JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Share Posted August 5, 2018 12 minutes ago, beecee said: And you stand there claiming to have invalidated SR, and as an extension GR? No, I just proved, that time has to flow for a photon and I can make it once more... How? I will simply polarize a beam of light, defining some BEFORE and AFTER for the polarized photons, thus create a timeline for the light. The end - photons have a history, so they have to experience time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 1 minute ago, JohnMnemonic said: No, I just proved, that time has to flow for a photon and I can make it once more... How? I will simply polarize a beam of light, defining some BEFORE and AFTER for the polarized photons, thus create a timeline for the light. The end - photons have a history, so they have to experience time.... Where are your equations? 7 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said: Right now, I'm trying to combine it with SR and GR. However since the beginning, it was obvious for me, that in many aspects, my model doesn't exactly agree with Einstein's theory and in some cases leads to completely different conclusions. Time dilation due to constant velocity is one of those cases... But you don't have a model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Share Posted August 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, studiot said: It's coming up to midnight here. I will see what I can look out tomorrow, but I am old fashioned so I tend to regard references as in books or papers. Janus would probably have this stuff at his fingertips. This is not a personal criticism, but your guess underlined above suggests you are not up to speed on classical mechanics. You really can't hope to cope with relativity unless you can do that first, except in the most general terms which will leave much important stuff out. In those circumstances you need to be a bit less ready to jump to unjustified conclusions. You should not have to guess at fundamentals. I have already just told you that kinetics or kinematics has nothing to do with forces (although it deals with accelerations, boosts and so forth). To be honest, you seem to be the only one in here, who's opinion has some value for me. Most of people only want to prove, how much better and smarter they are - you present actual knowledge... I really appreciate it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said: Ohh, then show me some official attempts to make photon a valid point of reference That's not a part of relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: And what do you want me to be? MOSAD? KGB? CIA? SJW? LGBT? Truth is, that my agenda is so secret, that it still doesn't have a name - got any ideas? The choice is yours. And again you have avoided answering the matter which you yourself raised re the supernatural. Quote So you say, that people won't even try to use photons as reference, cause they are afraid of being wrong? Why are you now stooping to being obtuse and misquoting? Again any attempt at referencing the frame of a photon is invalid for the reasons already stated and which you obviously avoid. Quote Funny, I found 2 possible ways to do it. They might be of course wrong - but since no one can move at c, how do we learn the truth? Again science through experiments and observations are able to make logical assumptions. Particle accelerators and other experiments have shown that as we move at speed, and approach "c" time dilation and length contraction are a result and confirmed. We, that is scientists are then logically able to assume what should/does happen at "c' Quote Of course - my opinion matters so much, that hundreds of thousands of professional scientists tremble, when they hear my voice, while my guesses shake the entire scientific community... I don't doubt after reading your posts and your mentioning of the supernatural, that you probably really believe that. Quote "Don't you know him? He's that famous nobody, who treats physics as a hobby and doesn't have any title any title or diploma" Yes - Nobel Prize is waiting.... Ahh again avoiding answering the question/s. ps: I believe actually what will be waiting is a wooden spoon. 9 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: No, I just proved, that time has to flow for a photon and I can make it once more... How? I will simply polarize a beam of light, defining some BEFORE and AFTER for the polarized photons, thus create a timeline for the light. The end - photons have a history, so they have to experience time.... No you didn't. But hey, I don't really want to spoil your delusional world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said: Problem is, that there's no way, to confirms a big part of SR, as it deals with velocities, which we won't be able to reach with our current technology. Besides a single result can be explained in many different ways... Tell me, how we might check, if SR is correct in the case of non-existent time at 100% of c? According to Einstein, photons don't experience any time and everything happens instantly for them. I won't accept such statement, if it won't be confirmed by observation... We have particles that travel at high speed (e.g. atmospheric muons or particles in accelerators). We also have precision timing measurements. It's not always about reaching high speeds. SR doesn't predict non-existent time at c. SR makes no claims at all at that speed, since it's not an inertial frame of reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Share Posted August 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, swansont said: Where are your equations? But you don't have a model. As I said in the very beginning - I TREAT PHYSICS AS A HOBBY AND EVERYTHING I DO, I DO IT FOR FUN - NOTHING MORE. I'M INTERESTED IN THEORIES, WHICH STILL DIDN'T BECOME MAINSTREAM - BECAUSE I LIKE TO LEARN NEW THINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN 95% OF SO CALLED SCIENTISTS TREAT THEM AS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE. If you REALLY want to, I can give you dozens links to official sources, which will show, that 90% of my claims is based on recent scientific theories or ongoing researches... -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, beecee said: And again you have avoided answering the matter which you yourself raised re the supernatural. Which is off-topic, so it's OK to leave it unanswered. Just now, JohnMnemonic said: As I said in the very beginning - I TREAT PHYSICS AS A HOBBY AND EVERYTHING I DO, I DO IT FOR FUN - NOTHING MORE. I'M INTERESTED IN THEORIES, WHICH STILL DIDN'T BECOME MAINSTREAM - BECAUSE I LIKE TO LEARN NEW THINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN 95% OF SO CALLED SCIENTISTS TREAT THEM AS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE. If you REALLY want to, I can give you dozens links to official sources, which will show, that 90% of my claims is based on recent scientific theories or ongoing researches... ! Moderator Note As you are announcing you don't wish to follow the rules, and as that doesn't actually absolve you of your responsibility to follow them, I guess we're done here. Don't broach the topic again unless you have a model to present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts