Jump to content

Relativity is wrong!?


Moontanman

Recommended Posts

Although I haven't read the paper, I came across this DNews video link which discusses findings published by the University of Cambridge scientist in the Physical Review Letters on a computer generated five dimension black hole study. The video's host describes how a computer generated five dimensional black hole predicts something called a negative singularity, which could disprove some aspects of Einstein's theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... which could disprove some aspects of Einstein's theories.

Or show that the five dimensional theory is more complicated than the four dimensional theory. It of course now depends on what results you are referring to. Some will hold in all dimensions and other only in 4 (or less or for some small range). Then you have questions about energy conditions and if the matter needed to support these space-times is physical and/or if there are some formation mechanisms and so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or show that the five dimensional theory is more complicated than the four dimensional theory.

 

I agree; the video's host mentioned that Einstein's theories are based on four dimension rather than five. Even as a novice, I would expect some distinction in the applicable physics between varying dimensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the 'paper' is

 

László G. Mészáros, Special Relativity: a Contradicting Theory or an Account for an Optical Phenomenon, http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0272.

 

But be warned, it is viXra 'paper'.

 

 

I saw that mentioned in the comments, but "the paper" described in the article seems like it has more breadth and depth.

 

Anyway, I think the viXra paper goes off the rails no later than when it assumes that Boyles law can be applied between frames, as if PV was an invariant. PV is an energy term. Why would it be invariant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I think the viXra paper goes off the rails no later than when it assumes that Boyles law can be applied between frames, as if PV was an invariant. PV is an energy term. Why would it be invariant?

I totally agree. The paper I think is just wrong in that respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am going to keep up with this as much as i can and see how it turns out, just when i thought I was getting used to things they way they are someone steps up and says nope they weren't that way at all! What a wonderful time to be alive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't bother, I just read the paper its utter garbage. Its a measly 4 pages and uses extremely basic formulas. He didnt include observer affect on energy via redshift. However posted one basic thermodynamic equation without proper correlation.

An average high school student could write a better paper.

 

For one thing he never mentioned is the Observer influence is detailed in the stress-momentum tensor of the Einstein field equations. including the pressure term.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't bother, I just read the paper its utter garbage. Its a measly 4 pages and uses extremely basic formulas. He didnt include observer affect on energy via redshift. However posted one basic thermodynamic equation without proper correlation.

An average high school student could write a better paper

Any serious rebuttal to Relativity is not going to be deposited at vixra, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any serious rebuttal to Relativity is not going to be deposited at vixra, don't you think?

 

 

I never trust any vixra article. Many science forums have literally banned that as a valid reference for good reason lol. Even if the rebuttal was on a reputable site a mere 4 pages with 3 to 4 basic equations wouldnt be sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I never trust any vixra article. Many science forums have literally banned that as a valid reference for good reason lol. Even if the rebuttal was on a reputable site a mere 4 pages with 3 to 4 basic equations wouldnt be sufficient.

I'd be no good then, presenting a science paper. Anything more than A4 and I think I'm being verbose. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So was it said in jest? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93797-relativity-is-wrong/#entry909201 Unless a post has a definite reference how do we know what was tl:dr? I have the feeling now the A4 length science paper is tl:dr. Thanks for the explanation Daecon.

 

I sometimes feel like you're humor impervious. Your tendency to overanalyze costs you a lot here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I immediately got Phi's humour.... long may it continue. :)

 

If I was capable mathematically, to the necessary level, my papers would be formula-dense and word-free to keep it just on an A4.

I think this is a good attitude because you don't want to bore your reader with excess words that meander around your subject and just act as fillers, which serve no real communicative purpose.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I immediately got Phi's humour.... long may it continue. :)

 

If I was capable mathematically, to the necessary level, my papers would be formula-dense and word-free to keep it just on an A4.

I think this is a good attitude because you d Don't want to bore your reader with use excess words that meander around your subject and just act as fillers, which serve no real communicative purpose.

 

ftfy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • 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.