Thread: Three Experiments Challenging SRT

1. Once again, chinglu demonstrates that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
If you have two frames L, L' and L' is in motion, L stationary, this is exactly equivalent to the converse: L is in motion and L' is stationary. Mixing frames means you do something like assume x in frame L is the same variable as x' in L', when obviously, it isn't, because L isn't equivalent (or equal) to L', even if their origins coincide (because, to paraphrase Einstein, that's only possible for an imaginary interval of time, so that simultaneity is us fooling ourselves that time really exists, we can synchronise clocks--but "when" do we do this??).

The reason for the above is simple: motion is relative. But (caveat!) it only applies to uniform (i.e. constant) motion and hence inertial frames.

2. I learned that in Europe, experiments were performed (two), which repeating Liangzao FAN's experiments.
And one experiment was implemented in the United States.
(At least: two and one, but maybe there were more.)

Why are the results of these experiments are not in print?

3. Let's look at the airport through binoculars.
We will see how airliner doing park, but hear the sound of its engines on approach to the airport.
We are not surprised that we have two types of coordinates: the ones that we see, and those that we hear.

Let's look at the stars through a telescope.
We know that the light from these stars came to us many years (maybe - a thousands years).
We understand that the star we can see where she was a year ago (or - for a thousands years ago).
That is again: we have two types of coordinates: the coordinates of the real and visible.

In Master Theory are two types of coordinates: the coordinates of the real and visible.

Actual coordinates an object take dictation to Galilean transformations, and not depend the properties of the electromagnetic wave.
The real coordinates can be computed as a result of double integration of acceleration of the object over time.
The acceleration in the Master Theory is absolute.

Visual coordinates an object arise when they are determined by analyzing the electromagnetic waves, which radiated by this object.

4. Originally Posted by chinglu
Please look at LT and prove your case.
I did exactly that here. You still haven't found an error.

A frame measures its own context and then LT translates this to the other frame coordinates.
Correct, more or less.

In short, you are frame mixing.
False. I gave everything in the unprimed frame and then calculated what was happening in the primed frame.

You must use your frame measurements and then use LT to translate.
That's exactly what I did. I started with a situation where an observer knew two travellers to be moving along the trajectories $x_{1} \,=\, vt \,+\, L$ and $x_{2} \,=\, vt$, so they're both moving with velocity v and are a distance $x_{1} \,-\, x_{2} \,=\, L$ apart. All of this is given in just one frame. Then I applied a Lorentz transform to find their trajectories in a boosted frame, and calculated that they were now a distance $x'_{1} \,-\, x'_{2} \,\equiv\, L' \,=\, \gamma L$. Again, this is all spelled out here.

5. Originally Posted by Masterov
I learned that in Europe, experiments were performed (two), which repeating Liangzao FAN's experiments.
And one experiment was implemented in the United States.
(At least: two and one, but maybe there were more.)

Why are the results of these experiments are not in print?
Why aren't you telling us how you learned of these experiments?

6. I get e-mail.

7. So you got e-mails tellling you that the experiment had been done, but they didn't sent the results?

Riight..........

8. I have not any promises for it.
And I am not a publisher of scientific journals.

9. Originally Posted by arfa brane
Once again, chinglu demonstrates that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
If you have two frames L, L' and L' is in motion, L stationary, this is exactly equivalent to the converse: L is in motion and L' is stationary. Mixing frames means you do something like assume x in frame L is the same variable as x' in L', when obviously, it isn't, because L isn't equivalent (or equal) to L', even if their origins coincide (because, to paraphrase Einstein, that's only possible for an imaginary interval of time, so that simultaneity is us fooling ourselves that time really exists, we can synchronise clocks--but "when" do we do this??).

The reason for the above is simple: motion is relative. But (caveat!) it only applies to uniform (i.e. constant) motion and hence inertial frames.
Mixing frames means you use the other frame's measurements to calculate your own measurements.

10. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
In practice that may be accurate. The case here is a hypothetical where the values in the "other" frame are given. In that situation the "other" frame can be treated, as known and the LT used to translate the other way.

Yes that was said very awkwardly. The point is przyk was working with the hypothetical as it had been presented. What it seems you are saying is that the hypotheical was set up in the wrong way or direction. Seems przyk began with a similar point of view and then applied the math to the situation as it was presented to him.

IOW The LT can be used to transform between any two inertial farms of reference, so long as one is fully known and the relative velocity or velocities of the two are known. Neither need be the rest frame of the observer. There are layers upon layers....
If you want to use the "other frame" you do that according to the rules of LT.

