Master Theory (edition 2)

Apparently not everyone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You guys are really confusing Masterov!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yea, actually after my last post I remembered we were talking "Master Theory" not SR. Just a little off topic....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The formula:
\(m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\)
is no valid? When did this happen?

Find for Google picture by "relativistic mass" phrase. You will see this formula in the galore (en masse).

This formula was valid 30 years ago. This (supposedly unlimited) increase was cause for growth of energy and momentum of a relativistic particles. That mass increase was cause to the growth of the radius of the trajectory of relativistic particles in cyclotrons.

\(R=\frac{p}{qB}=\frac{m_0v}{qB\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\)

This cyclotron radius no grow today? How did this happen?


Well, well. Ok!

\(p=mv=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}v\) - valid?

\(E = mc^2=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2\) - valid?

 

Basically, m has to be invariant because it is the norm of the energy momentum 4 vector: \(m^2 = \eta^{a b} p_a p_b = E^2 - p^2\). That means m is invariant under Lorentz transformations and therefore cannot depend on v. What you are calling \(m = \gamma m_0\) is a funny and not very useful measurement of the energy.

 

This is not any answer to my questions.
I expect answers.
___________________________

Master Theory prove un-valid of \(E = mc^2=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2\).

I'm looking for an experimental confirmation of this expression a few years.

I need reliable experimental results of the direct (from calorimeter) measurement of actual energy of the relativistic particles.

Help me find them, please.

 

Masterov, when the terms "relativistic and inertial mass" were first used there was far less information available about particle physics. They are not used so much any longer. Yes you will find them on Google and even Wiki but both will also discuss many other things that are no longer considered accurate definitions.

I am not sure it is really the math that is tripping you up in this instance. It is the concept behind those old definitions or terms. Try to think of relativistic mass as increasing inertia, as in increasing resistance to further acceleration. The faster you go the more resistance there is to going even faster. So at some point it begins to take an "exponentially" increasing amount of energy to go faster yet. (here exponentially is something of an exaggeration, but the point is it takes more than it did at a slower velocity.)

Once an object, a particle is moving near c, it essentially holds all that extra energy as momentum, kind of, while its, invariant rest mass remains constant.

This is not an exact description of what is happening but it is difficult to talk about the conceptual aspects without the math.., and yet without the conceptual basis the math does not always seem to say the same thing.

 

I so think already.
I always thought so.
Today - too.
My meditations is not important.
The important thing is what gives the experiment.
The experiment let measure the energy and momentum of a relativistic particle.
The experiment let determine truth of the expression:

\(p=mv=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}v\)

\(E = mc^2=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2\)

Master Theory indicates the falsity of these expressions.
If the experiment demonstrate truth of these expressions, then these experimental data have been everywhere published. (Pornographic magazines - inclusive.)
You stubbornly refuse to provide experimental confirmation of these expressions.
Thus you confirm that the experiment shows the falsity of these expressions.
Your misdealing is the basis to suspect and accuse you of falsehood.
Any scientist has no right to lie in science.
You are not scientists.
You're lying.

 

Exaggerate much?

You stubbornly refuse to look for them.

http://physics.dickinson.edu/~dept_web/activities/papers/relativity.pdf

First hit when you Google for 'relativistic mass, experiment'. It's an experiment students do, because it's so basic. It works on much the same principle as modern accelerators, bending particle paths via magnetic fields. If the relativistic formulae weren't very close to right we wouldn't be able to build working accelerators based on relativity.

Your logic is terrible. You have a conclusion and you're not waiting for or finding evidence, you're just leaping to the conclusion you want. It took 4 seconds for me to find that example of experiments about relativistic mass. Why couldn't you find that yourself? Why do you demand other people do things you're either too lazy or too dishonest to do?

Why haven't you got yourself some data about accelerators and analysed it using your own model? There's plenty of material available online about how accelerators work, such as their magnetic fields, their energies, their timings, their radiation braking issues. All of it can be found on websites or in journals or books. Yes, you may have to pay a bit of money for some stuff but that's life.

You accuse us of lying but all you've done is presuppose your own conclusions. That is lying, that is a cardinal sin in science. To lead the evidence, rather than to be lead by the evidence, is the sort of things which gets people fired from research jobs. In medicine you can be stripped of your license if you did such a thing in a clinical trial. You are the one being dishonest here. You have access to Google, you simply haven't used it and to compound your dishonest you're just making up things.

The person with the least right to refer to themselves as a scientist here appears to be you.

 

Nuu ... Yes - exaggerating.

I'm right in fact.

You (stubbornly) give me not what is necessary.

The results of this experiment can be interpreted otherwise: the radius of the trajectory increases due to slow down increase of Lorentz force.
This experiment does not prove fact of increase of relativist mass.

Einstein's theory poorly approximates the experiment. But this theory approximates. This allows you to build accelerators. The quality of these accelerators match the quality of approximation.

You give me not what is necessary.

I need reliable experimental results of the direct (from calorimeter) measurement of actual energy of the relativistic particles.

These experiments were performed many times, but the results of these experiments can not get into print, because they are contrary to Einstein's theory.

I suggest you find reliable experimental results of the direct (from calorimeter) measurement of actual energy of the relativistic particles. (I failed to do so.)

I agree with you. But your word is no excuse for fraud in science.

EMW have light speed.
EMW can not overclock mass faster than light.
The experiment:

\(p=mv=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}v\)

\(E = mc^2=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2\)

is false and you know it. If you are an honest man, why do not you talk about it.

An accountant has the right to call themselves an accountant? Is it presumptuous?

If an accountant steals money, it is still considered to be an accountant? Maybe it properly be called her a thief?

Is a scientist an honest man, if money is spent on the experiment and to do downright lie for public?

 

So you honestly think pornographic magazines would publish the results?

Sure. Any experiment can be interpreted differently. The question is whether a single model can provide accurate interpretations for all relevant experiments. That's the point of unifying models, so you end up with less explaining more.

Experiments never prove models. However, it does demonstrate that such a conclusion about the behaviour of mass at relativistic speeds is a justifiable one.

Using accelerators we have measured the accuracy of quantum electrodynamics, which includes both quantum mechanics and special relativity, to parts per trillion. It is the most accurate and precisely tested model in human history.

As such I'd say that's a pretty good approximation.

What is necessary is you getting 4~10 years of physics education.

Prove your assertion they are contrary to special relativity. I've worked with people who do analysis of experimental data from accelerators, the data does not contradict relativity.

Do you think there's a massive conspiracy to suppress information or something? It would have to include every single particle physicist in the world. For example, I didn't do experimental particle physics but I have worked along side people who have, I've seen their data, their computer programs, their calculations, their publications. As such if you think they are involved in a conspiracy then you must think I am too.

You suggest I find it? Sorry Chuckles but you're the one making assertions about all this. I don't have to do anything. I paid attention in school, I learnt some physics. If you're either too lazy or too incompetent to find the information I'm not going to help you. Get a journal subscription. Or better yet, get a physics degree, a particle physics PhD and then a research position at an accelerator facility doing collider physics and then you can see the data for yourself!

There isn't the conspiracy of silence you're implying. Your evidence-less claims about fraud are themselves dishonest. You have an axe to grind and you're fabricating justifications. You suck at physics, I get it. Unfortunately you need to learn to accept the reason you're getting nowhere is because you suck at physics and you lie, not because there's some elaborate conspiracy against you.

Because I'm paid $500,000 a year to suppress the truth, along with the tens, even hundreds of thousands of particle physics PhDs like me. Opps! I shouldn't have said that, if only I could edit this post!

There isn't a conspiracy of silence. There isn't suppression of evidence. You're just too incompetent to find it yourself. Rather than being honest and saying "I couldn't find it therefore I don't know what the evidence says" you're saying "I couldn't find it therefore it's exactly what I claim it is and it's being suppressed". Here is an index of pretty much every experimental particle physics paper from the last 17 years. There's tons of data there. If you're unable to understand it that doesn't mean it's wrong or a lie, it's means you're insufficiently educated.

