2394 weitere kritische Veröffentlichungen - Kritische Stimmen zur ...

Auch unter: http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/
Papers/Miller40.htm. - Status: Kritik. - Quelle: Autopsie.
Miller, Michael 2005
Causality, measurement and space: (C) 1999 / Michael
Miller. - [Kanada]: WWW 2005. Ca. 15 S.
In: The rational argumentator. A journal for western
man. 2005, Issue 30, January 21.
URL: http://rationalargumentator.com/issue30/
causality.html - Status: Kritik. - Quelle: Autopsie.
Miller, Michael 2005
Time, clocks and causality: (C) 1997 / Michael Miller.
- [Kanada]: WWW 2005. Ca. 15 S.
In: The rational argumentator. A journal for western
man. 2005, Issue 30, January 28.
URL: http://rationalargumentator.com/issue30/
Miller_time.html - Status: Kritik. - Quelle: Autopsie.
Milnes, Harold Willis 1983
Faster than light?.
In: Radio electronics. 54. 1983, N1, Januar.
Status: Kandidat. - Quelle: Millenium Twain 1995
(The undiscovered physics).
Milnes, Harold Willis 1984
On electric signals exceeding the velocity of light.
In: Toth-Maatian review. 2. 1984, S. 870-890.
Status: Kandidat. - Quelle: Mitsopoulos 2001 (Similarity).
Minhas, I. S. 2004
Special relativity prescribes a new definition of measurement
[Part 1]: [datiert: 15.4.04] / I. S. Minhas.
In: The general science journal. 2004 =
http://wbabin.net/physics/minhas.htm - 5 S.
SRT. LK. C. MESS.
Auszug: "Abstract - It is brought out that special
relativity is afflicted with an inconsistency which can
be removed only by postulating that light is not an electromagnetic
phenomenon but is associated in an identical
manner with all phenomena. A clue to the nature of this
association is given by an analysis of length contraction
which shows that light is necessarily involved in the
operations of measuring length and that these operations
are the same for all inertial observers. This entails a
new definition of the term "measurement." (...)
Now, there are a few points which make the link
alleged by Einstein (and accepted ex cathedra by Bridgman
and others) between length contraction and his
procedures (a) and (b) look suspicious. For example,
consider another inertial frame S' in which also the rod
R is moving parallel to its length but with a speed v'
which is different from its speed v in S. According to
special relativity, its length l' as measured by the observer
in S' is given by [4]
l' = lo (1 - v'²/c²)[½] . (2)
This observer has to necessarily use the same procedure
for the measurement of l' as that used by the observer
in S for the measurement of l because the rod is
moving relative to both of them. So we have the observers
in frames S and S' measuring the length of the rod
using identical procedures and yet obtaining different
results, l and l', respectively. Now, special relativity has
the same explanation for the difference of l and l' as that
for the difference of l and l[o]; thus, l is different from l'
because v is different from v', and l is different from lo
because v is different from zero. But the explanation
which Einstein [5,6], Bridgman [7] and others concerned
give for the difference of l and l[o], namely, in terms of
different procedures (a) and (b), is not valid for the
difference of l and l', and is therefore wrong.
This mistake of Einstein not only went undetected
but was also made the launching pad of a new philosophy
of physics called operationism. And the builders of
this philosophy also made many more mistakes on
their own. One of these concerns length contraction. To
bring it out, let us read Frank's rendering of the operational
meaning of concepts. He writes, "A concept (e.g.,
"length") has an operational meaning if we can give an
"operational definition" of that concept. This means
that we have to describe a set of physical operations,
which we must carry out, in order to assign in every
individual case a uniquely determinate value to the
concept (e.g., to the length of an individual piece of
iron). We know that the "length" depends on temperature,
pressure, electric charge, and other physical
properties. Since Einstein's theory of relativity, we know
that the length of a body will "alter" with its speed [this
is length contraction]. Hence the description of the
operation by which we measure a length contains also
the operation by which we keep temperature, pressure,
speed, etc., constant. Or, in other words, the operational
definition of length contains, strictly speaking, also the
operational definitions of temperature, pressure, speed,
etc." [9]
Before coming to the mistake in question, note that
there is a circularity implicit in the last sentence of this
quotation; this is because the operational definition of
each of temperature, pressure and speed, in turn, contains
the operational definition of length. Popper has just
this in mind when he writes that "it can be shown quite
easily that all so-called operational definitions will be
circular." [10]"
Minkle, J. R. 2008
Did researchers cook data from the first test of general
relativity?: rumors of data mishandling in an historic
eclipse study don't gibe; 6.3.2008 / J. R.
Minkle. - [USA]: WWW 2008. 2 S.
In: Scientific American. [Online].
Textversion 1.2 - 2012 217
G. O. Mueller: SRT Kap. 4-Erg..