That has not been done here.

11. Originally Posted by przyk
I did exactly that here. You still haven't found an error.

Correct, more or less.

False. I gave everything in the unprimed frame and then calculated what was happening in the primed frame.

That's exactly what I did. I started with a situation where an observer knew two travellers to be moving along the trajectories $x_{1} \,=\, vt \,+\, L$ and $x_{2} \,=\, vt$, so they're both moving with velocity v and are a distance $x_{1} \,-\, x_{2} \,=\, L$ apart. All of this is given in just one frame. Then I applied a Lorentz transform to find their trajectories in a boosted frame, and calculated that they were now a distance $x'_{1} \,-\, x'_{2} \,\equiv\, L' \,=\, \gamma L$. Again, this is all spelled out here.
You mixed frames.

You must calculate x' in terms of x and t.

If your case, you must calculate L' according to t and L.

You did not do this.

12. The main statement of Master Theory reduces to the assertion that Coulomb's force depends on the speed and tends to zero when the velocity of a charged particle approaches the speed of light.

This theoretical conclusion is confirmed experimentally by Liangzao FAN.

COROLLARIES:

$\Delta E\neq e\Delta U$ for relativity.

$m\neq \frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$ for relativity.

$E\neq \frac{m_oc^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$ for relativity.

$TIME=absolute$ for relativity.

$SRT=rubbish$ for relativity.

13. Originally Posted by chinglu
You mixed frames.

You must calculate x' in terms of x and t.

If your case, you must calculate L' according to t and L.

You did not do this.
You're just spewing random bullshit at this stage. x' is already given in terms of x and t by the Lorentz transformation. I don't need to calculate something that is already given by relativity. I just need to apply it, which I did. The rest is just algebra.

Second, L' is the distance between two stationary travellers in their common rest frame. It doesn't change over time. That's why it doesn't depend on t.

Since you're obviously too lazy to click a hyperlink, here's the derivation you keep ignoring:
Originally Posted by przyk
From Masterov's problem, you can describe the travellers with the trajectories

$
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{1} &=& vt \,+\, L \,,
x_{2} &=& vt \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$

A Lorentz boost of velocity v along the x axis is:

$
\begin{eqnarray}
t' &=& \gamma ( t \,-\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x )
x' &=& \gamma ( x \,-\, v t ) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$

You can invert this (if you don't already know the answer) to get the inverse Lorentz boost:

$
\begin{eqnarray}
t &=& \gamma ( t' \,+\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x' )
x &=& \gamma ( x' \,+\, v t' ) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$

Substituting this into the travellers' trajectories, you get

$
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma( x'_{1} \,+\, v t' ) &=& \gamma v ( t' \,+\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x'_{1} ) \,+\, L \,,
\gamma( x'_{2} \,+\, v t' ) &=& \gamma v ( t' \,+\, \frac{v}{c^{2}} x'_{2} ) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$

Dividing both sides by $\gamma$ and collecting the xs on the left side gets you

$
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigl( 1 \,-\, \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}} \bigr) x'_{1} &=& L / \gamma \,,
\bigl( 1 \,-\, \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}} \bigr) x'_{2} &=& 0 \,,
\end{eqnarray}
$

and since $1 \,-\, v^{2}/c^{2} \,=\, 1 / \gamma^{2}$, the boosted trajectories work out to

$
\begin{eqnarray}
x'_{1} &=& \gamma L \,,
x'_{2} &=& 0 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$

As for the distance, $L' \,=\, x'_{1} \,-\, x'_{2} \,=\, \gamma L$.

So for this problem, $L' \,=\, \gamma L$, like I said right from the beginning.
Like they say, put up or shut up. Either point out a specific error in this derivation or stop baselessly denying the result.

14. Originally Posted by Masterov
The main statement of Master Theory reduces to the assertion that Coulomb's force depends on the speed and tends to zero when the velocity of a charged particle approaches the speed of light.

This theoretical conclusion is confirmed experimentally by Liangzao FAN.

COROLLARIES:

$\Delta E\neq e\Delta U$ for relativity.

$m\neq \frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$ for relativity.

$E\neq \frac{m_oc^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$ for relativity.

$TIME=absolute$ for relativity.