By what criteria would you consider yourself to be a scientist?

If someone accuses an honest accountant of stealing does that make the accountant a thief?

What do you call someone who rants about conspiracies against him for which he has no evidence?

 

Really! $500,000 a year... And how much then for your day job?

I did pretty well in business and there is a forty year difference in the time frames, starting out.., but that's a chunk of change Alpha.

 

I don't mean my day job pays that (that's easily more than a decade's worth of salary to me!), my involvement in a massive global conspiracy to suppress the truth of Einstein being incorrect pays it. After all, when you're part of a conspiracy spanning countries, continents, governments, religions and ideologies it's easy to lay your hands on massive of money. Masterov's fantasy world pays pretty well!

 

The validity of expressions:

\(p=mv=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}v\)

\(E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2\)

can clearly demonstrate a direct measurement of the energy and momentum of the relativistic particles. The experiments were conducted such, but the results of these experiments is not public print. The only justification for it: are a contradiction of these experiments to Einstein's theory.

Russian Academy of Sciences three times makes a decision that prohibits the publication of scientific papers, if they contradict Einstein's theory. I suspect that such bans exist not only in Russia.

Europe spent a lot of money for the construction of LHC. (Other countries are spending money to build a large accelerators, too.) If I will be right, this would mean that the LHC (and others) was vain built. This may be the cause of big scandal. Exist are people who are not interested in such scandal. These people have an interest to hide the truth.

Destroy my suspicions. It's done simply. It's enough to publish experiments that directly (of calorimeter) measured the energy and momentum of the relativistic particles.

If you look closely at the derivation of Master Theory, you will notice that the Master Theory comes from the same initial postulates. Master Theory gives absoluteness to time, but Einstein's gives absoluteness to cross-scale.

In cases where time dilation in the coordinate frame of a relativistic particle does not apparent, the equations of Master Theory and Einstein's theory of differences have not. Both theories will provide a good approximation in these cases.

Einstein's expressions:

\(p=mv=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}v\)

\(E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2\)

for Master Theory has classical form:

\(p=m_oV\)

\(E = \frac{m_oV^2}{2}+Const\)

Experiment (of direct measurement of the energy and momentum of the relativistic particles) let determine truth of these expressions.

I'm not interested in knowledge that is built on lies and I am quite familiar with this knowledge, to see lie of them.

Einstein's false was causal for that my big difficulty and I could not finish the construction of another theory ten years ago.

I managed to build a model of "Generator of Matter". Attempts to generalize this model in Minkowski space engendered nonsense. Today I understand why I am had big difficulty ten years ago.

If the data (which I'm looking for) have been published (someplace), then I would have found them. I would do not invited you do search for them.

I wanted to you see for yourself that the experimental results of direct measurements of energy and momentum of relativistic particles in the press there be absent.

Accusations of incompetence in his address, I hear not the first time of some years. But no one (of accusers) has yet proved these (unsupported by evidence) allegations. Despite the fact that it's easy to do. It's enough to publish experiments that directly (of calorimeter) measured the energy and momentum of the relativistic particles.

1. I studied to be a scientist.

2. I've been doing this job since 1986.

3. I want to know the truth.

4. I do not lie.

An honest man does not lie. If a man lies, he can not be an honest man. It's obvious.

You are participating in concealment and forgery. You are not an honest man. I have proof of these accusations: you suppress publish experimental results of the direct (from calorimeter) measurement of actual energy of the relativistic particles.

You are not a scientist. You suck at physics only.

1. I would call that person crazy.

2. I'm not accusing anyone in conspiracies against personally me here.

It's simply prove. It's enough to publish experiments that directly (of calorimeter) measured the energy of the relativistic particles.

What prevents you from doing so?

 

This is trending more toward a Conspiracy thread instead of a Silly Unsubstantiated Theory thread.

 

Or rather the information is in journals and available to researchers. Since you won't pay for journals and you're too incompetent to be a physicist you don't have access to the data.

The data from places like the LHC rubs into the thousands of petabytes. Dedicated supercomputing networks have been built, linking locations across the world, to handle the data. Even if you had access to it you wouldn't know the first thing to do with it.

