Talk:Tests of special relativity

message: I recommend moving this article to Tests of special relativity. This move would make it correspond exactly to General relativity / Tests of general relativity. I have documented this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Inconsistencies_in_special_relativity_articles_and_categories.Jarhed (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article in its current shape serves no purpose. Does anyone care, when I remove the useless "compatibility" sections and instead of it expand the experimental passages? After that, the article can be moved to Tests of special relativity. --D.H (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the article based on the German version, and moved it to Tests of special relativity. --D.H (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation for article move 

message: This illustration has a very strange appearance. The circle-plus looks like it may have been intended to represent a vector perpendicular to the plane of the illustration, but it appears to have positioning problems due to librsvg getting confused... this is the sort of thing that often happens if librsvg is confronted with a font that isn't available on the server and which it therefore does not understand. This illustration does not appear to come directly from the Bucherer article, but seems to represent somebody's interpretation of Bucherer's written description. Can you help explain it to me? Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't understand this illustration 

message: Many/most of the experiments referenced in this article in support of special relativity were shown by Fox in the 1960's to be flawed, mostly on the basis of the effects of dispersion, and of the Extinction Theorem.  In particular, any double-star experiment (including Michelson-Morley, and de Sittar), and any experiment in air, were shown to be equally supportive of emission theory as of special relativity. Those experiments should all be described as historically interesting, but unsupportive, in this article.   Filippas and Fox, and also the Alvagar experiment, were the first experiments, using gamma rays from moving sources, to fully support special relativity.  See Martinez for a full historical perspective.  Pgf 08:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The experiments "paving the way to relativity" are connected with the development and experimental refutation of certain aether theories, which were the predominant models in the 19th century. In this context, the experiments are clear and conclusive, and led to the development of the Lorentz transformation. Now, emission (corpuscular) theories were already abandoned in the second part of the 19th century, and the attempts of its revival by Ritz and others in the early 20th century found only little support. That Fox (in the 1960ies) showed that extinction can make emission theories consistent with historical experiments, is certainly an interesting development, but it doesn't change the main point: the refutation of the classical aether theories. (Of course, also emission theories incorporating extinction effects were refuted in the 1960ies). PS: We already have a section on dependence on source velocity in this article. Any clarification should be made in that section. --D.H (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know enough about the aether theories to comment in that context.  My point is that a number of famous experiments done prior to the 60s were historically taken to support the theory of special relativity when, in fact, they only did so coincidentally.  It would seem appropriate to note those cases.  Pgf 23:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

text:  I've updated the "No dependence on source velocity" section, as suggested.  Pgf 14:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Note that de Sitter's experiment was repeated using x-rays by Brecher under consideration of the extinction theorem, therefore I've re-inserted it into the section. --D.H (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  It's a nice little diagram -- I'm glad it could be saved.  I've added one more minor clarification I realized was missing.  I think I'm done now.  Pgf 13:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historically interesting, but inconclusive experimental results