SR is dead.
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
- Status
Do you mean the link to your blog or to the picture?
I want to answer this issue.
I went here
http://nongeometric.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/refutation-of-vixra1109-0003/
I am not seeing any algebra to support the conclusions of AN.
I must be missing something.
I like running into an intelligent person.
Since you took the time to insult me, can you explain his algebra that he claims proves I am wrong?
I would love for you to take this on because you will be insulted by losing that argument.
I have posted on something perhaps similar earlier. The question becomes more clearly elucidated. I had some difficulty in understanding what this thread was about, and the math did not help.
The above is the image of a wheel rolling at close to the speed of light.
The scenario is - on a space ship moving very close to c there is a wheel, this wheel spins at a tangential velocity of just 100 km/hr, so the people on the spaceship do not see any relativistic distortions in its shape.
To anyone off the space ship it's shape becomes very strange because the extra 100 km/hr would put it over the speed of light on one side and much less than on the other side.
Now, a light source on the space ship casts a shadow of the wheel onto photographic paper. The people off the space ship can see this shadow just as well as the people on the space ship because the light is partly reflected.
The strange thing is, the people off the space ship see a different shaped shadow than the people on the space ship. IE different area between spokes. Yet, once the ship comes to rest there is only one copy of photographic paper - and so there is only one 'solution' to the problem. Yet, the observed reflected light is directly responsible for the solution of the problem (the reflected light is the light which has not been absorbed by the photographic paper).
In this case there seems to be no preference to the solution - just like you mentioned about your problem on the first page chinglu.
The above is the image of a wheel rolling at close to the speed of light.
The scenario is - on a space ship moving very close to c there is a wheel, this wheel spins at a tangential velocity of just 100 km/hr, so the people on the spaceship do not see any relativistic distortions in its shape.
To anyone off the space ship it's shape becomes very strange because the extra 100 km/hr would put it over the speed of light on one side and much less than on the other side.
Now, a light source on the space ship casts a shadow of the wheel onto photographic paper. The people off the space ship can see this shadow just as well as the people on the space ship because the light is partly reflected.
The strange thing is, the people off the space ship see a different shaped shadow than the people on the space ship. IE different area between spokes. Yet, once the ship comes to rest there is only one copy of photographic paper - and so there is only one 'solution' to the problem. Yet, the observed reflected light is directly responsible for the solution of the problem (the reflected light is the light which has not been absorbed by the photographic paper).
In this case there seems to be no preference to the solution - just like you mentioned about your problem on the first page chinglu.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I dislike snide assholes who use third rate sarcasm. Do you think the two conditions are compatible?
I didn't insult you. If I valued your opinion I would be offended by that accusation.
Specify where and how I insulted you. I took time to guide you to the location of the links you were looking for, links that were frigging obvious. I pointed out to you how disconcerting your writing style is. I explored the possibility that this was something you had no control over.
In short I invested my time to assist you and you have the audacity of accusing me of insulting you.
No. That has nothing to do with my intervention, which was designed to help you.
Because you've left it so bloody long the blog content has changed!
I'm not engaged in an argument, but in pro bono work for those who have delusions of adequacy. (You see, now you have been insulted. Is the difference apparent?)
No, it doesn't, this not how speeds add up in relativity (and in reality).
Different observers in different frames moving at different speed measure different things. This what relativity is all about.
....because the relative speed between observers is now zero.
Quoting chinglu is going to guarantee a crackpot idea.
Watch the tempers flare! You two are just going to become frustrated by pissing each other off.
Yes, exactly. You misunderstood my statement - in my haste I said, it will look funny, because otherwise one part of the wheel would be moving faster than light. Just like the image.
Okay, thats right so far.
.... this does not conclude your train of thought cohesively, but I think I see what you mean. You are referring to other paradoxes such as the train through the tunnel paradox or the two gates paradox where the train passing is longer than the track between two gates.
You missed my point. Your paradoxes only include times when things are measured, they leave no physical evidence. In this paradox there is a photograph which will only have one image on it, but there is no way to determine what that image should be, theoretically.
Isn't chinglu quoting someone else in the first place? I just like that there is that direct link between what he expects and what I expect even though our paths to arrive at the same conclusion are completely different.
