New article shows a fatal math error in SR

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by chinglu, Aug 9, 2013.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    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.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,609
    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.
     
  9. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I am glad the cranks have chosen to accept the math of the article of this thread since they cannot refute it.
     
  10. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    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.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    It refutes itself. So what?
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,609
    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.
     
  13. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    show that math
     
  14. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    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.
     
  15. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
  16. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The article shows its math to prove its case and no one can refute it. So show yours.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,609
    That's why you don't understand.
     
  18. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    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.
     
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The contradiction was in the premise, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

    Let's see the proof that the premise is valid.
     
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    what math?
     
  21. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    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.
     
  22. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    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.
     
  23. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    All you've done is to retreat. Why is your GPS working, Andy boy? You've backed away from that dozens of times at least.
     

Share This Page