Three Experiments Challenging SRT

how can any one help you with that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Victim of a crime does not always have evidence for legitimate accusations..
But this can not be a reason to gag the victim.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can to suspect only (not without reason).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have provided both theoretical and experimental evidence.

 

Through this forum started Liangzao FAN's experiments.

I have many thanks to the creators of this forum for it.

My many thanks to forum creators!

 

You were also confident that Minkowski's equation \((ct')^{2} \,-\, x'^{2} \,=\, (ct)^{2} \,-\, x^{2}\) was "a lie". You were so confident that you refused to listen to anyone tell you otherwise for the first 15 pages of this thread. That is how long it took to explain a trivial equation to you.

So maybe you should consider questioning the basis of your confidence.

 

I wonder if you are aware that probably this forum's most visible administrator - James R - is a physicist. I believe he has the power to delete posts and even entire threads. He could delete any public evidence you had ever been here if he wished, and I doubt many people would complain if he did. Yet he has taken no action against you.

So indeed you may thank a physicist - and one who frequently defends SRT here no less - for allowing your thread to exist on this forum.

 

Time is absolute.
Otherwise violate the principle of causality or equality of inertial reference frames.

Time can not slow down.

I do not see topics for discussion more.

 

James R is Scientific, in contrast to SRT-lobbists, which in scientific polemics have not scientific potency for well-reasoned oppose.
SRT-lobbists to do provocations to opponents and to post complaints to moderator.
It's not new for me.
(Russian SRT-lobbists to behave meanly too.)

 

Fan's write-up (section 2.1 of http://h-theory.narod.ru/3LiangzaoFAN.pdf) actually favors Relativity over Newtonian theory or Fan's "Galilean" dynamics.
Rather than describe the apparatus, Fan assumes the equipment works as indicated and never does basic analysis.

Code:

Accelerator Energy	Electron Final Beta
MeV	
0.025	0.313
0.035	0.369
0.045	0.412
0.055	0.449
0.065	0.480

Using Beta (which the paper does not describe how this was measured/calculated), we have three different models to compare.
Relativity, Newton, and Fan's interpretation of "Galilean" Relativity.
\(\begin{eqnarray}\frac{1}{m_e c^2} \tilde{KE}_{\tiny \textrm{Relativity}} & = & \left( 1 - \beta^2 \right) ^{- \frac{1}{2}} - 1 & & \approx & \frac{1}{2} \beta^2 + \frac{3}{8} \beta ^4 \\ \frac{1}{m_e c^2} \tilde{KE}_{\tiny \textrm{Newton}} & = & & & & \frac{1}{2} \beta^2 \\ \frac{1}{m_e c^2} \tilde{KE}_{\tiny \textrm{Fan}} & = & \left( 1 + \beta^2 \right) ^{\frac{1}{2}} - 1 & & \approx & \frac{1}{2} \beta^2 - \frac{1}{8} \beta ^4 \end{eqnarray}\)

So when we plot \(\frac{KE}{\beta^2}\) versus \(\beta^2\) we see that the test model \(\frac{KE}{\beta^2} = \frac{m_e c^2}{2} ( 1 + k \beta^2 ) \) is best satisfied with a positive k.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Calibration errors of about 10% on the reported Liniac energy may explain why Fan's points fail to align. Fan also doesn't explain how events were timed to happening within a small fraction of a nanosecond. Without error bars, it's hard to estimate how strongly Fan's data favors Relativity over Newton. However, it Favors Relativity even more strongly over Fan's pet theory.

 

I look forward repetitive experiments that will be proved (or - refuted) that the temperature of lead continues to grow in proportion to the potential difference of the accelerating field, while the electron velocity does not change.

 

You have no evidence there are any such victims of some group trying to suppress SRT. There must be some reason to think it's about suppressing evidence against SRT. If you have absolutely zero then you've just made it up.

So you made it up, plain and simple. You have an axe to grind so you made up lies to try to convince yourself and perhaps others. I'm not terribly fond of you but if I were to go around saying "Masterov is a murderer" you'd complain there's no evidence at all, that I'm just making up false stories because I don't like you. That's precisely what you're doing about all of this. You don't like SRT so you made up lies about people who support SRT in the hopes of turning others against them!

