Jump to content

I MAY WIN A NOBEL FOR THIS: IVE FOUND A MAJOR FLAW IN THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY!!!!!


darktheorist
 Share

Recommended Posts

The speed of the car + the speed of the beam= THE SPEED OF EJECTION

 

NOT the entire speed at which the beam traverses the length from point A to B!

 

after its ejection, it continues at the normal speed of light, leading to NO time dilation, NO warping, NO STAR WARS BS!

 

GOT YOU, EINSTEIN!

Show the distance of ejection. Show the speed of the light after the ejection relative to the car in car reference frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Indeed. But it's not unreasonable to think that light would behave the same way, if you didn't know it was invariant.

But, my good sir, we DO happen to know that the speed of light IS in fact invariant. Wouldnt give a damn about the speed of its source, it would firmly stick to 300,000 ms. Wouldnt change for the queen. and THATS why einstein's theory loops over and touches itself in places that cause it to unravel of its own accord.

Show the distance of ejection. Show the speed of the light after the ejection relative to the car in car reference frame.

 

the distance of ejection would be irelevant, because the ULTIMATE SPEED OF LIGHT is above that of the source! As long as the source's speed is BELOW that of the speed of light, the speed of ejection would, right from the get go, be a firm 300,000 m/s. So even though we talk about the speed of ejection here, we are actually talking about 'a NULL speed+ the speed of light" which is equal to the speed of light itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, my good sir, we DO happen to know that the speed of light IS in fact invariant. Wouldnt give a damn about the speed of its source, it would firmly stick to 300,000 ms. Wouldnt change for the queen.

 

And that is exactly what Einstein's theory is based on. You seem to be attacking a strawman made of your own misunderstanding.

 

The speed of light is invariant. And it is independent of the speed of the source. This is what Einstein said. And that is what the page you reference says (in a rather confusing way).

 

So it looks like we all agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You have broken my irony meter. (And the troll detector is twitching...)

You dont have to label everything that doesnt make sense to you 'trollish'. I was making a perfectly seriously dissection of the theory of relativity, far, far from trolling. But call it that if it helps pat your level of intelligence on the back and say 'its ok, old boy. hes just trolling'.

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, my good sir, we DO happen to know that the speed of light IS in fact invariant. Wouldnt give a damn about the speed of its source, it would firmly stick to 300,000 ms. Wouldnt change for the queen. and THATS why einstein's theory loops over and touches itself in places that cause it to unravel of its own accord.

Speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, or 300,000,000 m/s, if somebody have bad memory, and want to round it,

but 300,000 m/s, is wrong value.

You should use 300,000 km/s instead.

 

You should get familiar with blueshift and redshift relativistic Doppler effects,

when object emitting photons travels toward (or counter to) receiver,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And that is exactly what Einstein's theory is based on. You seem to be attacking a strawman made of your own misunderstanding.

 

The speed of light is invariant. And it is independent of the speed of the source. This is what Einstein said. And that is what the page you reference says (in a rather confusing way).

 

So it looks like we all agree.

Right.

We agree on what? THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS INVARIANT.

What DONT einstein and I agree on?

That in the car analogy, the total speed of the outgoing beam would be that of the car PLUS its own speed.

which is where he is wrong. That never happens. Regardless of the forward momentum of the car, the speed of the emitted light beam NEVER goes above 300,000 ms.

I genuinely do believe I oughta put this post up around a bit, garner it some attention from Higher Minds in the scientific world. Im pretty sure Ive struck the jackpot here with my disprovation.

I dare anybody to disprove what Ive done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, looks like the tiny stream of resistance that met this my bombshell disprovation on the scientific ground has already dried up, and so far, apart from the repeated cries to 'double check' my facts-which i did and found them perfectly in order- and a bit of silly banter here and there in the absence of any real arguments of substance, nothing really worthy of mentions come my way. Ill take the final verdict to be, therefore, that I am CORRECT in my disprovation of einsteins pet theory.

