If we explain all this stuff to you and you just intellectually ignore us by asserting refutation of something you, clearly, don't have the slightest knowledge of...... How does that work? It works like you need to find out for yourself, quit asking other folks and making a nuisance of yourself. Find out for yourself. How does that work.
New article shows a fatal math error in SR
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
If we explain all this stuff to you and you just intellectually ignore us by asserting refutation of something you, clearly, don't have the slightest knowledge of...... How does that work? It works like you need to find out for yourself, quit asking other folks and making a nuisance of yourself. Find out for yourself. How does that work.
There's a lot wrong with the above.
I don't think that all who post in 'on the fringe' are intellectually dishonest.
Also, I don't think the moderatiors are looking for, or hoping for any reformation. I think they're quite happy for material presented here to be continued to be discussed here.
Don't lose site of the titles of these pages. I think the moderators / owners are pleased that they exist and that people contribute to them.
Also, about the only one who has not endulged in ad hominen, has shown remarkable constraint, and who has repeatedly tried to bring the discussion back to the OP is in fact, chinglu.
If he is making a nuisance of himself to you, your simple remedy is to not engage him. These are forums for discussion. Throughout such forums, over time, things get discussed over and over and over again (is there something new under the sun that you wish to discuss ?)
You don't have to participate. But to try to stop others, even of their repitition, is a bit rich.
Listen, crank
In order for the Sagnac effect to exist the light path must enclose a non-zero area. The area enclosed by the light path in MMX is ...ZERO.
Yes, it is hard to tell what happens at the photon point level regarding the reflection direction.
SR requires that is reflects in both frames on the same side though no experiment proves this actually happens.
It was on me to prove what happens at the point photon level and it cannot be eliminated that the point mirror runs into the photon.
Therefore, I decided to withdraw the paper and concur I did not prove my case.
Thanks
SR requires that is reflects in both frames on the same side though no experiment proves this actually happens.
It was on me to prove what happens at the point photon level and it cannot be eliminated that the point mirror runs into the photon.
Therefore, I decided to withdraw the paper and concur I did not prove my case.
Thanks
Bravo! A difficult decision I am sure, but the right one. I am actually rather impressed.
Bravo! much better than the likes of Farsight and Undefined who keep piling crank stuff, never conceding that they are trying to pass BS as "science". So what did the trick? The lesson that you cannot have a Sagnac effect in MMX?
Yea, in this case, my conclusion was debatable and it should not have been. That happens.
In any event, I said hold a gps receiver over mmx and tell me you get the same results for both which are in ECEF.
So, I suppose you can make both of these consistent under SR.
Hi chinglu!
It's good to see your issues resolved (those issues were not mine, by the way, as I have not been party to any claims about your work, only requesting participants to talk amicably and without prior 'personal baggage' on the issues).
Resolution may have come earlier if not for all the unnecessary personal baggage and insults which unfortunately infected and so protracted the exchanges/discussion.
Anyway, good work, everyone, despite the earlier tone/distractions!
It's good to see your issues resolved (those issues were not mine, by the way, as I have not been party to any claims about your work, only requesting participants to talk amicably and without prior 'personal baggage' on the issues).
Resolution may have come earlier if not for all the unnecessary personal baggage and insults which unfortunately infected and so protracted the exchanges/discussion.
Anyway, good work, everyone, despite the earlier tone/distractions!
Correct
I want to make sure this thread is left is a consistent state.
Under SR the speed of the intersection of the SLW with the line y=-yg was 8 times the speed of light at the intersection point described in the paper. Clearly, that means light will catch up to the moving mirror and strike it in the back.
On the other hand, there is a calculation under SR that would seem the mirror would run into the SLW.
Obviously this is a contradiction.
It's just my paper only considered the partial derivative which proves conclusively that light will hit the back of the mirror. That math is perfect and not wrong.
Any consistent theory should not present two different conclusions about the same event.
So, that is the correct deal.
I want to make sure this thread is left is a consistent state.
Under SR the speed of the intersection of the SLW with the line y=-yg was 8 times the speed of light at the intersection point described in the paper. Clearly, that means light will catch up to the moving mirror and strike it in the back.
On the other hand, there is a calculation under SR that would seem the mirror would run into the SLW.
Obviously this is a contradiction.
It's just my paper only considered the partial derivative which proves conclusively that light will hit the back of the mirror. That math is perfect and not wrong.
Any consistent theory should not present two different conclusions about the same event.
So, that is the correct deal.
Because you've got a lengthy history of posting "Major maths/physics result disproved!" threads only for it to become apparent you don't understand the subject at hand (examples being special relativity, Cantor's uncountability and set intersections) and that you then go on to ignore each and every person to explained your mistake, no matter how many different ways they explain it and to what depth. Rpenner has been doing precisely that in this thread, all of which you've failed to show any comprehension of, nor have you directly retorted his highly detailed posts. Much the same happened when I schooled you on countability, set intersections and more relevantly, special relativity coordinate transformations involving expanding light spheres. That last one, the light spheres "disproof of relativity" was also you peddling the work of this Andrew Banks. You mixed coordinate frames and couldn't do the transformations properly back then and this thread is more of the same.
You've had enough chances with these "Major maths/physics result disproved!" in the main forum, plus your claims in this particular thread have been utterly gutted by Rpenner et al. These threads of yours are not so much discussions of science as discussions of your misunderstandings of science, which are deep and endemic it seems. Each and every one of your threads like this have degenerated into you parading your ignorance, hence they now belong in the fringe section until such time as you can demonstrate a working understanding of the subject at hand. If someone like Rpenner posted as "Relativity disproved by me!" thread in the main forum it'd stay there because 1. it would be the first such thread of his and 2. he tends to promote rational, informed discussion. You don't promote such discussion and you've used up all your chances. Until such time as you demonstrate your modus operandi is not hackery the fringe is where your threads will end up.
