US $50,000.00 To a Relativist Proving this Challenge Invalid!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Dec 22, 2004.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Now don't yell at me. I clearly am not going to comment on all the mathematics. But this man is offering all you whizes $50 Grand to show him wrong.

    BTW: If you win, I expect a commission. :D
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    The fine print is interesting.

    Rebigsol specifies that to claim the award, the rebuttal must be published in a reputable scientific journal ("registered in the government for circulation before 1994 with total annual subscriptions of no less than 500 every year since then.")

    Rebisol also specifies that "Work written to disprove Rebigsol must focus on Rebigsol’s calculations".

    This poses a difficulty. Since Rebigsol's claims haven't been published in such a journal, it is extremely unlikely that any paper focussing on Rebigsol's claims will be accepted for publication, regardless of their merit.

    Just a thought. I'm obviously not addressing Rebigsol's claims, or even his sincerity... only the practicality of his award.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Indeed. There's no way a major peer-reviewed journal would publish someone's rebuttal to an internet crackpot, so his prize is fundamentally unclaimable.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    very interesting link, MacM. Although I have not the slightest idea of what all those figures and equations mean it certainly seems to go to town on the issue.

    teh very idea of a reverse challenge should appeal to those wishing to really know the subject of SRT.
    If after all the work in trying to find fault with his contentions you still can't then you have learned something I guess.
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    I would tend to agree with everything you say except your assumption that he is a crackpot. That clearly is based on bias and predjudice that anyone in disagreement with Relativists is a crackpot and not on any mathematical evaluation of his presentation.

    If it is crackpot then it should be fairly easy for those skilled in mathematics to point that out.
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Unfortunately Relativists are convienced that there can be nothing wrong with SRT and therefore it is a waste of time to evaluate any challenges. All challengers are crackpots, regardless of their scientific experience, education and comperable mathematical skills..
  10. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    I red all posted in the cited link materials. Everything from the beginning to the end is pure BS.
    It is easy to prove it, to show a lot of errors the author does. It is easy to publish this analysis in any scientific magazine (simply paying for publication let say 10.000 per page; 2-3 pages will be enough to show all nonsense). Problem is, that you never will get the promised money - all crackpot are the same: no matter how accurate, clear and consistent proves of their errors you submit they are responding the same - "You did not address the issue. I won, you lose. I am right, you are wrong. I won, you lose". We saw that many times in our Forum.
    So, nobody of professionals will buy that trick with $50.000...
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2004
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    I don't think you will get 50 cents much less $50,000.00 for that answer.
  12. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    And for the 10,000th time, MacM posts another crackpot website and tries to make everyone else debunk it.

    - Warren
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    1 - I don't make you do anything. You may choose your normal approach which is to simply make unsupported or false allegations about somebody being a crackpot.

    2 - Your assertion this is crackpot is not supported without showing error in his work.
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Do you support this guy's work? Do you agree with him?
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    And we have seen as many times the unsupported fiat and claims that people simply don't understand. (which of course is no answer what-so-ever scientifically to the issues raised).

    His requirement is that you get your proof published. It says nothing about him agreeing with your proof. You are dealing with mathematics. Mathematics are either correct or in error. Talk is cheap. He committed to mathematics. Lets see you do the same.

    Well, you claim there is not one correct thing in his work. You should therefore find it rather easy to point out specific mathematical errors rather than speaking from ahigh as with authority.
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I've read as far as the first equation set of section 1 of his "reward" paper. That equation set is wrong. No need to go any further.

