Why Accept Special Relativity?

 
Yes that's exactly what I meant.

Come on. jroa, you can earn a place in my Roll Of Honour!

What makes you so sure that we have not verified the Equivalence Principle?

Because you keep missing the part where the EP only applies to homogeneous gravitational fields and uniform acceleration, neither of which are observed on the earth as a whole.

jroa:

Dog, that is considered low content and is against the rules. 

Dog, that is considered low content and is against the rules.

You can't talk about low content in this thread, given you started off talking about a principle not related to the subject matter at hand, and still failed to answer the question.
Please warn yourself.

BiJane, you know by now that your post is also low content.  Consider this a warning. 

BiJane, you know by now that your post is also low content.  Consider this a warning.

Your forum-fu is strong jroa.

Dog, that is considered low content and is against the rules.

Says the king of low content......

Now can you answer the questions people are asking you?

jroa:

Hahaha.

I am going to attempt to discuss the original topic.  It turns out that electromagnetism proves general relativity:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: BiJane on April 09, 2015, 03:06:51 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 09, 2015, 03:05:01 AM

BiJane, we all experience g-forces everyday.  When you are doing nothing, you are experiencing 1 g.  When you ride an elevator going up, while the elevator is accelerating, you are experience positive g-force.  Therefore, "gravity" can be simulated by acceleration, and thus, we have proven the Equivalence Principle.  It is a fact of life.  Next...

Ahh, so you're actually completely ignoring the question about special relativity?
2/10, rather awful evasion there.

Wait, when was the Equivalence Principle no longer part of SR?  Did I miss the memo?

The Equivalence Principle is not part of SR.  Special Relativity is so named, because it deals with only the special case where no frame of reference is accelerating.  Since an accelerating reference frame is required to invoke the EP it can be accurately stated that the EP is not a part of SR.

In fact, the moment you have an accelerating FOR, then you must use GR.

EDIT: That being said, SR can be derived from GR.  And that being said, I dont think the EP has anything to do with the OP.

The Equivalence Principle is not part of SR.  Special Relativity is so named, because it deals with only the special case where no frame of reference is accelerating.  Since an accelerating reference frame is required to invoke the EP it can be accurately stated that the EP is not a part of SR.

In fact, the moment you have an accelerating FOR, then you must use GR.

EDIT: That being said, SR can be derived from GR.  And that being said, I dont think the EP has anything to do with the OP.

How many other old-wives-tales and college myths are you going to post here today?

It's a common misconception that special relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames.  Sometimes it's claimed that general relativity is required for these situations, the reason being given that special relativity only applies to inertial frames.  This is not true.  Special relativity treats accelerating frames differently from inertial frames, but can still deal with accelerating frames.  And accelerating objects can be dealt with without even calling upon accelerating frames.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 13, 2015, 10:48:37 AM

The Equivalence Principle is not part of SR.  Special Relativity is so named, because it deals with only the special case where no frame of reference is accelerating.  Since an accelerating reference frame is required to invoke the EP it can be accurately stated that the EP is not a part of SR.

In fact, the moment you have an accelerating FOR, then you must use GR.

EDIT: That being said, SR can be derived from GR.  And that being said, I dont think the EP has anything to do with the OP.

How many other old-wives-tales and college myths are you going to post here today?

Quote from: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html

It's a common misconception that special relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames.  Sometimes it's claimed that general relativity is required for these situations, the reason being given that special relativity only applies to inertial frames.  This is not true.  Special relativity treats accelerating frames differently from inertial frames, but can still deal with accelerating frames.  And accelerating objects can be dealt with without even calling upon accelerating frames.

I will admit, my statement was broadly wrong.  Thank you for pointing that out, however you ignored a crucial piece of information:

Special relativity gives a completely self-consistent description of the mechanics of accelerating bodies neglecting gravitation, just as newtonian mechanics does.

What was right, is that a conversation about the EP should not involve SR.

What was right, is that a conversation about the EP should not involve SR.

Well, if we are going to continue using the University of California at Riverside's pages about Special Relativity, then they are flat out saying you are wrong.

If a rocket accelerates at 1g (9.81 m/s2) the crew will experience the equivalent of a gravitational field with the same strength as that on Earth. 

...it tells us something fundamental about gravity, via Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 13, 2015, 11:46:04 AM

What was right, is that a conversation about the EP should not involve SR.

Well, if we are going to continue using the University of California at Riverside's pages about Special Relativity, then they are flat out saying you are wrong.

Quote from: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

If a rocket accelerates at 1g (9.81 m/s2) the crew will experience the equivalent of a gravitational field with the same strength as that on Earth. 

Quote

...it tells us something fundamental about gravity, via Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

Alright, for once Jroa, you are actually debating and it is doing wonders for you.  Hats off.  Now, back to the OP...  Why is something that has not been personally verified by a Zetetic being used to prop up the universal accelerator?

Special Relativity does fall out of E&M as a consequence of the Equivalence Principle. My Griffiths E&M book, last chapter is SR. Jroa is standing on firm ground there.

Now Jroa and any Flat Earther, are you zetics (or however you spell that) and only accept that which you yourself have researched and confirmed or not? If so how have you confirmed SR?  The equivalence principle is an assumption that leads to the theory. Time dilation, length contraction, and mass/energy equivalence are the predictions of the theory, with specific predictions.

Since Electromagnetic Theory, specifically Maxwell's Laws, with the EP added lead to SR have you tested all of E&M? If so how? Since you are using a computer I assume you understand and have verified electrical and computer engineering. And of course programming and information theory have been studied by you and verified.

I could continue this but it becomes clear quickly that one cannot accept your plan to only accept what you can yourself confirm. The knowledge we have accumulated has become much too vast for such a program. Questioning is good, everything. But unless you have solid reasons not to accept well established ideas you are wasting your time.

Zetetism does not state that one must not believe something unless one observes it for oneself, it simply states that when one is performing research, one should not let prejudices influence the experiments.  The Zetetic method is very much like the scientific method.  The main difference is that, with the Zetetic method, one does not first form a hypothesis and then perform the rest of the steps to prove/disprove the hypothesis. 

The main difference is that, with the Zetetic method, one does not first form a hypothesis and then perform the rest of the steps to prove/disprove the hypothesis.

So, under the Zetetic method, it is impossible for you to now test whether or not the Earth is flat, because you currently have your hypothesis on that viewpoint?
Sounds limited.

Quote from: jroa on April 15, 2015, 03:18:45 AM

The main difference is that, with the Zetetic method, one does not first form a hypothesis and then perform the rest of the steps to prove/disprove the hypothesis.

So, under the Zetetic method, it is impossible for you to now test whether or not the Earth is flat, because you currently have your hypothesis on that viewpoint?
Sounds limited.

No, with the Zetetic method, if we wanted to figure out the shape of the Earth, for example, we would simply not start out assuming that it is either round or flat.  We would perform experiments, make observations, collect and analyse data, etc.  We are simply skipping over the first part of the scientific method in which you first guess or assume the shape of the Earth, and then perform the experiments around your guess.  I hope this makes sense.