# Thread: Three Experiments Challenging SRT

1. Originally Posted by martillo
Well, arriving at an equation near to Einstein's equation: W= E=(m-m0)c2 where here m represents the "relativistic mass" varying with 1/sqrt(1-v2/c2). What does it means to you?
The mass defect in nuclear reactions should receive another (non relativist) explanation.

Master Theory is a small correction to Newtonian physics, which reconciles classical physics with the experiments of Michelson-Morley experiment.

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

Real coordinates are satisfy to Galilean transformations.

Relativistic effects are the visual effects.
Relativistic effects are physical phenomena.

In Master Theory are absolute: time, acceleration, strength and physical size of objects.
It does not depend on the speed.

2. SRT is basis of physics.
SRT was to refuted (experimentally and theoretically).
I am surprised at the silence that accompanies it is a watershed event.
It is possible that we observe a shock as a consequence shocks.

3. Originally Posted by Masterov
I am surprised at the silence that accompanies it is a watershed event.
There's silence because you haven't presented any proper evidence for your claims. Your attempts at theory are laughable and the experimental work you link to is of terrible quality and doesn't use any raw data from the accelerator.

As the whole "We've seen neutrinos go faster than light, contradicting Einstein!" thing last year shows, physicists are willing to discuss data which seems at odds with relativity. The fact there's no such discussion in regards to SLAC is because there's no such data in regards to SLAC.

4. I can not agree with you here.

The lack of experimental results in the literature clearly indicates that the experiment contradicts the SRT.
Mr. Liangzao FAN conducted a simple experiment confirms the above-said.

The experiment is very simple in really.
Enough to heat a piece of lead in a linear accelerator to make sure the bankruptcy SRT to have a place.

Mr. Liangzao FAN clearly showed by the experiment that the formula: $\Delta E=q\Delta U$ is not valid for relativistic charged particles.

Therefore approval of physicists that they were able to disperse the charged particles to energies measured GeV and (even more so) TeV is a lie.

Energy of the particles in the LHC beam is only slightly greater than it of the energy any most inexpensive particle accelerators.

This is a occasion for grand-scandal, since for the construction of the LHC have been spent a lot of money.
The fear of scandal is causes the physicists to do report about that does not exist in reality.
I mean the message that the physicists were able to obtain Higgs Boson.
As the whole "We've seen neutrinos go faster than light, contradicting Einstein!" thing last year shows, physicists are willing to discuss data which seems at odds with relativity. The fact there's no such discussion in regards to SLAC is because there's no such data in regards to SLAC.
I am convinced that neutrinos actually move faster than light.
OPERA experiments declared erroneous under the pressure of SRT lobby.
This lobby have a great resource that allows they to apply the methods of Medieval Inquisition in science.

5. Originally Posted by Masterov
I am convinced that neutrinos actually move faster than light.
I am convinced that you do not let reality get in the way of what you want to believe.

6. Originally Posted by origin
I am convinced that you do not let reality get in the way of what you want to believe.
Physical reality do not interfere .
Lobby is a hindrance.

7. Originally Posted by Masterov
Physical reality do not interfere .
Lobby is a hindrance.
The lobby is against crank nonsense. That's why you feel lobbied against. The lobby you IMAGINE doesn't exist. So you've been posting 'your theory which makes round filed predictions' at public science forums. How has that worked out? Any takers?

8. Originally Posted by brucep
The lobby is against crank nonsense. That's why you feel lobbied against. The lobby you IMAGINE doesn't exist. So you've been posting 'your theory which makes round filed predictions' at public science forums. How has that worked out? Any takers?

9. Originally Posted by Masterov
Your theory is round filed nonsense. All your dreams of glory are dashed. You should move on.

10. Originally Posted by Masterov
The lack of experimental results in the literature clearly indicates that the experiment contradicts the SRT.
What terrible logic you use. Do you honestly think that's a sound argument? Firstly it implies there's a global conspiracy, crossing national boundaries, that everyone with access to any kind of particle accelerator is in on. If only scientist were that collaborative! Secondly there are plenty of experiments which do test relativistic predictions about energy, mass, motion etc. If relativity weren't accurate we couldn't build accelerators as the acceleration behaviour of particles wouldn't be as expected and the design of the machines would be wrong.

Originally Posted by Masterov
Enough to heat a piece of lead in a linear accelerator to make sure the bankruptcy SRT to have a place.
Your sentence construction is not sufficiently good for that to make sense.

Originally Posted by Masterov
Mr. Liangzao FAN clearly showed by the experiment that the formula: $\Delta E=q\Delta U$ is not valid for relativistic charged particles.
Except he hasn't.