Yay me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the distance of ejection would be irelevant, because the ULTIMATE SPEED OF LIGHT is above that of the source! As long as the source's speed is BELOW that of the speed of light, the speed of ejection would, right from the get go, be a firm 300,000 m/s. So even though we talk about the speed of ejection here, we are actually talking about 'a NULL speed+ the speed of light" which is equal to the speed of light itself.
Special relativity

According to the theory of special relativity, the frame of the ship has a different clock rate and distance measure, and the notion of simultaneity in the direction of motion is altered, so the addition law for velocities is changed. This change is not noticeable at low velocities but as the velocity increases towards the speed of light it becomes important. The addition law is also called a composition law for velocities. For collinear motions, the velocity of the fly relative to the shore is given by

2035aab1ba5af2e1ff296512b6a57779.png

The composition formula can take an algebraically equivalent form, which can be easily derived by using only the principle of constancy of the speed of light:[2]

d2f2ab3bd1625a0e0a38c3f830c071b9.pnghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula Did you mean this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, looks like the tiny stream of resistance that met this my bombshell disprovation on the scientific ground has already dried up, and so far, apart from the repeated cries to 'double check' my facts-which i did and found them perfectly in order- and a bit of silly banter here and there in the absence of any real arguments of substance, nothing really worthy of mentions come my way. Ill take the final verdict to be, therefore, that I am CORRECT in my disprovation of einsteins pet theory.

Yay me.

 

 

I may win a Nobel Prize because one of Mother Teresa’s members didn’t adhere to the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, and I can prove it, therefore I’m correct.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, my good sir, we DO happen to know that the speed of light IS in fact invariant. Wouldnt give a damn about the speed of its source, it would firmly stick to 300,000 ms. Wouldnt change for the queen. and THATS why einstein's theory loops over and touches itself in places that cause it to unravel of its own accord.

 

We know that now, but that had not been applied to kinematics before special relativity was proposed. So one cannot lean on that in a critique of relativity.

OK, looks like the tiny stream of resistance that met this my bombshell disprovation on the scientific ground has already dried up, and so far, apart from the repeated cries to 'double check' my facts-which i did and found them perfectly in order- and a bit of silly banter here and there in the absence of any real arguments of substance, nothing really worthy of mentions come my way. Ill take the final verdict to be, therefore, that I am CORRECT in my disprovation of einsteins pet theory.

Yay me.

You haven't been criticizing Einstein. You've been criticizing someone else's awkward explanation of relativity. How about going back to the source, and analyzing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive caught two fundemental flaws in einsteins theory.

I have never seen any valid critique of a scientific theory that contained four errors in its opening sentence.

 

After reviewing your later comments throughout the thread I find that that condition remains unchanged.

 

If you are serious about supporting your position you need to critique the theory itself, not a partially inept description of it. I see no evidence that you have even read the original paper. Here it is.

 

I look forward to a proper analysis from you once you have studied what Einstein actually said. Or an acknowledgement that Einstein and the several tens of thousands of scientists who have studied, understood and accepted his theory, may just be better informed than you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look forward to a proper analysis from you once you have studied what Einstein actually said.

Even then, to be honest we do not care exactly what Einstein said. First, we know that Einstein in some of his papers made mistakes, both in his mathematics and physical reasoning. Most of these he caught and corrected or were caught by his contemporaries. Any minor mistakes that can now be found are simply of historical value. Secondly, the formalism and understanding of special and general relativity has greatly advanced since Einstein put pen to paper. Any 'attack' on relativity should be made within a modern formalism and not based on Einstein's misunderstandings and typos!

 

 

Anyway, DimaMazin points to the main problem as I can see with the line of thought coming from the opening post. Velocities in special relativity are not 'linear' in the sense that 'u+v' is not the observed relativistic velocity.

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, my good sir, we DO happen to know that the speed of light IS in fact invariant. Wouldnt give a damn about the speed of its source, it would firmly stick to 300,000 ms. Wouldnt change for the queen. and THATS why einstein's theory loops over and touches itself in places that cause it to unravel of its own accord.

