SR is dead.

[chinglu]

How do you navigate the internet if you can't read and don't look at links? Read the post and I link to the paper! It explicitly says "The pdf can be found here"and 'here' is a link.

Since anything more subtle is beyond your comprehension here is the direct link :

http://nongeometric.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/sr2.pdf

You have 3 posts from now to reply to it.

I read that but it is not valuable.

You made the obvious observation that t'2 < t'1 and |x'2| < |x'1|.

But, what you did not address is after further propagation of the light wave in the unprimed frame, then the light like space time interval as measured from the origins is invariant.

That means (t,x,y,z) iff (t',x',y',z'). You cannot escape this truth.

If the space time interval as measured from the origins is invariant, that means the SLW moved closer to the primed origin which contradicts the light postulate in the primed frame.

Any defense you take must refute the invariance of the space time interval as measured from the origins.

 

[chinglu]

I don't think he did, either. I think he intentionally overlooked the content. He's simply ignoring the overwhelming evidence against him, and doing his usual "haha, I win" non sequitur routine.

He's a troll, in other words. Ban or GTFO (IMO).

Wrong, I will try to answer any intelligent question.

You have yet to have one.

 

[chinglu]

Absolutely right. A troll that pollutes the forum.

nosce animum tuum

 

[Tach]

nosce animum tuum

I know my soul, it doesn't tolerate polluting trolls.

 

[chinglu]

AN, many sorries.

I failed to thank you for opening the thread, so I am in error.

But, thanks.

 

[chinglu]

I know my soul, it doesn't tolerate polluting trolls.

Oh, that imples you can prove why the application of the Kleene recursion theorem is false along the line y=10 which refutes SR.

But, if you refute the Kleene recursion theorem, then you refute set theory.

So, what is your answer?

 

[Tach]

Oh, that imples you can prove why the application of the Kleene recursion theorem is false along the line y=10 which refutes SR.

I can prove that you are trolling. Again.

 

[chinglu]

I can prove that you are trolling. Again.

You have the post to deal with. Otherwise, declare defeat and withdraw in dishonor.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Chinglu you have not shown where my algebra is wrong. I demonstrate that the points map to one aand only one point each and that we expect , nay require, that for large enough v the order changes. Last chance, point to the explicit line of work and demonstrate it invalid or this thread is going back to locked and you're banned for at least several days.

You demand people respond yet you fail to step up. This is trolling and is not contributing.

 

[funkstar]

I think he intentionally overlooked the content. He's simply ignoring the overwhelming evidence against him, and doing his usual "haha, I win" non sequitur routine.

I read that but it is not valuable.

Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!

Really, the swifter the banhammer is wielded to bring righteous expulsion of this waste of bandwidth the better.

 

[Masterov]

Still harping on "relativity is wrong"?

Rlativity is no wrong. Rlativity is true. But SR is wrong.

 

[Tach]

Rlativity is no wrong. Rlativity is true. But SR is wrong.

Prove it.

 

[Masterov]

Prove it.

1. Note that the Lorentz transformations in the transverse extent are absolute (y '= y, z' = z). Why did Einstein transverse scale did absolute? On what basis did he do it? Are justified it? No!

2. If take the absoluteness away the transverse scale, we get a free parameter for each value of which we can build a separate theory of relativity. SR - this is one of an infinite number of theories.

3. Among all these theories there exist one a relativistic theory in which time is absolute. In this theory there is no twin paradox and the paradox of Ehrenfest, no exist limitations on speed, mass is absolute, and Newton's mechanics and Galilean transformations are valid. I call this theory as - "Master Theory".

 

[Tach]

1. Note that the Lorentz transformations in the transverse extent are absolute (y '= y, z' = z). Why did Einstein cross-scale did absolute? On what basis did he do it? Are justified it? No!

Ah, you are repeating the same nonsense as before. The answer is as before, the transforms derived by Einstein in his paper are for the case when v is aligned with Ox and all the axes are aligned (Ox with O'x', Oy with O'y' and Oz with O'z')

So, as before, I will show you the general Lorentz transforms that affect all spatial directions (as well as time, of course). See here

You have been given this explanation several times before, why do you persist in this nonsense? Because you are unable to learn the simplest things about SR?

I call this theory as - "Master Theory".

We call this "BS Theory".

 

[Masterov]

I call this theory as - "Master Theory".

We call this "BS Theory".

We're talking about different theories. (Your cross-scale are absolute.)

________________________________________________________________

 

[Tach]

We're talking about different theories. (Your cross-scale are absolute.)

Nah, the only thing that is absolute is your inability to understand basic SR.


[

 

[Masterov]

Nah, the only thing that is absolute is your inability to understand basic SR.

Your argument is no adequate.

 

[chinglu]

Chinglu you have not shown where my algebra is wrong. I demonstrate that the points map to one aand only one point each and that we expect , nay require, that for large enough v the order changes. Last chance, point to the explicit line of work and demonstrate it invalid or this thread is going back to locked and you're banned for at least several days.

You demand people respond yet you fail to step up. This is trolling and is not contributing.

Why would I claim you algegra is wrong?

I said clearly that your algebra is correct.

I like your algebra combined with the truth of the invariance light like space time interval.

Therefore, the light sphere is at (2+h,10,0) if and only if it is at (LT(2+h),10,0). At that position, in the primed frame, the clock has less elapsed time than does (LT(2),10,0). And again, by the truth of the invariance light like space time interval, that is the correct actual time on that clock.

Therefore, time proceeded backward under the rules of SR.

Now, are you going to address this factual SR logic?

 

[chinglu]

Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!

Really, the swifter the banhammer is wielded to bring righteous expulsion of this waste of bandwidth the better.

You are a very good troll.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

1. Note that the Lorentz transformations in the transverse extent are absolute (y '= y, z' = z). Why did Einstein transverse scale did absolute? On what basis did he do it? Are justified it? No!

Actually they are justified. That's what happens when you exponentiate the generator of the Lorentz boost in the x direction, you obtain an element which acts trivially on all tranverse spatial directions.

2. If take the absoluteness away the transverse scale, we get a free parameter for each value of which we can build a separate theory of relativity. SR - this is one of an infinite number of theories.

The maximal set of transforms which preserve the Lorentz metric form the group O(1,3). When parity is taken into account this reduces to SO(1,3). There is no parametrised family of groups.

n this theory there is no twin paradox and the paradox of Ehrenfest, no exist limitations on speed, mass is absolute, and Newton's mechanics and Galilean transformations are valid. I call this theory as - "Master Theory".

Then you are in contradiction to reality. Your 'master theory' is experimentally false.