xyzt

But while you're at it consider that Many of Einstein's equations have been found to be flawed .

How many have you put to the side as not Viable ?

Are you comparing yourself with Einstein? Because the parallel doesn't hold.

Mathematics might be the way to describe something to someone who knows nothing but mathematics. But, that's not everyone.

The language of physics is math. You have no math. You have no experiments. Therefore, you have nothing.

Sometimes you just have to talk.

No one is stopping you. But what you are doing is not physics, it is just...talk.

 

 

Well, it is textbook physics.

 

You are making the same exact kind of errors as Mahesh Khati. Force is not frame invariant, so [math]F_x=0[/math] in frame S does not mean [math]F'_x=0[/math] in frame S'. Crack open any book on relativity and you will see how forces transform. The formula in post 53 in the thread is correct.

Wrong. I will let you figure out where you made your error. I will give you a hint: [math]F_x=\frac{d}{dt} \frac{m_0u_x}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2}}[/math] and [math]F_y=\frac{d}{dt} \frac{m_0u_y}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2}}[/math]

Calculate the derivatives, the first time you did it, you messed up.

I gave you a hint but you continued to make elementary mistakes, I'll give you another hint:

[math]F_x=\frac{d}{dt} \frac{m_0u_x}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2}}=m_0 \frac{du_x}{dt}\frac{1-u^2/c^2+u_xu/c^2}{\sqrt{1-u^2/c^2}^3}[/math]

[math]F_y=\frac{d}{dt} \frac{m_0u_y}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2}}=m_0 \frac{du_y}{dt}\frac{1-u^2/c^2+u_yu/c^2}{\sqrt{1-u^2/c^2}^3}[/math]

So [math]F_x/F_y=?[/math]

You need to learn how to do differentiation correctly. Until you do that, you will continue to make gross errors in your "physics". I put "physics" in quotes because what you are doing is not physics, it is the same fringe stuff Mahesh Khati was doing, combining basic errors.

Or you can always go learn how it is done properly in the textbooks, Here is the link I gave you earlier, I suggest that you study it.

 

If it contradicts facts or logic why not mention it ands give the aurthor a chance to defend his definitions?

 

This is precisely what I do, I have plenty of arguments.

How do you know it's BS other than that it doesn't fit many current hypotheses?

I know that it is BS when the proponent:

-has no experimental evidence

-has no mathematical formalism (has only a long winded, rambling prose, like the one just posted by mephestopheles)

-is deaf to any factual counter-arguments

-other fringers come to the defense of the fringer that proposed the theory

Very few ideas that involved a lot of change have ever been embraced from the beginning.

What gets posted in this forum doesn't fall in that category. The reason? See above.

It is really ironic to me that you two guys are huzzahing and congratulating each other in putting scientists in a box of "no change" when the thrill of discovering something new and known and major changing is exactly what most scientists got into the business for in the first place.

 

In their minds it goes like this: they post some stuff that is contradicted by existent science and, in many cases, by experiment. The real scientists call them on it. This means that the real scientists "resist the change" and are "dogmatic". If we reject their BS, it means that we persecute them, the same way the Inquisition persecuted Galilei, Giordano Bruno, etc.

In the meanwhile, science stagnates, since we act like the gestapo (Le Repeux own words to me) and "suffocate" their "new ideas".

MY main BURNING question I would like to prove is that there was no Big Bang .

Everything was not blown apart but just by as yet some unknown catalyst ( perhaps gravity ) started joining together, quickly . Like blowing up a surgical glove with a gas. The expansion is quick but "controlled" and proceeds in a specific manner after a set pattern. This would be on a Universal scale .

Fibonacci numbers.

 

Right on cue, couldn't ask for better proof of my post above. Who needs education when we can post any BS we want on the internet?

Thank you for the link, xyzt.

 

It will take a while to go through it all.

I have so far read the Wiki article, which promised more in the headline than it supplied in the detail.

You are welcome, BTW.

Well? Are you going to admit to your errors or are you going to disappear?

Thank you for the link, xyzt.

 

It will take a while to go through it all.

I have so far read the Wiki article, which promised more in the headline than it supplied in the detail.

Read the references. There are quite a few.

 

So I was wondering if the need for a 'speed limit' (though not necessarily its value or form) could be deduced from the first postulate alone?

Yes, it can, there are multiple modern formulations of SR that use only the first postulate. Mind you, SR is not a theory of light, so the second postulate has no place in the modern formulations. This thread should be in the main forum, it is not a speculation.

When I refer post

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84740-relativity-is-wrong/

 

I was surprised to see calculation

 

Well, it is textbook physics.

F’x = Fx –[(V/C^2 ) (Fy.Uy)]/[(1-V Ux/C^2)].

As Fx =0

F’x = –[(V/C^2 ) (Fy.Uy ]/[(1-V Ux/C^2)].

This type of transformation is not correct.

This is only transformation equation which transform Fx in S frame to F’x in S’ frame. So, when Fx =0 then F’x =0.

You are making the same exact kind of errors as Mahesh Khati. Force is not frame invariant, so [math]F_x=0[/math] in frame S does not mean [math]F'_x=0[/math] in frame S'. Crack open any book on relativity and you will see how forces transform. The formula in post 53 in the thread is correct.

