Jump to content

Speed of light (hijack from Time for a different view (hypothesis))


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

I always thought a moderator has the obligation to guide interlocutors not to write extremely impolitely . . .. 

And what pray tell, do you find impolite about what I wrote? I even took a leaf out of your book and said "excuse me" You were wrong, that's it, pure and simple. I was trying to help by informing you of that.

But hey, if you could lower yourself by taking some advice from a lowly retired maintenance Fitter/machinist/welder, it would be "don't post in such a haughty lofty manner...particularly when it is obvious we have people here, who are a few pay grades above yourself. And since I'm giving advice, I would also add that if you believe SR/GR is wrong, [or any other accepted science] then please construct a scientific paper on that subject for peer review, listing of course all the evidence that you do have invalidating any incumbant theory. It will of course like any hypothetical, need to "run the gauntlet"so to speak, just as the incumbant theories you are attempting to displace did.

You have a good day Professor.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

The ladies & gentlemen at CERN only have to be expert in getting their hardware to work under a specific theoretical system. They do not need to be expert (or even to have competent newbie-level knowledge) of how that hardware might work under some parallel system of theory.

It would necessarily work exactly the same way. 

 

Quote

When it comes to knowing how to compare SR and Newtonian results, in a scientifically correct way, they don't know how to do it. Because they've been trained on a set of literature that's incompetently written and mathematically wrong, and they've internalised a load of those wrong results.

No, this is backwards. Experiments only give you 1 result. It’s whether the result is consistent with one theory or the other.

Move clocks at some relative speed and/or at different gravitational potentials and they will disagree. You only have one result to compare with theory. Newtonian physics does not predict this, but relativity does.

 

Quote

In real life, E=m0c2 is an exact result under SR, Newtonian theory, and any other relativistic system

Newton is not a relativistic theory

45 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

So the next time that you read an experimental writeup saying that we test SR against earlier theory

You don’t do this. You compare the theories with the experiment.

47 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Because of the way that the SR-testing literature developed, with incompetent analysis inflating or manufacturing the "significance" of results, if you are an experimenter, in order to be able to compete with those existing peer-reviewed "inflated" claims, you pretty much NEED to use the same illegal tricks to inflate your results, or you won;t get published.

Appeal to conspiracy isn’t a valid (or allowable) argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

it is debatable like all ideas or concepts, but it seems logical to me

Ahh
That's where the problem is !

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
You mentioned earlier about us having our heads buried in the sand...
Maybe you should get your head out of your a*s.

What exactly are you a Prof. of ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, beecee said:

And what pray tell, do you find impolite about what I wrote?

I don’t think it was your post. I suspect it was the “crazy eyes” comment. Not the “derail” comment, because he did, in fact, derail the other thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t think it was your post. I suspect it was the “crazy eyes” comment. Not the “derail” comment, because he did, in fact, derail the other thread

Ahh, OK. My sincere apologies to my professor friend!

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Ahh
That's where the problem is !

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
You mentioned earlier about us having our heads buried in the sand...
Maybe you should get your head out of your a*s.

What exactly are you a Prof. of ?

!

Moderator Note

Waaaay too personal. Attack ideas, please, not people.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2021 at 11:27 PM, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Quote from beecee

Space and time are both variable quantities and two opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak...without space, there is no time, without time, there is no space." [ End of quote ] 

 

It is not so. We cannot categorically asseverate that without space , for example , there's no time. Refer to Bergson's detailed discussion of the issue of time. Nor may we be absolutely  certain that space can never exist  without time. Refer to QM's way of handling this.

On checking back, I decided to check out the Bergson character and find out who he is/was or thought he was.......

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/

 

Ahhh, a philosopher I see. I prefer the science [and philosophy] of a scientist/physicist.....

 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:
2 hours ago, studiot said:

Why before ? what is wrong with if  ?

If there was a hundred foot banana could a 500 foot gorilla eat it ?

She could  OR   she  could not. .  .. It is not for our scholastic presuppositions to determine that .  .. It is for the Lady Gorilla herself to decide for her own stomach . .. . 

I'm sorry to tell you that your command of the English language has failed you, for you have not answered my question, even though I emboldened the important words.

The issue of the banana and the gorilla was an example of my meaning set as a rhetorical question, and not requiring an answer in itself.

2 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

In real life, E=m0c2 is an exact result under SR, Newtonian theory, and any other relativistic system 

It would seem that you did not read my mathematical post either because in your own words this is

2 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

provably sub-amateur garbage.

 

If you wish to take issue with my mathematics, you should say so, not plough on and ignore it as though I had not bothered to write anything.

 

 

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.