On 16 December 2011 03:39, Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> wrote: > It is not that simple. Relativity would not be completely dismissed by these > superluminal results. We don't know yet what is going on exactly. SR and GR > have been proven right in many instances and for large parameter spaces.
No, There is not even single empirical observation that would differentiate Lorentz theory of relativity from Einstein's special theory of relativity. Both of the are deeply verified, therefore either one of the is the right theory. There is no doubt about that. But this is the first empirical finding that can draw the line between, where Einstein fails and Lorentz prevails. General relativity is of course deeply verified in solar system scale that it works fine. Although it may be wrong in galactic scale due to quantum anomaly of space accumulated in long distances, thus Newton's inverse square law fails. General relativity has nothing to do with special relativity, but it is just a refined version of Newton's gravity theory. As general relativity is an Aether theory, it will welcome Lorentz's theory of relativity, because it is also an Aether theory. Also what is very important to understand, that when you do relativistic quantum mechanics, e.g. you are calculating muon's flight paths, you actually do not use Einstein special relativity for corrections, but you are actually using Lorentz's relativity. Usually just Einstein is credited for inventing relativity, although all the credit should go to Lorentz. –Jouni Ps. it is somewhat ironical, that we remember Lorentz from Lorentz contraction, but contraction is probably wrong idea. Theory does not necessarily require contraction, only that in different frame of references observers measures different value for speed of light due to time dilatation. This way interpreted, there is no need for contraction of spatial dimensions.