 

 

So, Fy/Fx = (ay/ax) . {(C^2-Ux^2)/(C^2-Uy^2) }

Wrong. I will let you figure out where you made your error. I will give you a hint: [math]F_x=\frac{d}{dt} \frac{m_0u_x}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2}}[/math] and [math]F_y=\frac{d}{dt} \frac{m_0u_y}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2}}[/math]

Calculate the derivatives, the first time you did it, you messed up.

 

This is what I think you all are saying (and the consequences):

 

When

it comes to the “Two Lightning Bolt Strikes” thought experiment

if

by stipulating that the two lightning bolt strikes occur simultaneously

in one inertial frame of reference

then

this means the man in that inertial frame of reference will see the two

flashes of light at the same time

and

this means the man in the other inertial frame of reference will see

(encounter) one flash of light before the other

then this means

the man in the one frame of reference is actually at rest

and

the man in the other frame of reference is actually in motion

and so

the “Two Lightning Bolt Strikes” thought experiment is a test

of absolute rest

There is no test for "absolute rest" because .... there is no such thing as "absolute rest". It is refreshing to see that you will never understand not only the special relativity but also its predecessor, the galilean relativity. Of course, none of this will stop you from posting and re-posting the same misconceptions over and over in ever longer posts.

Hi xyzt, does the name Howard tell you something? He also chases cranks on another scientific forum, proudly exhibiting their heads on the top of its car as if they were deer. You may understand maths, but you certainly do not understand individuals. What you do is not intelligent, it is instinct.

So others have exposed your fringe ideas. Good.

You may be right, but how to tell? There are so many discussions on relativity, and so many not discussing the data but the logic, that it is normal to doubt. These do not happen about the laws of gravitation, or about the laws of electromagnetism. When will Relativity become a law so that we stop arguing about it?

Cranks have always have had doubt directed at relativity. To a lesser extent they have had doubts directed at QM.

They doubt what they cannot understand.

Not again

 

Funny I could have sworn it was a dimensionless number last time I looked.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number

Nope

 

Um, how do you make that out?

 

Does "mach 1" not have any units?

m/s

Only data are facts, the rest is imagination.

 

Pot, kettle, black: remember?

You mean that you have been hijacking this thread with your crank claims? Absolutely.

You elude the fact that Christopher does not seem to find a way to convince others either. Scientific method demands that we are as objective as possible, which means that we have to do the effort of considering both point of views in a discussion. I have observed this effort in Christopher's posts, but not in yours.

Actually, your claims are false. I have debunked christopher's errors earlier in the thread, with hard facts (i.e. math and physics). You need to go back at the beginning of the thread and find the debunking posts. I also debunked your attempts at hijacking this thread with your own fringe ideas. Also with hard facts , i.e. math and physics.

When all the possible arguments have been presented and people still disagree with the conclusion, the best way to close the subject is to "agree that we disagree", as Christopher pointed out, not to blame the other camp of being wrong, as you do here.

This is not the way science works, mainstream science does not compromise with crank claims, no matter how persistent and vociferous the proponents are.

There should be a way to lock this thread, it has been going in circles for a long time. There is no way of convincing christopher that he's wrong, so what is the point of wasting server storage and network bandwidth?

 

Very good arguments! I will try them next time you say something else than "nope".

Well, I explained earlier, in great detail why your fringe ideas are wrong. No point in repeating the explanation, it doesn't take in your case.

 

Take two synchronized atomic clocks, put them at the two ends of the train, and let the two observers measure their frequencies: there will be no doppler effect for the observer on the train, but there will be some for the observer on the embankment.

 

Nope. You keep repeating the same mistake over and over. I will not explain why, I already did, i will just point out that you keep repeating the same mistake.

 

Do the contrary, put the two atomic clocks on the embankment: there will be no doppler effect for the observer on the embankment and some for the observer on the train.

 

Also nope.

It is relevant if we consider that a mind experiment with two atoms and their background would be equivalent to the mind experiment with the train and its embankment.

There is no connection between the two cases. You are simply making up stuff.

Studiot,

 

Yes, until the small steps are established, I take for granted that space is isotropic and homogeneous for two atoms using light as a guide to execute them. Does that help you to accept them as a possibility?

No, it doesn't, you are still trying to pass word salads as science.

If we can work out the answers by doing "Thought Experiments" , why bother with any actual physical tests?

 

Couldn't we just program our thoughts into a computer simulation, run it, then write down what it says.

Absolutely, that's the ticket.

xyzt said:

 

 

“Good, Continue to waste your time. I am through trying to educate you.”

 

You and I totally disagree. I believe that to try to disprove myself (or anyone else) is not a waste of time.

I already disproved your fringe ideas. That was not a waste of time.

The waste of time is that you won't admit that your ideas were disproved and that you will continue forever to re-assert the same crankery. That is a waste of everybody's time.

the only principles that I retain are doppler effect and atoms of the same kind emitting the same frequencies, which is what an atom needs to stay synchronized with another one. Principles about space are irrelevant to atoms: what they see is what they get.

 

The Doppler effect has nothing to do with the word salad: "atoms of the same kind emitting the same frequencies, which is what an atom needs to stay synchronized with another one" .

Actinides emit on multiple frequencies.

The Doppler effect has nothing to do with actinides.

There is no meaning to "atoms needing to stay synchronized"