Originally Posted by Masterov
Therefore approval of physicists that they were able to disperse the charged particles to energies measured GeV and (even more so) TeV is a lie.
Do you live in some world filled with paranoia and conspiracies or something?

Originally Posted by Masterov
Energy of the particles in the LHC beam is only slightly greater than it of the energy any most inexpensive particle accelerators.
A claim which is demonstrably false. Relativity is used to predict the radiative energy produced by accelerating charged particles at near light speed around a circle. Accelerators are built to take that into account, it's the whole reason the LHC accelerates protons and not electrons! If relativity were wrong in the way you claim the LHC couldn't function. Furthermore there's more complicated tests of relativity. Scattering differential cross sections are calculated using Lorentz transformations. The high velocity means length contraction alters the charge density of the beam bunches, which alters the scattering behaviour of collisions. It's literally a homework problem for someone learning quantum field theory to calculate how Lorentz transforms impact on the predictions, as you can do the calculation using relativity or you can make the simplification of assuming everything follows Newton (ie time and space are absolute). Experiments confirm the relativistic predictions and falsify the Newtonian ones. As I said, this isn't some convoluted complicated model only a handful of people know and thus everyone else just takes their word for it, but rather something thousands of people learn every year in universities doing quantum field theory lecture courses. I know how to do such calculations! I know people who write papers where they compare such calculations to the real LHC data. There's no conspiracy, no hiding of truth, no lying about relativity, the models work.

Originally Posted by Masterov
This is a occasion for grand-scandal, since for the construction of the LHC have been spent a lot of money.
No, it isn't. It wouldn't be a scandal even if the LHC found nothing. CERN has spent considerable amounts of money advancing technology in the areas of distributed computing, low temperature electronics, superconductors, superfluids, high speed sensors, precision timing and more besides. They did that because the technology to build the LHC didn't exist when it was designed, CERN had to pay for the research to be done to make the LHC a reality. From those technologies new applications will follow. The internet developed from the rudimentary networking CERN developed to spread it's data around for researchers to examine. Even if CERN never found another particle again the fact it lead to the internet, a multi-trillion dollar global telecommunications and data processing system which has changed the face of human civilisation forever makes it worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Masterov
The fear of scandal is causes the physicists to do report about that does not exist in reality.
I have met the person who was head of the LHC research division. He likes to tell a story about how when LEP was being built Margaret Thatcher visited CERN and when she met him she asked "What do you do here?" and he replied "I try to find things theorists don't want to find". He considered it his job to find faults in models, to highlight where science is mistaken and to then try to understand it.

I've told you before, every single physicist would LOVE to prove relativity wrong if it's wrong, if they had irrefutable evidence. It would make their name forever! The man (or woman) who corrected Einstein, Dirac, Hawking? Eternal fame! And this whole "Oh they might lose their job!" thing is nonsense too. The person who kills relativity will have grants coming out of their ears. Fame and fortune the likes of which science has never seen before! Plus when a paradigm is knocked over it gives everyone a chance to make a name for themselves by building the replacement. So there is no incentive for people not to kill special relativity if they can prove it wrong, in fact there's every incentive to yell it from the roof tops. I know I would. But only provided real viable evidence was there, not just ignorant conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by Masterov
I mean the message that the physicists were able to obtain Higgs Boson.
You're now into the realms of denying demonstrable fact. You're sounding insane.

Originally Posted by Masterov
I am convinced that neutrinos actually move faster than light.
And some people are convinced Jesus speaks to them in their dreams. In both their case and yours evidence is everything. Everything. And you have none.

Originally Posted by Masterov
OPERA experiments declared erroneous under the pressure of SRT lobby.
This lobby have a great resource that allows they to apply the methods of Medieval Inquisition in science.
Paranoid delusions. You're providing nothing but paranoid ignorant delusions.

11. Originally Posted by Masterov
In Master Theory are absolute: time, acceleration, strength and physical size of objects.
It does not depend on the speed.
Master Theory couldn't determine that there is absolute time and be correct. I checked the link you gave and determined that H is the same as distance. In SR the velocity of light is assumed to be the classical notion of v=d/t. Then c=d/t, but in order for all observers to measure c to be the same constant they have to have different values for distance and time. So then H or the distance the photon was measured to travel would then be H=ct. In no way do I see a way that H should be distinguished differently than the distance a photon has traveled. So then, H=L in MT. So then if you say c=H'/T in MT you would get the wrong answer for the speed of light. The distance has changed but time has not, so then at any speed other than rest when H'=H you would get a different value for c because the ratio is no longer the same. So then it wouldn't conform to experiment of the constant velocity of light.