Yes, exactly. You misunderstood my statement - in my haste I said, it will look funny, because otherwise one part of the wheel would be moving faster than light. Just like the image.
Okay, thats right so far.
.... this does not conclude your train of thought cohesively, but I think I see what you mean. You are referring to other paradoxes such as the train through the tunnel paradox or the two gates paradox where the train passing is longer than the track between two gates.
You missed my point. Your paradoxes only include times when things are measured, they leave no physical evidence. In this paradox there is a photograph which will only have one image on it, but there is no way to determine what that image should be, theoretically.
Isn't chinglu quoting someone else in the first place? I just like that there is that direct link between what he expects and what I expect even though our paths to arrive at the same conclusion are completely different.
No, you said that one half will move faster than the light. See :
DrZion said:
The only thing that is conclusive is that you have no clue about what you are talking.
I'll have Italian with the above word salad.
Yes, another crackpot (Andrew Banks).
Crackpot citing crackpot who cited a crackpot in first place.
Last edited:
Publication of experimental results that confirm the expression:
$$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$$
are sufficient to definitively confirm or refute SR.
The first experiments in which the energy of relativistic particles was measured directly in the calorimeter were performed Bertozzi almost fifty years ago. But Bertozzi builded a demonstration model of experimental assembly, designed for students laboratory work. The results, published in Bertozzi, justify the financial costs of the university, and does not substantiate SR.
Carried out many experiments of the direct (in the calorimeter) measurement of the energy of relativistic particles in fifty years after Bertozzi. But you never can find the published results of these experiments.
Why experiments have not been published?
If it were the experiments confirmed the theory, then the results of these experiments have been published here, there and everywhere. (Pornographic magazines, inclusive.) All materials have been published over and over again, if it (are at least indirectly) are a support SR.
The logical conclusion follows from the above it: the experiment refutes the expression:
$$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$$
If someone decides to announce that I am wrong, then let to do publish a proof that the energy continues to rise (when the speed approaches the speed of light) according to the expression:
$$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$$
$$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$$
are sufficient to definitively confirm or refute SR.
The first experiments in which the energy of relativistic particles was measured directly in the calorimeter were performed Bertozzi almost fifty years ago. But Bertozzi builded a demonstration model of experimental assembly, designed for students laboratory work. The results, published in Bertozzi, justify the financial costs of the university, and does not substantiate SR.
Carried out many experiments of the direct (in the calorimeter) measurement of the energy of relativistic particles in fifty years after Bertozzi. But you never can find the published results of these experiments.
Why experiments have not been published?
If it were the experiments confirmed the theory, then the results of these experiments have been published here, there and everywhere. (Pornographic magazines, inclusive.) All materials have been published over and over again, if it (are at least indirectly) are a support SR.
The logical conclusion follows from the above it: the experiment refutes the expression:
$$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$$
If someone decides to announce that I am wrong, then let to do publish a proof that the energy continues to rise (when the speed approaches the speed of light) according to the expression:
$$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$$
Last edited:
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.
Still harping on "relativity is wrong" ?
Come up with a reference for this or you will be getting a warning.
If chinglu is using a translator, buried links could easily be lost, as untranslatable. Especially if he copies, from a post to an editor that does not recognize links.
Perhaps, identifying a link by, "link here" as opposed to just "here" would be helpful (illustrations only, no links). Assuming this is the issue.
No, he's not, proof is that he can write English , so he clearly understands the posts without needing any translation. The problem with chinglu is that he's anti-mainstream , whatever the field (math, physics) he tries to discuss.
Writing in English and thinking in English are different things and often wind up being read differently. I have noticed posts that suggest there is at times translation issues involved. This occurs more often in personal comment than technical comment. Personal comment can be more difficult to translate.
While I have no comment on his intentions in these discussions, I don't think that he intentionally over looked the links.
Only he could answer that question with any certainty.
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).
Absolutely right. A troll that pollutes the forum.
I am not interested in your opinions.
I provided a mathematical basis of reasoning for SR.
It shows SR predicts the light sphere must move 2 different directions which is a contradiction.
So, let's deal with this being true or not.
- Status