    I won't bother trying to get the money, since I'm sure this crank won't pay up.
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Anybody can simply state he is wrong. It would be more professional if you were to show where and how he is wrong.
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2004
  18. idiot Registered Member

    anyway, poincare(!) worked on can't have mathematical errors
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    My two cents worth:

    You know I have been in conflict with SRT for nealy 2 years at this forum and I have finally come to the conclusion that it is totally valid. The reason why it is being subjected to challenges is simply that not many people know how to apply it's principles correctly and expose the theory to ridicule. I have yet to meet any one including all participants at this forum who knows how to apply SRT properly.
    So suffice to say that until it is applied properly it will always attract criticism and be considered as flawed when in fact it is the application of SRT that is flawed due to the ignorance of the exponents of SRT.
    This is not to say that I in any way know how to apply it as I am just as ignorant as any one. But the glaring problems that seem to continuously crop up are simply becasue the theory is being misunderstood by every one, from teacher to pupil.
    I would even go further that Albert E. even misinterpreted his own understanding as he attempted to accomodate conventional thinking into his theory. [which I might add is teh mistake that every one seems to be making]
    From what I have just realised even E=mc^2 is not always kept in mind when working with SRT when in fact it is this very formula that proves SRT to be correct. I would suggest that if in the application of SRT we forget that E=mc^2 must remain true at all times then we may inadvertantly be corrupting the use of a theory that we are attempting to use.
    Yuiry is indeed in another thread attempting to show just this. And how important it is to keep SRT valid regards E=mc^2

    The thread title is "Mass and Rest mass"
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Can't you see his mistake?

    He uses x=ct and x'=ct', which are only true for a specific case (light). But the Lorentz tranformations won't transform to a light-like reference frame.
  21. Paul T Registered Senior Member

    As usual, MacM fails to realize the crackpotery content of his link. Let's try to show him with some simple calculation.

    Based on x=ct and x'=ct' Rebigsol changed Lorentz's transformation:

    (1) x' = g [x - vt], and
    (2) t' = g [t - (v/c<sup>2</sup>)x]​
    both to:

    (3) x' = x*sqrt[(c-v)/(c+v)]​
    Consider a spaceship (x'-t' frame) passes earth (x-t frame) at t=t'=0 and x=x'=0. The ship moves at velocity 0.6c relative to earth. An event occurs at x=1 light second and at t=1 second. What is x' and t'?

    Standard LT (equation 1) gives x' = 1.25*[1c sec - 0.6c*1sec] = 0.5 light second and t' = 1.25*[1 sec - 0.6*1 sec] = 0.5 sec.

    Rebigsol's equation (3) gives x' = 1c sec sqrt[(1-0.6)/(1+0.6)] = 0.5 light second and t' = 0.5c sec/c = 0.5 sec, the same as LT's result! ​

    Now, let's change the event time to t=0 (x remain the same - 1 light second).

    Standard LT (equation 1) gives x' = 1.25*[1c sec - 0.6c*0] = 1.25 light second and t' = 1.25*[1 sec - 0.6*0 sec] = 1.25 sec.

    Rebigsol's equation (3) gives x' = 1c sec sqrt[(1-0.6)/(1+0.6)] = 0.5 light second and t' = 0.5c sec/c = 0.5 sec, not the same as LT's result! Of couse not, since in his equation time is not independent, but connected to x according to t = x/c, which is only a special case. ​
    This shows that Rebigsol's equation (3) is not the same as LT's (1) and (2). Equation (3) is just a special case for (1) and (2) for one specific event, that is an event occurring at x at time t=x/c. However, an event's x and t are not necessary connected in that way.

    I think I have just wasted my time. MacM will, as usual, tell us that "I am right you are wrong, I win you lose!" :D
  22. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Quantum Quack,

    That's very dissapointing considering that SR is based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers, and this assumption has never been tested anywhere except on the surface of the Earth, stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field. If you where to assume that Einstein's frame-dragging concept is correct, which would mean that the Earth drags spacetime around, and if you were to assume that the speed of light is only equal to c relative to Einstein's "spacetime", then SR would not only be counterintuitive, but superfluous as well.
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Pros, and not only that no one can really say why light is invariant when time is relative.

    Light can not be invariant if light is not absolute in time.
    So is time relative to or for our photon?

Share This Page