0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
in 2014 the Lorentz Transformation was proven to be fatally flawed. The entire edifice has collapsed into a pile of rubble, sorry, Einstein Fan Club. Welcome to the post Einstein Relativity era, after the constancy of light in all inertial reference frames and the Lorentz Transformation time dilation and length contraction formulae were proven fatally flawed. The gravitational theories may be valid, I don't know at the moment, gravity does appear to dilate time, at least when using atomic clocks. Whether it's caused by spacetime curvature is debatable though. How could you prove or disprove that? It can't be accepted as fact, since it can't be definitively proved, but it's an interesting theory.QuoteCritical Error in the Formulation of the Special RelativityRadwan M. Kassir*
Critical Error in the Formulation of the Special RelativityRadwan M. Kassir*
Quote from: Centra on 22/01/2022 16:37:30The entire edifice has collapsed into a pile of rubble,No, it has not.
The entire edifice has collapsed into a pile of rubble,
Really, if that's all you have, is it worth posting?
And I disagree with you (obviously). I think it is worth posting. I think that just pointing out where someone has said something utterly stupid is valuable.
It forces them to consider the question of why they believe it.
And it avoids the potential issue of him thinking it's our job to provide the evidence whereas, since he's the one making the extraordinary claim, he has to provide the extraordinary evidence.
An anti-photon is a photon turned through 180 degrees and with momentum encoded with added points of space instead of with left-out points.
The inside of a fiber optic cable is glass, not a vacuum
I'll have to find a mathematician somewhere to check Kassir's article and see if his math checks out.
2. Temporal Events AnalysisConsider two inertial frames of reference, K(x,y,z,t), and K'(x',y,'z',t'), in translational relative motion with parallel corresponding axes, and let their origins be aligned along the overlapped -x and -x′axes. Let v be the relative motion velocity in the -xx′ direction. K and K′ coordinate systems are assumed to be overlapping at the time t - t' = 0; so as event coordinates in K and K′ can be considered as space and time intervals measured from the initial zero coordinates of the overlapped-frames event.
2.1. Arbitrary Non-origin EventsLet’s suppose that at the frames overlapping instant, an event E1(x',0,0,0) [E1(x,0,0,0)] takes place at a distance x′ with respect to K′ origin (x with respect to K origin) on the x-x′ axis.
Let us suppose that a light emitter/receptor is traveling toward a mirror in a stationary frame at a speed of 100,000 km/s and emits a beam toward a mirror when it is 300,000 from it. In the time it took for the beam to reach the mirror the emitter unit would have moved 100,000 toward it. On the return trip from the mirror, since the beam is moving at 3 times the speed of the unit, they will meet when the unit has moved anther 50,000 km toward the mirror and the light has traveled 150,000 km from the mirror in the opposite direction. From the stationary mirror point of view, the beam would have traveled a total of 450,000 km in 1.5 seconds, 300,000 km from the emitter to the mirror and 150,000 km from the mirror back to the emitter. A timer on the emitter/receptor would have shown that time because that was the actual time taken, the timer didn't know it had been catching up with the beam on its way to the mirror or that it had been closing in on the front end of the beam after it reflected back toward it, all it did was record the actual time elapsed between the emission and reception of the light beam and that time was the same in both frames. There was no observer traveling with the unit to think anything about the light beam, the only observer was in the stationary frame and everything made sense to him based on the postulate that the motion of a light emitter has no effect on its speed, no alterations of time or length in the emitter/receptor frame had to be invoked by the observer to explain anything appearing unusual.Now let us consider the emitter/receptor to be stationary, with the observer, and the mirror to be moving toward it at 100,000 km/s. The light was traveling at 3 times the speed of the mirror so this time the mirror would have been hit by the beam after the beam had traveled 225,000 km and the mirror had traveled 75,000 km. The beam would then have to travel back the same 225,000 km to reach the receptor, for a round trip distance of 450,000 km and the same elapsed time of 1.5 seconds. The observer didn't need to invoke any time or length alterations in the mirror frame to explain any apparent anomalies.
The only difference would be that you put the mirror in the same frame
Let us suppose that a light emitter/receptor
Quote from: Centra on 24/01/2022 13:45:59Let us suppose that a light emitter/receptorI'm curious, why would you try to argue against a complicated, well tested and accepted theory on a subject you know little about? What is your motivation?
There's no other scenario that makes sense, you can't have time, length or distance changing depending on which frame to choose to view a scenario from,
Quote from: Centra on 24/01/2022 19:34:09There's no other scenario that makes sense, you can't have time, length or distance changing depending on which frame to choose to view a scenario from,Yes you can.And we do.
They didn't have anything sensitive enough to detect earth's rotation in those days. Of course, we do now, which is why we now know light speed varies with motion relative to earth's gravity source.
They didn't have anything sensitive enough to detect earth's rotation in those days.
Of course, we do now, which is why we now know light speed varies with motion relative to earth's gravity source.
Quote from: Centra on 24/01/2022 20:25:11They didn't have anything sensitive enough to detect earth's rotation in those days. Of course, we do now, which is why we now know light speed varies with motion relative to earth's gravity source.You mean like this? I think a sensitivity on the order of 10-17 is plenty good enough: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
Maybe that's not a good way to do it if they got null results
It's easy to find pages about detecting earth's rotation with ring lasers so obviously light is moving at different speeds based on earth's rotation right there.
How do we know perceived distance isn't altered between frames rather than time or length of objects?
I don't really know what they were doing in that experiment,
Here's the glaring flaw in the Lorentz transformation, it can't work on two beams in opposite directions at the same time.
as if that makes the slightest sense.
You cannot have two clocks suddenly going out of synch just because somebody passes by and looks at them