Of course if you feel I am in some way not qualified or able to give your claims the knowledgeable discussion/evaluation you think they deserve then feel free to go away, submit your work to a reputable journal and when it gets published and you and Mr Banks earn a Physics Nobel Prize then your threads are welcome in the main forum. Okay, I'll settle for your claims being published in a reputable journal following peer review. I guess we're still waiting for the publication of the disproof of Cantor's diagonal argument and the disproof of relativity by light spheres you and Mr Banks have been previously peddling. How's that going?
And in all of the examples you have ever presented on the forum the consistency of the special relativity description has been demonstrated to you. Things like the swapping of the order in which 2 people at different locations observe an event occuring at a third location some time in the past is entirely viable within particular contexts of special relativity. What cannot and does not change in special relativity is the order of events at a specific, a change of frame cannot change the order, ie if two different expanding light spheres hit a location at the same time in a given frame S they will do likewise in any other frame S'. I mention this because the expanding light sphere problem you've previous peddled included this aspect and you repeatedly demonstrated you didn't know how to do the appropriate transformations within special relativity.
Seeing as you've moved on to peddling a different example I take it you have since accepted that thought experiment by Mr Banks does no disprove special relativity?
AN, you are welcome to your opinions.
I asked you a simple question as to why a GPS device held over an MMX experiment produced different results.
You never answered.
So, I will let an IOP article help you.
"Reinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment based on the GPS Sagnac correction"
http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/56/2/170;jsessionid=A55038F9B4E33F607220E876CC964D64.c1
You see, SR crackpots claimed MMX proved SR. Now we find GPS sagnac refutes MMX.
So, SR crackpots claimed MMX proves SR and GPS proves MMX is false.
So, now what?
You completely misunderstand the paper, the paper presents no controversial findings. In both ether theory and Special Relativity, Sagnac effects are proportional only to rotation rate, not revolution. In addition, General Relativity and not Special Relativity describes phenomena associated with Earth's orbit so you lack foundation make any claims.
Also, no fact can refute an experiment. Experiments give us facts, facts give us confirmation or refutation of theories. Nothing here refutes Special Relativity in its applicable domain.
Also, no fact can refute an experiment. Experiments give us facts, facts give us confirmation or refutation of theories. Nothing here refutes Special Relativity in its applicable domain.
Last edited:
Because you fail to even coherently describe what your point is. As Rpenner points out your link doesn't support your case. And all you do is make assertions you cannot back up.
Everyone goes on with their lives, you wasting yours and us doing something productive.
Uh, let me educate you.
This is from Neil Ashby.
"The Sagnac effect can be regarded as arising from the relativity of simultaneity in a Lorentz transformation to a sequence of local inertial frames co-moving with points on the rotating earth."
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=articlese2.html
Now, do you understand the relativity of simultaneity is an SR effect?
So, you have not explained why MMX is consistent with sagnac given GPS.
My link from IOP shows MMX cannot see sagnac.
So, that means when folks claim a null MMX implies SR, their proof fails.
That means a 100 year old proof of SR is useless and false.
You're misrepresenting what is said. Firstly an experiment cannot imply a particular model, only show said model is not wrong in that scenario. Disproving aether doesn't imply special relativity, no one who understands what the relationship between experiment and theory would claim otherwise.
You only illustrate how bias you are with such comments. Firstly special relativity is demonstrably useful, given its application in various pieces of modern technology. Besides, a theory does not need to be right to be useful. Newtonian gravity we know to be imperfect but it is used in many domains of science and engineering. Maxwell's electromagnetism we know to be imperfect but it is used in many areas of physics, chemistry and engineering. We know classical Newtonian mechanics is not perfect but it is the go to model for kinematics for most engineers. Why? Because it is close enough. Even if special relativity is wrong it is close enough for all current applications of it within technology.
Secondly you're also mistaken, in that no experiment has yet been done which is inconsistent with special relativity. If the MMX could be used to disprove relativity, special or general, then it would have done so long ago. Plenty of people, people knowledgeable in relativity and aether models, have wanted to find problems with relativity over the years. In 1919 when news came measurements of an eclipse had been consistent with Einstein but inconsistent with Newton it was considered shocking by The Royal Society here in the UK. And yet despite many of those people trying to find a problem with relativity it remains standing. As I've explained before, if I were handed a sound proof/demonstration relativity is wrong then I'd immediately set about writing it up and sending it off to journals. Any scientist interested in truth and improving our understanding of the world around us would do likewise. And any scientist after personal fame and glory would also do likewise as it would catapult them to the upper echelons of science, they'd go down in history and become immediately world famous. Likewise the journal which published an actual disproof of relativity will gain enormous amounts of money thanks to the article being cited and purchased again and again for decades, even centuries to come.
And yet, despite your assertions there's a 100 year old disproof of relativity, it remains. If you really had something sound to say you'd not be here, in the fringe section of a discussion forum, you'd be plastered all over the front pages of every newspaper in the world.
You are off task from the article.
It proves any MMX cannot see sagnac.
A null MMX was used to prove SR.
Since there is really no null MMX by the article, the 100 year old proof is invalid since its premise is false. ie null MMX -> SR true.
Therefore, we have
null MMX -> SR true.
not null MMX -> SR true.
This is pretty stupid since about anything implies SR is true.