$SRT=rubbish$ for relativity.
We've been over this before. You rush to conclusions based on one badly written and unpublished paper apparently contradicting relativity, while ignoring the decades of results that got results in general agreement with relativity. The results reported by Lianzao Fan don't just contradict relativity. They also contradict the results and decades of general experience of the high energy physics community, who routinely work with relativistic particles. If you won't even pretend you care about that, then like AlphaNumeric says, rational scientific discussion with you is not going to be possible.

15. SRT is not a scientific theory but is a religious doctrine.
Constructive criticism SRT is not possible for this reason.

The absence of published of experiments, which repeating the experiment Liangzao FAN, points to the fact that scientific journals are controlled by people who are lobbying for SRT. (In Russia, this fact have the place to be as indisputable.)
These people to hamper the publications.

Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR passed laws that prohibit criticism of the SRT on three times. Dozens of smart people have been declared insane and was thrown out of the science by this law. Some of these people were forcibly placed in psychiatric hospitals in which these people brought to insanity with injections, pills and psychological pressure.

What kind of constructive criticism SRT may be in such circumstances?

16. Originally Posted by Masterov
SRT is not a scientific theory but is a religious doctrine.
Again, tell that to the people working in high energy physics, maintaining GPS, and maintaining electron microscopes and medical accelerators.

The absence of published of experiments, which repeating the experiment Liangzao FAN, points to the fact that scientific journals are controlled by people who are lobbying for SRT.
Like you've been told before, measuring the energies of relativistic particles is routine in high energy physics. From that point of view, Liangzao Fan's experiments have been "repeated" many times even before his experiments.

Simple question: if the relativistic energy formula is so wrong, why are high energy physicists routinely detecting relativistic particles with energies of MeVs and GeVs? According to the Newtonian energy formula $E_{k} \,=\, \frac{1}{2} m v^{2}$, the maximum kinetic energy of an electron moving at the speed of light is about 255 keV. So why did LEP routinely detect 45 GeV electrons and positrons?

Dozens of smart people have been declared insane and was thrown out of the science by this law. Some of these people were forcibly placed in psychiatric hospitals in which these people brought to insanity with injections, pills and psychological pressure.
Like who?

What kind of constructive criticism SRT may be in such circumstances?
Criticism that doesn't blindly ignore the the vast body of evidence supporting relativity and its applications. Criticism that recognises that evidence and those applications will have to be accounted for one way or another. Criticism that recognises that, if relativity is wrong in some way, it must still be an excellent approximation to reality in order to have worked so well for as long as it has. That sort of criticism of SRT is possible.

17. Originally Posted by przyk
SRT is not a scientific theory but is a religious doctrine.
Again, tell that to the people working in high energy physics, maintaining GPS, and maintaining electron microscopes and medical accelerators.
None of these devices no stoped, if it turns out that SRT was wrong.
The capacity for work of these devices is not proof of the validity SRT.

GPS satellites show no slowing of time.
Some of the clocks of the satellites in a hurry.
Other clock is slow.
Relativistic time dilation is not observed in any experiment.

18. Originally Posted by przyk
The absence of published of experiments, which repeating the experiment Liangzao FAN, points to the fact that scientific journals are controlled by people who are lobbying for SRT.
Like you've been told before, measuring the energies of relativistic particles is routine in high energy physics. From that point of view, Liangzao Fan's experiments have been "repeated" many times even before his experiments.

Simple question: if the relativistic energy formula is so wrong, why are high energy physicists routinely detecting relativistic particles with energies of MeVs and GeVs? According to the Newtonian energy formula , the maximum kinetic energy of an electron moving at the speed of light is about 255 keV. So why did LEP routinely detect 45 GeV electrons and positrons?
Huge energy be present at paper only.

19. Originally Posted by przyk
Dozens of smart people have been declared insane and was thrown out of the science by this law. Some of these people were forcibly placed in psychiatric hospitals in which these people brought to insanity with injections, pills and psychological pressure.
Like who?
I know of only fragmentary information and some numbers.

Only in a 1966 Department of General and Applied Physics, USSR Academy of Sciences declared insane 24 scientists who criticize the SRT.

Full information can not be in the public domain, because the criminals responsible for these crimes continue to hold authoritative positions in the Russian Academy of Sciences.

20. Originally Posted by przyk
What kind of constructive criticism SRT may be in such circumstances?
Criticism that doesn't blindly ignore the the vast body of evidence supporting relativity and its applications.
The evidence to which you refer, are indirect.
Unequivocal proof can be given only direct experiments.
Such experiments are implemented Liangzao FAN.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•