such as gravity are known to influence path and speed of light beams which contradicts SRT's second principle of light-speed constancy. In such curved paths, Coriollis and Foucault pendulum effects illustrate that there is a privileged frame in GRT which contradicts SRT's first principle. 4) Observed speeds in astronomy commonly exceed light-speed contradicting SRT. 5) When precise notation is used, it is seen that light speeds vary on a 'moving' frame as measured on the 'stationary' frame. That contradicts current understanding of SR1"s second principle.