Provide evidence, otherwise you sound like a paranoid nut.

You can 'suspect' all you like, but you have no evidence. In fact recently there's been a lot of talk about how neutrinos might have been observed contradicting Einstein. It wasn't suppressed, it became one of the most talked about things in physics for years!

Paranoid delusions without evidence. In fact it contradicts evidence. Already the LHC has produced data which has been of use to physics. If the LHC demonstrated relativity is wrong then it would be a bigger contribution to physics than anything it was deliberately built for.

Disproving relativity would make someone's career. It would make them the most famous physicist since Einstein himself. If I could prove relativity wrong I'd not suppress it, quite the opposite.

Knocking over well established models is the fastest way to become famous, get a job for life, get tons of awards and be remembered forever in science. And yet you claim that everyone in the particle physics community is involved in a conspiracy where they give up all of that?

If you think we're all greedy and looking out for ourselves it would be in my interest to expose the conspiracy. It's basic game theory, like the prisoners dilemma, there would be no reason for me not to defect.

I just did. Anyone involved in such a conspiracy would have more to gain by revealing it. Your claims imply there's tens, even hundreds, of thousands of people involved. No one has 'defected', despite there being no reason not to and plenty of reasons to do so. Your claims fail in the face of basic human nature.

Which would involve petabytes of data. The ATLAS detector produces 100GB of data A SECOND.

In other words you take the Newtonian approximation of relativity.

You aren't interested in knowledge full stop.

Because you don't know any physics?

The hep-ex section of ArXiv illustrates just how much experimental data there is. The raw data isn't given, as it is simply too large to publish in print, but its available to researchers in universities. I know because I've worked along side a number of them.

You haven't proven any of your accusations about suppression, conspiracies, lies, frauds. You're just hurling out fabrications you have no evidence for.

You clearly don't know the amount of data involved. As I said, we're talking thousands of petabytes of raw data. The raw data is not literally printed in journals, it's kept on servers and is available to those who are doing actual research into this stuff. If you could get yourself a particle physics job then you'd be able to get access to it.

Did you actually get to become a scientist? And what do you mean 'studied'? Do you mean you have a science related degree? Masters? PhD?

What job?

And yet you have no interest in being honest and listening to evidence, instead you make suppositions and lead the evidence.

Then you are not an honest man.

Your proof is you don't have access to it? That isn't proof of concealment, it's proof you have not advanced far enough in physics research to be allowed access to raw experimental data. If you had gotten a physics degree, PhD and then a research position you'd be allowed access to it. Presently you lack the knowledge and ability to understand the data.

I have a physics PhD and a research job. I'm more of a scientist than you.

Then you admit you're crazy.

 

I answered a questions only.

And I expect that will be published data of experiments that directly measured (of calorimeter) the energy of a relativistic particles.

 

You are the one with the Alternative Theory! You supply the data that supports YOUR theory. If you cannot do that then why should we even consider your theory?

 

You keep asking for evidence based on calorimeter measurements of relativistic particles. You should understand that as a result of the scales involved in the technologies that is not currently possible. Relativistic subatomic particles are difficult and in most cases impossible to measure directly. Calorimeters measure change directly, as heat or some other direct measure of change.

If you have any reference to a Calorimeter that functions directly at a subatomic scale please provide a link.

 

Modern detectors can follow individual particles, because they produce significant numbers of ionised particles as they blast through detectors. Different materials 'block' different particles in different amounts so we can tell a muon from an electron.

Masterov, I told you, the raw data is petabytes of information. You're not going to find that on some website. The hep-ex section of www.arxiv.org has plenty of summaries of experiments from all the detectors in the world, you seem to be refusing to even look there.

The fact is you have no evidence for your deranged conspiracy delusions, you're just looking for an excuse why you've failed to accomplish anything in physics. I don't find it surprising in the slightest you refused to answer my question about what you actually have done in regards to being a scientist. You obviously know you've backed yourself into a corner, else you'd try to answer my questions. Instead you ignore them, showing to everyone you don't want to admit the answers.