 

If you are serious about supporting your position you need to critique the theory itself, not a partially inept description of it. I see no evidence that you have even read the original paper. Here it is.

 

Especially this, from the article:

 

Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

 

That is what relativity is based on. So when Einstein says light speed is invariant he is wrong, but when you say it, it is correct???? And then suddenly all the argumentations of Einstein, based on the invariance of the speed of light are wrong????

 

And ehhh... why are you so angry, already in your first post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the motion of the moving object i.e the car is irrelevant as the light particles leaving the torch will always be traveling at light speed and as light speed is the universal speed limit and that if an object travels faster than light speed time would slow to correct that universal error thus always maintaining light speed so the speed of the car would just become null and void, the time displacement that occurs to correct this sort of error would be minuscule and not even noticeable unless traveling at such speeds for a long period and would only effect the object moving at light speed, that is what I believe until proven that light speed is not the limit.

 

Also I enjoyed swansont's analogy of the ball throw, if you threw a ball at half the speed of light out of an object also moving at half the speed of light you would just simply keep up with the ball, most likely resulting in the ball hitting you in the face as it loses velocity and you maintain half light speed.

Edited by Matty14189
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speed of light + speed of moving platform(the car) = negative time displacement affects the light particles = Speed of light restored.

This is very unclear. What is negative time displacement and how does this effect photons? (One reason I am confused is that the proper time of a photon has no meaning)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very unclear. What is negative time displacement and how does this effect photons? (One reason I am confused is that the proper time of a photon has no meaning)

space time surrounds everything in the universe and controls the natural order and as such it would simply slow time down around an object to maintain the natural order, time is the Mother Nature of the universe and keeps everything in balance, if I could explain the theory and give the world exact and proven specifications on how time would effect matter traveling faster than light I would be famous but it is at the end of the day an unproven theory, I like many in here would love to know the true mechanics of time but also like many I have theory's that have no proof they are only theory's and not proven or tested.

Edited by Matty14189
Link to comment
Share on other sites

space time surrounds everything in the universe and controls the natural order...

Okay, space-time is the 'arena' of physics and that indeed has causality written into it.

 

 

...and as such it would simply slow time down around an object to maintain the natural order...

As measured by? And what do you mean by 'natural order'? Just causality or something else?

 

 

...time is the Mother Nature of the universe and keeps everything in balance...

Quite poetic.

 

..if I could explain the theory and give the world exact and proven specifications on how time would effect matter traveling faster than light I would be famous but it is at the end of the day an unproven theory, I like many in here I would love to know the true mechanics of time but also like many I have theory's that have no proof they are only theory's and not proven or tested.

Well we do have special and general relativity that do a good job.

 

I do not suggest you post anything about your 'pet theories' in this thread. This thread is about a claim that a flaw has been found in relativity, which of course not flaw has actually been found. If you have something to add about this seeming flaw then please do so, but lets keep the discussion about physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, space-time is the 'arena' of physics and that indeed has causality written into it.

 

 

 

As measured by? And what do you mean by 'natural order'? Just causality or something else?

 

 

 

Quite poetic.

 

 

Well we do have special and general relativity that do a good job.

 

I do not suggest you post anything about your 'pet theories' in this thread. This thread is about a claim that a flaw has been found in relativity, which of course not flaw has actually been found. If you have something to add about this seeming flaw then please do so, but lets keep the discussion about physics.

I apologise for posting the theory here, it is a little of subject, as for relativity I think you guys seem to be doing a good job of poking holes into his dreams of proving Einstein wrong. Edited by Matty14189
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... as for Einstein's theory I think you guys seem to be poking enough holes into his dreams of proving his theory wrong.

Indeed. One has to remember just how well tested both special and general relativity are. This is both directly and indirectly. So far there is nothing that suggests, being careful with the domain of validity, that Einsteinian relativity is not a good framework for physics. This is quite annoying as we know that general relativity cannot be the final word on gravity, yet nature is providing few hints as to what should be a more complete theory.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.