12. Originally Posted by brucep
Your theory is round filed nonsense. All your dreams of glory are dashed. You should move on.
No arguments here.

13. Originally Posted by Prof.Layman
Master Theory couldn't determine that there is absolute time and be correct. I checked the link you gave and determined that H is the same as distance. In SR the velocity of light is assumed to be the classical notion of v=d/t. Then c=d/t, but in order for all observers to measure c to be the same constant they have to have different values for distance and time. So then H or the distance the photon was measured to travel would then be H=ct. In no way do I see a way that H should be distinguished differently than the distance a photon has traveled. So then, H=L in MT. So then if you say c=H'/T in MT you would get the wrong answer for the speed of light. The distance has changed but time has not, so then at any speed other than rest when H'=H you would get a different value for c because the ratio is no longer the same. So then it wouldn't conform to experiment of the constant velocity of light.
I not able translate it from English.

14. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
The lack of experimental results in the literature clearly indicates that the experiment contradicts the SRT.
What terrible logic you use. Do you honestly think that's a sound argument? Firstly it implies there's a global conspiracy...
Global conspiracy?

Ìay be, may be...
I'm not sure.

15. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Enough to heat a piece of lead in a linear accelerator to make sure the bankruptcy SRT to have a place.
Your sentence construction is not sufficiently good for that to make sense.
Why?

If $\Delta E=e\Delta U$ then temperature of piece of lead will rise ($\Delta T\sim\Delta U$) in the case of relativistic electrons.

Liangzao FAN experiment that temperature of piece of lead cease rise in the case of relativistic electrons.

Liangzao FAN experiment unambiguously point to falsehood of $\Delta E=e\Delta U$ in the case of relativistic electrons.

16. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Mr. Liangzao FAN clearly showed by the experiment that the formula: is not valid for relativistic charged particles.
Except he hasn't.
Yes.

Mr. Liangzao FAN - be first to do publication.
But his experiments are not first.
Similar experiments to made many times.
If these experiments confirmed SRT then these experiments was published, doesn't it?
The absence of such publications clearly indicates that refutes experiment SRT.

What other reason for the lack of publication of these experiments exist?

17. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Energy of the particles in the LHC beam is only slightly greater than it of the energy any most inexpensive particle accelerators.
A claim which is demonstrably false. Relativity is used to predict the radiative energy produced by accelerating charged particles at near light speed around a circle. Accelerators are built to take that into account, it's the whole reason the LHC accelerates protons and not electrons! If relativity were wrong in the way you claim the LHC couldn't function. Furthermore there's more complicated tests of relativity. Scattering differential cross sections are calculated using Lorentz transformations. The high velocity means length contraction alters the charge density of the beam bunches, which alters the scattering behaviour of collisions. It's literally a homework problem for someone learning quantum field theory to calculate how Lorentz transforms impact on the predictions, as you can do the calculation using relativity or you can make the simplification of assuming everything follows Newton (ie time and space are absolute). Experiments confirm the relativistic predictions and falsify the Newtonian ones. As I said, this isn't some convoluted complicated model only a handful of people know and thus everyone else just takes their word for it, but rather something thousands of people learn every year in universities doing quantum field theory lecture courses. I know how to do such calculations! I know people who write papers where they compare such calculations to the real LHC data. There's no conspiracy, no hiding of truth, no lying about relativity, the models work.
I mean the message that the physicists were able to obtain Higgs Boson.
You're now into the realms of denying demonstrable fact. You're sounding insane.
...
I was looking for any scientific arguments, but I did not find it here.

18. Originally Posted by Masterov
I not able translate it from English.
Absolute time is a no, no. You need to think in spacetime, not space and time as two words. They both only need one Lorentz to measure speed of light. It does not mean that only space or time has dialation. They have to dilate together.

19. Originally Posted by Masterov
Global conspiracy?

Ìay be, may be...
I'm not sure.
Then you're a delusional nut. Some scientists can't get on with the people they share an office with or their PhD students, yet you're claiming the entire particle physics community, across Europe, America, Asia, Australia, Russia, across all national boundaries like the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, even Iran, across all ages and ethnic backgrounds, across tens, even hundreds of thousands of people for almost a century have been in a perfect conspiracy of silence? That's insane. The US department of defence can't keep their emails secret, despite having the largest, most powerful, most funded security agency in the history of Man, yet academics doing particle physics have a global, century old perfect conspiracy which siphons billions of dollars out of the public purse?

You are insane.

20. Originally Posted by Prof.Layman
Absolute time is a no, no.
Unsubstantiated statement.

No exist direct experiment that would prove the possibility of time dilation.

#### Posting Permissions

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