SR Issue

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by chinglu, Jun 11, 2014.

  1. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You're going to be endlessly chastised for disrespecting physics and the folks who have done it successfully. So far you fit my delusional crank profile.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    OK, support your claims and refute the math.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Refute my math. Until you do, you have nothing to say about this thread. I have refuted yours.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Look. it is simple. After all these posts no one can refute my correct math. So, whatever you say.
     
  8. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    No, you have proved nothing. Here is the deal. We allow LT to make its decision in the unprimed frame as to where the light pulse is located given the coordinates systems are in the unique configuration such that C' and M are co-located.

    We find that M claims the light pulse is at the wrong location along the positive x-axis when compared to the C' light postulate.

    This proves LT gets the wrong answer.

    Now, this has nothing to do with (x,t) and (x',t'). If so, point out the exact step in the OP where the math is wrong. Do it now.
     
  9. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    prove it
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    You have been telling porky pies chinglu.
    Your stuff has been refuted, in this thread, in other threads, both here and elsewhere.
    You refuse to address those facts, as they prove you are wrong and have been wrong since you started your evangelistic claim against SR.
    You continue to ignore my many questions, all concerned with SR, which also shows you are 100% wrong.
    You continue your evangelistic like quest without any proper peer review as you always have, which also shows your fear in being shown to be wrong.
    And last but not least, the world still depends on SR.....nothing has changed that, least of all your maths.
    We operate under its auspices, it is used in everyday and scientific circles everyday.
    So convincing one person SR is wrong [yourself] has done absolutely nothing for your evangelistic mission type quest.
     
  11. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,749
    And we see no change in the pattern at all. Deny anything has been refuted about what colocation of two systems of coordinates entails; deny that there is no "the x-axis" but instead sets of points x and x', which are related but distinct.
    Again with the bizarre idea that a transform of coordinates somehow places an event in another frame, and that colocation is somehow a unique event.
    But there is no "the positive x-axis"; this confusion is probably deliberate, and unfortunately for chinglu, as transparent as a pane of glass.
    Again, unfortunately the "proof" is based on the idea that one x-axis exists, which is just not true.
    You are living in a world of denial; it has everything to do with (x,t) and (x',t'), the math you've been abusing says just that, except you are blind to this fact.
     
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I'm not sure about blindness. Many crackpots might have a psychological problem that prevents them from recognizing something as true: they have a lot invested in their position and they don't wish to deal with the embarrassment of being so wrong. In that sense, it's like stage hypnosis.
     
  13. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Check the OP. That is what this thread is all about.
     
  14. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    OK, you are of the position when SR says two observers are co-located, you claim they are not. Well, then you refute SR.

    And yes. If light is emitted when the frame origins are common, they both agree at any time the light flash is on the positive x-axis. If this is false as you claim, prove it.
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    That's sort if like erasing the entire theory of SR, and saying it's invalid unless proven. How many times do you have to be given the same answer before you stop asking for it again?

    SR is the explanation for the constancy of light observed in moving-media experiments that were searching for the aether. SR has been empirically demonstrated in countless subsequent investigations, but most remarkable for non technical people such as yourself is that it is repeatedly demonstrated in GPS. When are you going to admit that GPS, as currently implemented, would give false fixes on position if spatiotemporal warping were not actually happening as predicted by SR/GR ??

    Since the frames diverge, there is no agreement between them about time and length measurement regardless of whether they were temporarily in agreement about space and the span of a time (not just the realtime value). They were never in agreement with realtime once they diverged, even if they converged again. Not until corrections are made.

    There is no absolute coordinate system. How many times to have to be told this before you stop asking for it again? "Coordinate system" is what reference frame means. When the reference frames diverge, the coordinate systems diverge. How many times do you have to be told the fundamentals of relativity before you stop asking that they be repeated back to you?
     
  16. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    no,not only is that not proving it but do i not accept that and it's incorrect,
    again prove it.
     
  17. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    How many times must it be explained to you.

    The OP math is there and you can't refute it.

    So, your statements are null.
     
  18. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    So, where is the OP math wrong? Be specific.
     
  19. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Many people see math that can't be refuted as in the OP and then imagine that it can.

    So, prove the OP math is wrong.
     
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    By you? Never. You couldn't pass an SAT section in math and probably not the GED.

    How many times does it have to be explained to you that the math you cut and pasted here (probably after relabeling expressions) does not support your claims?

    No, your claim that you are arguing math is null. You are arguing the stupidest of claims, like absolute coordinate systems. That isn't math. There is no such math. You need only one mathematical expression, to state that the coordinate systems (reference frames) diverge. And that's the one that maps x to x' or vice versa. Once you have posted that (and you did) your claims about absolute coordinate systems is contradicted. Of course you would have to know enough math (and science) to understand that you contradicted yourself. That's why I'm pretty sure you never passed an SAT and probably not a GED either. You certainly never spent 5 minutes in a physics classroom. That's why all the people who bothered to study the subjects you flunked out of are continually asking you how many times do we have to tell you the math you posted contradicts you before you stop asking us to disprove the math you posted?

    :spank:
     
  21. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    the problem for me is,
    one has to recognize and/or understand the situation in order to know how to solve it.
    IMO, it's massively clear, this is not the case.

    you continue to graph improperly.
    it's that simple.

    so again, the OP is no where near the vicinity of proof of anything but the lack of comprehension on ones part.
    it's completely incorrect
    but in the end,
    it doesn't matter,
    you are here for reasons,
    which is only because no one else will put up with the continuous malfunctioning cognitive psychology of the OP.
     
  22. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,749
    You're like a really dumb little kid who said something stupid, then tried to act like it wasn't.
    That's almost true, except for the part about where they agree on something, since you're still clinging to this childish idea about "the" x-axis; everyone with a brain knows there are two of these and they are not the same object, very much unlike what you seem to still believe, which makes you an idiot.

    The other things that make everyone think you really are an idiot, is that the math you've been using contradicts what you say about it. Math doesn't lie, and here, you've made the mistake of using math which others have shown you, page after page, does not support your claims about LT, the "light postulate", or anything else. What you think is a carefully constructed argument, supported by "correct math" (an oxymoron), is not supported by the math; you've been posting the refutation of your thesis along with it.

    What an idiot
     
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    There should be some limit to intellectual dishonesty when writing stuff that's posted in this venue. In my opinion. This thread could possibly be setting a record for nonsense posted by one individual in the same thread.
     

Share This Page