See above, regarding original research. I see we are in agreement. That's good!
Science is not about who wins and who loses, but about contributing with the most accurate knowledge based in PHYSICAL REALITY. We will have lots of agreements and disagreements, no hard feelings but looking towards a better horizon. Hope your intentions are guided that way as well.
Great! Please post some evidence, or at least a theoretical argument, refuting Einstein or Hawking, or whatever. You've had months to do this, and yet, strangely, I've seen nothing from you, yet. Why is that? Are you ever planning on posting ny evidence? You said it was important, remember.
Oh, I see your point of view. You want to make the movie "Theory Wars", where theories against theories will attack one to another.
To your disappointment, a theory is not proved valid or false by using a different theory against it. No, in order to prove the validity of a theory you use evidence. If you want to understand it better, in this discussion we have your numbers, Hollywood movies, computer simulations, and etc... against physical reality presented by me. I showed you that there is no flowing time, then you said "time" in Einstein equations is not physical but coordinates, and I ask, how coordinates cause atomic clocks malfunction in outer space?
I think your ideas are far away from becoming evidence in physical reality. I saw you trying to find ways with the purpose of justify Relativity, but I can assure you such attempts of yours won't work. I told you a scrutiny reveals Relativity as a false theory and you have not presented the evidence of the existence of time, and neither the mechanism acting when a body traveling fast causes its dilatation.
The sad situation for you, is that the answer for these two basic requirements are no found anywhere online, in journals, in Universities and other institutions of science. This is why you have never answered them.
Never mind me. I assume you have, because you have come up with good evidence that shows that relativity and Hawking radiation are bunk, right? Tell me what you did.
Have you ever read papers presented in journals? Lets see, for example:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...mich/6b1b1cc7ba87fbb9fc363014e1b4d69909366528
Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation
Einstein's theory of special relativity and the principle of causality imply that the speed of any moving object cannot exceed that of light in a vacuum (c). Nevertheless, there exist various proposals for observing faster-than- c propagation of light pulses, using anomalous dispersion near an absorption line, nonlinear and linear gain lines, or tunnelling barriers.... etc. etc. etc.
This paper presented in year 2000 started showing what Relativity stands for, but later shows other "proposals" obtained from experiments made with light thru gas and so forth.
Here we are in that first step, the one showing what Relativity said WRONG. And I have not finished this part yet. This is just the beginning of showing the invalidity of Relativity by its own doctrines.
Later, will be the ordered presentation of the study of evidence showing the causes of the several phenomena wrongly classified as effects of time, time dilation/dilatation, and similar.
Relativists have spread out their fantasies for 100 years already, what is the rush for showing the sure evidence in a few months?
You know what that was? It was a challenge to you. You keep saying that you can show that relativity is false. So do what you say you can do! Don't try to turn it around on me. I'm not here to do your homework for you.
I already did it: time doesn't exist physically, how hard for you is to understand it?
Relativity is based on a flowing time with his own arrow when is flowing. Look at Hawking diagram, time has its flowing in one way, space is way open, light travels in an allowed path, there is a zone to which we better call it "the limbo". Wow!
View attachment 4520
And funny, this diagram is just the top over a similar diagram under which is also a cone. The coordinates presented by Hawking are absurd when you add the other cone at its bottom, this is to see, when you see the full figure. This representation of Hawking is the interpretation of Relativity doctrines.
Are you going to tell me that you are not in agreement with that diagram? Because so far, you agree with Einstein and Hawking even when those two individuals really don't know what they are talking about.
Einstein's theory of the photoelectric effect makes predictions that match the results we get when we do photoelectric experiments. What more do you want?
His theory passed the grade with c minus.
Alfred Nobel stated clearly before he died in 1986 that the prizes given in his name were to contribute for science advance solely with proved works, not for theoretical works. Photoelectric was presented for Nobel Prize since 1910 to 1921-22.
12 years rejection for such a theory. And finally was accepted for Nobel Prize because the members of the Swiss Academy were tired of such lunatic insistence and persistence.
Nothing obliges any scientists to "never go against" relativity -...
Louis Essen: Inventor of the atomic clock and the man responsible for the modern precise measurement of the speed of light. At first he suffered harsh criticism for his new measurements of the speed of light but it was the value adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific Union in 1957and in 1983, the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures adopted the standard value, 299,792.458 km/s for the speed of light. The atomic clock is the standard of measure throughout the world and without it the GPS system would not be possible. Why is it little known that this winner of multiple awards in physics also
published a paper called “The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis”? A member of the National Physical Laboratory of the UK from which he retired in 1972 after being quietly warned not to continue his contradiction of Einstein’s theory of relativity. "No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects. …the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory."
Louis Essen F.R.S., "Relativity and time signals", Wireless World, oct78, p44. ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’
I guess he was talking about your teachers and about you in this last statement.
I've been waiting for you to inform me about your important new findings for months now. Are you going to tell me about them any time soon? Or are you just going to keep blathering pointlessly about your opinion that you're smarter than the some of the big names in the history of physics?
No, I'm not smarter than those cheap knowledge scientists, I'm WISER than them.
When are you going to actually start discussing the science, rather than trying to put other people down with your pathetic posturing?
Excuse me but, your denial is not giving you any favorable points here.
When I ask you the evidence of physical time then you called it a coordinate, when I ask you how a coordinate can perturb the normal function of an atomic clock, then you want me to explain quantum mechanics... when you don't answer directly the simple questions made to you from my part and from others, then you better start to realize that you are not the right person to defend Relativity theory or just you know the answer but you just don't want to concede with the fact that Relativity is not a theory of science.
