You have to assume something funny about the mass of the neutrino no matter what even in Lorentz theory. You would still need infinite amounts of energy for a massive object to reach the speed of light. I don't see how switching to Lorentz theory would help to make a massive body going faster than light. Giovanni
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com>wrote: > On 16 December 2011 03:39, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com> > 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. > >
