# Master Theory (edition 3)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Masterov, Apr 21, 2012.

1. ### MasterovRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
728
I'm looking for it a few years already.

Last edited: Apr 25, 2012

3. ### MasterovRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
728
Any materials which contrary to SRT prohibited to publish in Russia.

5. ### BelieveHappy mediumValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,194
Then publish it somewhere else either way stop posting it here. No one agrees with you or cares, nor can we do anything about it even if we did.

7. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedModerator

Messages:
6,697
You cannot prove a negative in physics because you cannot exhaustively test all possible situations. However, all particle experiments done to date show the behaviour of particles, both in terms of their velocity dependent decay rates and their momentum-energy relationships, to fall in line with special relativity.

False, we can track their motion in calorimeters in colliders.

Physicists don't exclude such possibilities. The recent widely reported (but now confirmed to be an experimental mistake) measuring of faster than light neutrinos, despite them having non-zero positive masses, shows experiments do look at such properties to check.

A complete and utter fabrication. You have absolutely no evidence for that. As the neutrino experiment I just mentioned shows, experiments which are done rigorously and which contradict special relativity DO get published. Being published doesn't mean "The mainstream community considers this absolutely and irrefutably true". The neutrino experimentalists published the work because they wanted outside help to understand it, to check their methods and conclusions.

Your opinion isn't worth a single ruble then. You don't get to make up your own definitions for words. It is scientific because it makes testable predictions from a logically derived set of conclusions developed from clearly stated axioms. Even if it's predictions were to be false it wouldn't stop being scientific. We know Newton's models are all wrong on some level of another but they are still valid science. However, that's assuming special relativity contradicts experiments, which it doesn't. And as for common sense, that's a terrible guide. Most people don't even have common sense, never mind have good sense when it comes to science. If you had actually been involved in any real worthwhile research you'd have learnt that a lay person's common sense is not a good guide to understanding the real world.

Saying "I believe special relativity to be an accurate and highly useful model of reality" isn't a religious belief. Religion works on faith, which is the 'excuse' people give when they don't have evidence. You don't need faith to say SR is good science, it's a demonstrated fact that SR is good science. And before you jump up and down and say "Look, look, you just said SR is a fact!! Religious dogma!", please note that I didn't say that at all.

Besides, let's consider your approach. You have no experimental data for your claims, just like a creationist. You have no understanding of the science, just like a creationist. You have deliberately refused to accept any evidence or rationale beyond a preset narrow minded requirement which you base on ignorance, just like creationist Kent Hovind and his \$250,000 challenge.

If you were truly open minded, honest and scientific you'd actually learn something about SR before dismissing it and you'd realise there's more ways to test the predictions of SR than the one and only way you're demanding is provided to you. As such you are being staggeringly hypocritical when you complain others are being religiously dogmatic. Science is moving along, exploring, experimenting and examining, and you're refusing to listen to anything which isn't what you want to hear.

You've invented your own little paranoid world of conspiracies, all in an effort to avoid facing up to the fact your claims are laughable and your knowledge non-existent. You need to stop blaming other people for your lack of achievement, it's you who is the issue here, not some shadowy conspiracy.

8. ### MasterovRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
728
Publishers do not agree with me too.
As you are here.
And no one is trying to challenge mathematics of my first four positions here.
As you are here.
Everyone says that SRT is confirmed by experiment, but no one proves this by experiment of calorimeter.
As you are here.
Publishers behave as non-scientists, but - as religious fanatics.
As you are here.
Publishers offer the look for another publisher.
As you are here.

In order to prove the validity of SRT is sufficient to give conclusive proof that the accelerator could accelerate electrons to energies much larger than a quarter of MeV.
Ie: no need MeV, GeV and TeV.
If you are able to disperse an electron to energies 260KeV - you conclusively prove SRT:
$\frac{m_ec^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}-m_ec^2$ $>$ $\frac{m_ec^2}{2}=255KeV$

$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}-1$ $=$ $\frac{1}{2}$
$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$ $=$ $\frac{3}{2}$
$1-v^2/c^2$ $=$ $\frac{4}{9}$
$v^2/c^2$ $=$ $1-\frac{4}{9}$
$v^2/c^2$ $=$ $\frac{5}{9}$
$v/c$ $=$ $\frac{sqrt{5}}{3}=0.745$

In other words: it is enough to do velocity of the electron 0.8c and measure its energy by the calorimeter to get the answer to the question: is SRT valid?

Last edited: Apr 27, 2012
9. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedModerator

Messages:
6,697
Firstly simply don't that wouldn't 'prove' special relativity. You cannot prove a model, you can only demonstrate it's approximate validity in certain situations. Secondly colliders DO accelerate electrons through more than 0.25MeV. They go into the TRILLIONS! And the motion of the particles and their decay rates and their energy-momentum relationship is precisely as predicted by special relativity and quantum field theory.