Your 'theory' is nonsense, przyk has already been through that. As for experiments, Rpenner just handled that. You've also shown you don't know about experiments which have already been done which address some of your whining and you've also shown you don't know what SRT actually says in many instances.

I'm a moderator here and I have a quantum field theory and general relativity background. People complain about you to the moderators because you're dishonest, ignoring information put right in front of you. People get tired of that.

 

A thief should not complain that he was robbed.

A calumniator should not complain that it was slandered.

AlphaNumeric many times accused me of something I did not do.
AlphaNumeric many times declared me crazy without having the bases for it.

Can AlphaNumeric demand justice?

 

You have no evidence of "SRT lobbyists". I was pointing out that there is certainly no SRT lobbying on this forum, otherwise your thread would not exist. You have no evidence of "SRT lobbying" anywhere else either.

For the record, I have not complained or reported you to this forum's moderators. That is despite the fact I'm pretty sure some of your behaviour here - such as accusing physicists of serious crimes without evidence and your tendency to resort to insults in general - would be considered against forum rules. In some posts you have also effectively admitted you see this thread as a monologue, which is against the spirit of this forum (SciForums is a discussion forum, not your personal blog).

As it happens, I don't recall ever using the "report" function in the seven years since I joined this forum.

You have accused virtually the whole physics research community of fraud, lobbying, and embezzlement. You have called physicists "criminals" and "scoundrels". You have no evidence any of the victims of your accusations actually deserve them.

However "mean" you think your opponents have been, none have called you a "criminal" or a "scoundrel".

 

I did not do it.

Not all scientific are SRT-lobbists.

SRT-lobbists are large in number in science and they have many money, but not all scientific are SRT-lobbists.

 

If that were true, one would think you should be very interested in the decades of results collected from particle accelerators that generally support relativity extremely well. Instead, you act like you want the experimental slate wiped clean.

 

AlphaNumeric is a moderator.

I have pointed out that: 1) you are calling physicists "criminals" and accusing them of "lobbying" without evidence, and 2) you are choosing to ignore a substantial body of evidence in favour of relativity, which you have not shown can be explained any other way.

This is not "lobbying". This is pointing out simple facts that anyone who reads your posts in this thread can verify for themselves.

 

Since Fan's paper didn't measure the current (or number of electrons) striking the target it presents no experimental results that need to be refuted. Bertozzi's experimental design and reporting of his experiment procedure are much better than Fan's -- consequently his results are given more weight. Moreover, Bertozzi's experiment continued to a range of energies where \(\beta\) was approximately constant while Fan failed to do so.

Indeed, when plotted against \(\beta^2\) Fan stays below 0.25 while Bertozzi stays above 0.75, so Bertozzi's result is less sensitive to equipment calibration errors.

Just as an example. Fan measures his \(\beta\) value as follows:

But this is not the speed reported in the table, which is dimensionless. Also, are we supposed to believe that Fan actually measured the times of the entry time and exit time or just the elapsed time? If he measured the elasped time, how did he calibrate his equipment so we would have confidence in his ability to measure elasped times to a precision of roughly one part per thousand?

A final curious thing: Is it coincidence that if you multiply the reported beta's ( 0.313, 0.369, 0.412, 0.449, 0.480 ) element-by-element by the integers ( 46, 39, 35, 32, 30 ), and then fudge by 299792458/3e8, each number rounds to 14.4 ?

 

If that were not true, then the results of it direct experiment to world public, because it would confirm the SRT.
The lack of publication of results of direct experiments clearly indicate that the direct experiment refutes SRT.
This confirms the Master Theory and three experiments of Liangzao FAN.

Retrial would become control shot that finished SRT finally.

 

I do not follow the processes of science, but even a cursory glance is enough to see the evidence:

1. Dozens of smart people who have seen the falsity of SRT were fired from a science in Russia, according to the law, which did an academics that lobbied SRT.

2. The extermination of grupp of OPERA-experimenters.

Learned people will find a lot more egregious crimes against science and against scientists who accomplished the SRT-lobbyists.