Simplified Special Relativity: Looking to get roasted on this

[Sagittarius A-Star]

if you only change the Principle of Relativity, you wouldn't get anywhere.

Do you refer to the Lorentz Ether Theory?

Andromeda paradox

All SR "paradoxes" are only apparently paradoxical but not really. Therefore, they are not valid arguments against the SR postulates.

 

[DavidMiranda]

Do you refer to the Lorentz Ether Theory?

No, and I don't believe that theory is correct. It doesn't fit observation.

All SR "paradoxes" are only apparently paradoxical but not really. Therefore, they are not valid arguments against the SR postulates.

I describe the "paradox" as it is: an effect completely within what is explained by SR. I should have put the word in quotation marks to specify that it is only called a paradox, even though it is not. The Andromeda "paradox" is not a true contradiction, it is a prediction of SR, and I thought the way I described it made that clear. I am sorry if it did not.

Likewise, I didn't say it was an argument against SR. I used it to make a point about measurements and predictions of a theory. Maybe I wasn't clear.

 

[Sagittarius A-Star]

No, and I don't believe that theory is correct. It doesn't fit observation.

It's final version does fit observation:

In the absence of any way to experimentally distinguish between LET and SR, SR is widely preferred over LET, due to the superfluous assumption of an undetectable aether in LET, and the validity of the relativity principle in LET seeming ad hoc or coincidental.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

See the related PF policy:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/pfs-policy-on-lorentz-ether-theory-and-block-universe/

 

[DavidMiranda]

I stand corrected.

 

[Dale]

No, and I don't believe that theory is correct. It doesn't fit observation

It does fit observation!

 

[PeterDonis]

I did study.

"Study" is a very broad term.

Would you be able to pass a graduate level exam in relativity? For example, go to any of a number of university websites that offer course materials, including exams, online for free (MIT's OpenCourseware is one). Look at the final exam for a graduate level course in relativity, and try to complete it, without using AI or any other kind of help (but looking up references in textbooks if you have to, assume it's an open book test). Then see how you did.

If your reaction to the above is "geez, I'm nowhere near being able to do that", then I would say you have not studied enough to be able to spot whatever flaw there is in your reasoning, and you should fix that first, before even trying to convince other people to help you. After all, you're basically trying to command the time and attention of people who can pass the test I described above, and who have lots of other things to do. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect them to look for flaws in your reasoning (and you've already seen why there must be flaws in your reasoning somewhere) when you're not at the same level of knowledge they are to begin with.

 

[Dale]

It doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect them to look for flaws in your reasoning

That is why I suggested a local college. It is absolutely not reasonable to expect, but nevertheless people who enjoy teaching this material may be willing to go to an unreasonable length to help a student in front of them learn a difficult topic.

Of course, there is no guarantee that such an unreasonably generous person does exist at any given college, but that is the best shot. If it doesn't work out, then there is always the self-study option to fall back on.

 

[DaveC426913]

Im groping my way toward what I think the OP is trying to express. It sounds like their idea results in the same observations as SR but, as they said themself, the postulate becomes a consequence, rather than a premise.

It certainly would be interesting if they found another way of showing why the two postulates are "proven" rather than postulated.

One other note: there are other science fora out there that allow speculation. They're not the same quality as PF, but its possible you might make some progress.

 

[DavidMiranda]

Im groping my way toward what I think the OP is trying to express. It sounds like their idea results in the same observations as SR but, as they said themself, the postulate becomes a consequence, rather than a premise.

It certainly would be interesting if they found another way of showing why the two postulates are "proven" rather than postulated.

One other note: there are other science fora out there that allow speculation. They're not the same quality as PF, but its possible you might make some progress.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

I'm not sure the fora/fori (I never get the case right) you mentioned will be able to help, but it is an answer I can work with.

In any case, I'll try with the professors again next year.

Perhaps I will follow the other posters' advice as well. I will have free time, so why not attend the Classical Mechanics II class I had last year again just to make sure I didn't miss anything in the SR chapters? It is true I can't pass the GR classes yet, but I could certainly review the SR classes.

I mentioned in one of my posts that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That was a quote from Carl Sagan and it is known as the Sagan Standard. I agree with it completely.

However I noticed some people here like Feynman quotes, so I'll leave one of those I like here as well: "I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."

I believe in both, and I think they are complementary. Do with that what you will.