The experiments you claim haven't been done HAVE been done. The fact you refuse to accept that doesn't magically bend reality to your whims.

10. ### MasterovRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
728
You have TRILLIONS energy on paper only.
You have no more than 0.255MeV in the calorimeter.
No more than.

Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
11. ### MasterovRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
728
The resolution of your instrument is not possible to measure the transit time $2,9 10^{-13}c$.

12. ### MasterovRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
728
Yes, if did not measure energy by a calorimeter.

13. ### MasterovRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
728
SRT do exclude such possibilities.

14. ### MasterovRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
728
MT and SRT predict all the effects of the same, except for the effects in the calorimeter.
Theories differ in the interpretations.
For example: SRT contends that the tau lepton have slowing down time.
MT - tau lepton is moving faster than light.

15. ### BelieveHappy mediumValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,194
Yep, keep posting on sciforums and claim your place in physics history LOL

16. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedModerator

Messages:
6,697
Yes but that doesn't mean physicists don't check. All the stuff in the news about neutrinos last year shows that physicists still compute what results would happen if special relativity were violated and then look for it in experiments.

You seem to think that physicists say "Special relativity says nothing goes faster than light, therefore nothing goes faster than light and we never need to check". Physicists check all the time. Experimentalists would LOVE to find evidence SR is wrong, it would be a Nobel Prize winning result.

Another claim you don't only not have evidence for but there's evidence against! Scattering processes and synchrotron radiation depends on the motion of the particles, allowing us several independent ways to measure the motion and energy of the particles in an accelerator.

Can you do something other than make false claims about physicists and whine about conspiracies which don't exist?

17. ### MasterovRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
728
I know of four ways of measuring the energy of relativistic particles:

1. By velocity: $E=m_oc^2/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$
2. By summ: $E=\Sigma e\Delta U_i$
3. By radius of the trajectory of a charged particle in a magnetic field: $E=ReHc^2/v$
4. By measuring the energy in the calorimeter.

The first three methods are computed by formulas SRT or - according to the formulas of classical electrostatics.
They all give the same result, but this result is not correct:
1. Prove the validity of SRT, by SRT's formula is not valid.
2. The use of formulas of classical electrostatics in the relativistic electrodynamics is not valid also.

The fourth method gives different results from the first three.
The fourth method is correct only.
Measurements of the energy in the calorimeter are valid only.
The results of these measurements do not coincide with the results of the first three methods.
This is the reason absent any publications of these experiments.
It is for this reason these results are not available in the literature.
Conspiracies?

I have not talked about a conspiracies.
I'm not whine about a conspiracies.
You were talking about a conspiracies the first time.

SRT has strong support in the scientific community.
It is a fact.
SRT-lobby has a huge overbearing resource.
The theory of flat earth had less support in Middle Ages.
Both theories (SRT and the flat-earth theory) have identical methods of protected.
You no burned a scientists yet, but prohibits publication without explanation.
For example, in scienceforums.net my topic was removed without any explanation.
Publishers politely suggest look for another publisher, which will undertake to publish.
Nobody argues with mathematics.
You behave like religious fanatics.

Last edited: Apr 29, 2012
18. ### BelieveHappy mediumValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,194
So let me get this straight. Everyone you pitch this to tells you you're wrong. Every journal you submit this to tells you you're wrong, but somehow all of them are wrong and you are right. You realize that SR actually has experimental evidence in favor of it by way of the fact that GPS satellites require time correction due to the speed with which they travel around the earth, right (among others)? But yet you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Just because you don't get it doesn't make it wrong.

Last edited: Apr 29, 2012
19. ### MasterovRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
728
1. No every.
2. No tells. (Journals refuse publication without explanation.)
Realize?
But I don't think so.

All relativist effects been expel from all computation of GPS satellites.
I - one?
But he been - one - too:

I - not sole who require the experimental confirmation for SRT.

A religious fanatics of science - many.

Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
20. ### BelieveHappy mediumValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,194
Since you wanna bring up Galileo and you seem to think your math skills are pretty good I've got a challenge for you. Accurately calculate the observed orbit of Mercury without using special relativity and carry that orbit out over 100 years. Show your work.

Also, the only reason that GPS satellites are currently free from relativistic effects is because they account for them, not because they are not there.

Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
21. ### BelieveHappy mediumValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,194
Actually let me be more specific. What I am looking for is the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit in arcseconds/century.

22. ### MasterovRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
728
Maybe you want me to do repairs in your apartment?

23. ### BelieveHappy mediumValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,194
I'm not the one trying to disprove Einstein here pal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so this is sort of thing that it requires. Are you saying you are incapable? Try doing it with your own theory and see how far off you are, go on I'll wait.