Moontanman Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 I thought this was the onion or something when I first saw it, aether? FTL? Universal time? http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_special_theory_of_relativity_has_been_disproved_theoretically_999.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 They never mention the actual paper in the article (they just say "the paper" — sounds legit), but it's certainly flawed in some way(s). Unless this was supposed to run the first of next month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) My instant reaction was "Bollocks". Having read it, I still think the same. There are mo references or even authors mentioned. I think you know that. X-posted with SwansonT Edited March 2, 2016 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 I think we need to read 'The Paper'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 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'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 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 More sharing options...
ajb Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 ... 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 More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 The comments (so far) on that article page are refreshingly sensible. But I'm sure that won't last ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 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 More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 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 More sharing options...
ajb Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) 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 March 3, 2016 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 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 More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 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 More sharing options...
Daecon Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 The link in the OP says that the article has been withdrawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I'd be no good then, presenting a science paper. Anything more than A4 and I think I'm being verbose. Whoa, tl;dr 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Whoa, tl;dr What does that mean in English please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Too long; didn't read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Too long; didn't read. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 It was clearly in jest... look at the context from the quoted post from SJ. Was typical of his style and sense of humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 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 More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) 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 March 3, 2016 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 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 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts