New article shows a fatal math error in SR

brucep said:
I'm to old to worry about to much.
Click to expand...
You mean you got over the BS chinglu is peddling way back when you were cramming for finals. Which is all chinglu needs to do to get over his fixation.

If chinglu is going to be a 'z......... aire' I might think about doing some turd polishing.
Click to expand...

Heh heh. I'll be trying to ride your coat tails. "Hey bruce remember me? Cut for you ole bud wontcha? Allums for the poor.." etc.

The nuts really have been coming out of the woodwork lately.
 
Fednis48 said:
That's just not true. If the mirror is moving faster than the light horizontally, the front of the mirror strikes the light and the back of the mirror is untouched. It's the same reason why driving down the highway you get lots of bugs on your front windshield but none on your back.
Click to expand...

If you use LT and take the partial derivative assuming z=0 and a fixed y as per the article, you will find the horizontal intersection speed with the y line is greater than the speed of light when the light pulse is in between the 2 origins. So, the mirror does not run into the light sphere, but the light sphere strikes the back of the mirror from behind. That is the conclusions of relativistic doppler.

Now, this intersection speed with the line y does not at all imply light travels faster than the speed c it just means there are conditions where it intersects a fixed y line faster than c.
 
Aqueous Id said:
What in the world would anyone do that for, Andrew Banks?


Anything is possible from an invalid premise. No one has disproven SR, and, as your fix in Bugtussle tells you, it's absurd to even claim this. So far all you are doing is discrediting the principles of Geometry from which the consequences of positing a false hypothesis rejects the "math" that purports to be the proof. That's your downfall, back at square 1.


Simple minded, oversimplified, yes, but not a valid proof of anything except the admission by Andrew Banks "Hey look at me! I'm a dolt! I can prove anything simply by beginning with the premise 1=2 !"

The entire premise of this thread is contradicted by your fix on yourself in Bugtussle. Go out on your rowboat, have a few beers, and try to figure out why GPS keeps finding you. That's the thread you need to open, over in Conspiracy Theories. This one is dead on arrival. But whatever you do, don't drive drunk. Just sleep it off and face the horror of your ignorance in the morning.
Click to expand...

The math holds that the light strikes the front of the mirror in the prime frame and strikes the back of the mirror in the unprimed frame. So light is reflected and not reflected a contradiction.

Let's see your math that proves the light strikes the front of the mirror for all y in the unprimed frame.

You can't do it so your post is useless.
 
billvon said:
Again, one reference frame has no meaning. It does not represent reality to the mirror. Only the mirror's frame is real to the mirror. Thus only the mirror's frame determines what happens with a light pulse impinging on it.



No, it doesn't. You have misunderstood the givens of the problem.
Click to expand...

Yes and in the primed frame, SR says the mirror will say light reflects off from it.

Then SR claims in the unprimed frame that the mirror says light will not reflect off from it, which is a contradiction.
 
chinglu said:
Then SR claims in the unprimed frame that the mirror says light will not reflect off from it, which is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

This sounds like the old thought experiment "SR predicts my ship will be shorter when I near the speed of light - but I tried it, and it looked the same to me!"

Good luck in figuring it out.
 
Aqueous Id said:
You mean you got over the BS chinglu is peddling way back when you were cramming for finals. Which is all chinglu needs to do to get over his fixation.



Heh heh. I'll be trying to ride your coat tails. "Hey bruce remember me? Cut for you ole bud wontcha? Allums for the poor.." etc.

The nuts really have been coming out of the woodwork lately.
Click to expand...

I am glad the cranks have chosen to accept the math of the article of this thread since they cannot refute it.
 
billvon said:
This sounds like the old thought experiment "SR predicts my ship will be shorter when I near the speed of light - but I tried it, and it looked the same to me!"

Good luck in figuring it out.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about all the ship junk.

This article uses the math of SR to force it into a contradiction. It is that simple. No one can stop the math facts.
 
chinglu said:
I am not sure about all the ship junk.
Click to expand...

SR says the ship will be shorter. (Google "Length contraction" - it will explain it if you don't understand it.) You can prove this mathematically; the ship will shrink along its axis of travel. Yet an observer on the ship sees no change in length. It is a contradiction of the facts of SR!

Well, not really. Once you figure out why it isn't, you'll be able to figure out why the mirror experiment isn't a contradiction either.
 
billvon said:
SR says the ship will be shorter. (Google "Length contraction" - it will explain it if you don't understand it.) You can prove this mathematically; the ship will shrink along its axis of travel. Yet an observer on the ship sees no change in length. It is a contradiction of the facts of SR!

Well, not really. Once you figure out why it isn't, you'll be able to figure out why the mirror experiment isn't a contradiction either.
Click to expand...
I dont care. I know exactly what SR means by length contraction.

This has nothing to do with the OP of this thread.

The article proves that SR can be forced into a contradiction.
 
chinglu said:
The article shows its math to prove its case and no one can refute it. So show yours.
Click to expand...

chinglu,

Everyone knows you as an antirelativity crackpot. It is easy for me to refute the crackpot paper published in the crappy journal, I will send my refutation directly to the chief editor and force her to retract the paper, I have done this in the past with journals that were much better than this Chinese piece of crap.
 
chinglu said:
The math holds that the light strikes the front of the mirror in the prime frame and strikes the back of the mirror in the unprimed frame. So light is reflected and not reflected a contradiction.
Click to expand...
The contradiction was in the premise, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Let's see your math that proves the light strikes the front of the mirror for all y in the unprimed frame.
Click to expand...
Let's see the proof that the premise is valid.
 
Tach said:
chinglu,

Everyone knows you as an antirelativity crackpot. It is easy for me to refute the crackpot paper published in the crappy journal, I will send my refutation directly to the chief editor and force her to retract the paper, I have done this in the past with journals that were much better than this Chinese piece of crap.
Click to expand...

If you could refute it, which you can't, you would do it to me to attempt to show your dominance.

So, that proves you are in retreat mode.

And, I am quite certain that someone who published in the Annals of Mathematics would find anything you say uninteresting.
 
Aqueous Id said:
The contradiction was in the premise, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.


Let's see the proof that the premise is valid.
Click to expand...

I proved that the light pulse strikes the back of the mirror since it strikes the mirror on the positive side of the unprimed x-axis.

And, the article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

So, you have been refuted over and over and over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top