2394 weitere kritische Veröffentlichungen - Kritische Stimmen zur ...

"poiche' tratta di un problema che i fisici nella loro
stragrande maggioranza ritengono inesistente ed io con
essi, il suo interesse, "if any'', deve essere valutato da
uno storico della scienza o da un epistemologo, cosa
che io non sono. Quindi, al di là delle mie convinzioni
personali, poiche' il calcolo elementare ivi riportato e'
corretto, ritengo di non essere la persona giusta per
giudicare se esso merita o meno di essere pubblicato.
Ritengo invece che uno storico della Scienza potrebbe
pronunciarsi meglio su questo punto." � Die Argumentationen
des einzigen Gutachters enden mit dem
Eingeständnis, daß die von Bartocci vorgebrachten
Berechnungen doch korrekt sind, aber die Kritik der
Mehrheitsauffassungen das Publikum verunsichern
könnte, und schließlich sei eigentlich ein Wissenschaftshistoriker
zuständig. Bartocci kommentiert diesen Verlauf
als typische Abwehrstrategie des Physikestablishments
gegen jegliche Kritik.
Bartocci, Umberto 2000
Della natura "ambigua" della luce: sutra di storia del
pensiero scientifico / Umberto Bartocci.
In: Episteme. An international journal of science,
history and philosophy. Nr. 1. 2000, 21. Juni. Ca.
10 S. = http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/
epist1.html
Status: Kritik. - Quelle: Autopsie.
Bartocci, Umberto 2000
La dilatazione relativistica del tempo e il "paradosso
dei gemelli" [Beitrag 5]: going towards the end of the
discussion about the twin paradox / Umberto Bartocci,
Nick Percival. - [Italien]: WWW 2000. 41 S.
URL: www.cartesio-episteme.net/twinend.html
SRT. ZD. ZWP. ERK.
Bartocci und Percival führen eine Diskussion per Email,
gegliedert in 5 Dateien, aus dem Zeitraum Juli 1999 -
Juni 2000. Die ersten 4 Dateien enthalten keine SRT-
Kritik:
1. www.cartesio-episteme.net/GEMVF.htm
2. www.cartesio-episteme.net/proposal.html
3. www.cartesio-episteme.net/percadd'.html
4, www.cartesio-episteme.net/TWINFIN.html
Die 5. Datei enthält trotz des italienischen Titels
(der vom 1. Beitrag stammt) Texte in englischer Sprache.
- S. 1-14: Percival. - S. 15-16: Bartocci. - S. 16-
18: Percival. - S. 18-41: Bartocci.
Bartocci verteidigt die SRT auch in der Frage des
ZWP als eine mathematisch korrekte Theorie. Percival
kritisiert die bisher in der Literatur gegebenen Begründungen
für das Zustandekommen des behaupteten Zeitunterschieds
(Jungbleiben des reisenden Zwillings).
Während Bartocci die berühmte Frage von Herbert
Dingle für erledigt erklärt, beklagt Percival, daß die
wissenschaftlichen Diskussionen den entscheidenden
Fragen (wie z. B. der von Dingle) ausweichen: (S. 3):
"It would be more accurate to say that the debate has
been an exercise in "talking at cross purposes" with
paradoxical issues never being addressed - as Chang in
his extensive review also concluded. The problem is
that each side puts down what they think is the right
answer and since there are no mistakes in the math,
each side remains convinced that they are correct and
are amazed at how dense the other side is in not being
able to follow their logic. The problem is that neither
issues rised by Dingle are finessed rather than answered
- the meat of the subject does not appear in the equations
per se - the important points do not get put on paper and
there are problems of ambiguous physics and semantics."
Percival diskutiert eingehend, wie der behauptete
unterschiedliche Zeitablauf für die Zwillinge zustandekommt
und erklärt wird, und kritisiert die symmetrisch-reziproke
Situation, die einen unterschiedlichen
Zeitablauf nicht begründen kann: (S. 11): "Clearly, in
general, when we study special relativistic phenomena,
observed times are NOT accurate descriptions of how
proper times are really accumulating. For example, when
A and B are travelling at constant relative velocity,
both observe the other's clock to be running slow.
Clearly, both sets of observations can not both be accurate
descriptions of how proper time is accumulating
on A's clock versus B's clock and vice versa."
Bartocci, der grundsätzlich die SRT für mathematisch
makellos hält, reagiert auf die beharrliche Frage
Percivals nach der physikalischen Realität mit bemerkenswerten
Zugeständnisse: physical reasons cannot be
found; clocks just seem to go slower, sticks just seem
to contract! Der volle Text lautet: (S. 23):
"If you wish to investigate instead which are the
possible "physical reasons" to which the time dilation
phenomenon is due, then an answer in my opinion
CANNOT BE FOUND. Nobody in the world could tell
you why clocks "go slower" or "sticks" contract in the
"mathematical model" of space-time built by people
like Einstein, Minkowski, Hilbert, Weyl, Pauli, and
many others ... Moreover, this is a phenomenon which
in some sense is not even "true", it is not even a correct
description of the relativistic conception of "space" and
"time" (which we must not forget are relative, and not
absolute). Clocks just SEEM to go slower, sticks just
SEEM to contract, with respect to TWO different
observers in the SAME inertial coordinate system - so
one needs in all THREE observers, one moving with
respect to the other two, which are instead standing still
one with respect to the other. Furthermore, as I already
said, the twin case is not the more interesting case to
study with the purpose to examine possible "physical
causes" for the relativistic time dilation: more interesting
would be in my opinion the "muon set-up"..."
S. 23: Bartocci: "I started doing just simple GEO-
METRY of Minkowski space-time (and more "Geometry"
I shall do very soon!), or if you prefer KINE-
MATICS, which is meant just as a DESCRIPTION of
Textversion 1.2 - 2012 61
G. O. Mueller: SRT Kap. 4-Erg..