Whatever. Back to those sites. I'll start by examining the first site:
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm
[PLAIN said:
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm]The[/PLAIN] special theory of relativity, as developed by Einstein, is directly based on the Lorentz Transformation formula and attempts to transfer the 'equation of motion' for light signals to the space- time coordinates of moving material bodies. Not only is this generalization completely unjustified, but it has to be considered as invalid as the Lorentz- Transformation formula implicitly contains the assumption of the invariance of the velocity (of light) in moving coordinate systems, which obviously does not apply for material objects (for which the classical vectorial addition of velocities holds).
Light does travel at c relative to all observers! Galilean Relativity doesn't hold up, why can't people get it through their skulls? Countless experiments have varified this, you have Einstein's mathematics to back it up, equipment based off this is quite commonplace (and they work) and observations support it! What more do you freaking need?
By the way, me and my Physics teacher almost died laughing at that Alice Law program I downloaded.
The inconsistencies go however further than this and are to some extent already contained in the Lorentz Transformation (as formulated by Einstein): it actually contradicts the invariance of c if one scales the space and time coordinates in order to re-establish a kind of vectorial (albeit normalized) velocity addition for light: the invariance of c strictly means that the time for a light signal to travel from the source to the observer does not depend on the velocity of either of them but only on their distance at the time of the emission (more). As the usual addition of velocities does not apply, the propagation of light has therefore to be considered strictly separately in each reference frame and it is incorrect to map its 'path' in one frame into the other by means of a Galilei- transformation and subsequently 're-normalizing' the velocity of light by scaling the space and time coordinates accordingly (Einstein's basic assumption of identical and synchronized clocks obviously has to imply t'=t). In other words: a contradiction to the invariance of c when using identical space and time coordinates in the two reference frames arises only if one initially chooses the wrong frame for calculating the arrival time of the light signal (two points may coincide mathematically in different frames at a certain time instant, but they are physically not identical as they belong to different objects moving relative to each other). However, important consequences arise from the possibility to pass from one reference frame to the other (by means of acceleration or deceleration), as then the arrival time of the light signal does not only depend on the space point considered but on the whole spatial history of the observer.
Time dilation clears this up.
Einstein's re-scaling of space and time leads to similar nonsense (e.g. the existence of a maximum speed for material objects) as the one applied by the ancient philosopher Zeno of Elea (who 'proved' in his paradoxes that Achilles should be unable to overtake a tortoise, or that an arrow can never reach its target). Any alleged experimental 'evidence' for the existence of length contradiction and time dilation has therefore to be explained by other physical phenomena or instrumental effects (if the observed 'relativistic' behaviour of charged particles in high energy accelerators for instance is indeed real
It has been supported not only microscopicly but also marcoscopicly (astronomical observations), so EM effects don't explain it.
General Relativity describes this phenomenon through the concept of a distorted space around the object rather than a physical interaction with the light wave. This view can however be discounted as logically inconsistent (see Curved Space). On the other hand, it is unreasonable to assume that immaterial and massless objects like light can be in any way subject to a gravitational interaction.
It is much more likely that the propagation of electromagnetic waves is, by their very nature, only affected by electromagnetic forces.
Ha! Light has no
rest mass! So if its moving (always at c) it is carring energy/mass. How can someone be taken seriously if they don't know something so fundemental?
The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because space can only be defined by the distance between two objects, which is however by definition always given by a straight line. Mathematicians frequently try to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships. However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual (3-dimensional) space and one can in fact connect any two points on the surface of a physical object through a straight line by drilling through it.
Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space (or time) as these are the outer forms of existence and it makes as much sense to speak of a 'curved space' as of a 'blue space'. Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time.
1. He totally fails to see what Einstein was trying to point out. Its not that simple because space is non-Euclidian.
2. No properties to space or time, eh? Apparently he doesn't know that measure and direction are properties. That is really, really sad.
Thats all I'll point out right now.
problem status nearly solved..