0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do you know how carefully SR has been tested?
Oh yawn, we've got another 1
<<The collapse of Special Relativity>>certainly, take a region of spacetime which contains mass or energy or pressure, and SR doesn't hold anylonger...(for this reason Albert Einstein created General Relativity 10 years later).Cheers.
Remember the Galileo event! Everybody had said that "The sun turns around the earth" except Galileo.
Quote from: DoctorBeaver on 09/08/2008 19:15:39Oh yawn, we've got another 1 Thanks for your sensitivity.
Quote from: lightarrow on 10/08/2008 10:14:44<<The collapse of Special Relativity>>certainly, take a region of spacetime which contains mass or energy or pressure, and SR doesn't hold anylonger...(for this reason Albert Einstein created General Relativity 10 years later).Cheers.I only applied the modified postulate by me for Hubble constant. And I transformed to a single value (Ho = 43,7 +/- 0,2 km/s/mpc) all of the values of Ho at present between 40-80.
Why wait til the end of the olympics?
Copernicus, Galileo...it was close, anyway..im just a poor boy, nobody loves me. he's just a poor boy, from a poor family.
"I analyse the space-time from out of Universe. "Quite.
Come on x, lets see your sums.
I've made the same and didn't find any relativity violations...
and QED doesn't try to say exactly what the six different quark flavours actually represent.
Quote from: LeeE on 10/08/2008 18:25:38 and QED doesn't try to say exactly what the six different quark flavours actually represent.QED? Shouldn't that be QCD?
If we start the experiment with the ball numbered 3528 we must complete the experiment with the same numbered ball (3528). This is an undefined principle; but it is absolute requirement.
Thank you BC - you have cracked the code for me.QuoteIf we start the experiment with the ball numbered 3528 we must complete the experiment with the same numbered ball (3528). This is an undefined principle; but it is absolute requirement. Allow yourself to think in terms of the photon only existing at the interaction (what happens at each end) and the wave function being what describes the situation in between source and detector (on the way). The need for a particular photon to follow a whole journey is now eliminated.The way to deal with modern ideas is not to insist on bringing all your old ideas with you. Every significant step that has been made in the past has required similar leaps away from 'comfortable' and established views.The reason that experiments have not dealt with individual photons is not just a 'technical difficulty'; it is fundamental.
CORRECT: We can measure the velocity of light by using perpetual/flowing photons.
If we can use the halves of single photon we would determine different number of interference.
QuoteCORRECT: We can measure the velocity of light by using perpetual/flowing photons.How can you say that? You can measure the time between the emission and reception of some light energy. No one has a CLUE about how it travels. It may be 'perpetual, flowing photons' or it may not be. All we know is the effect the experiment gives.QuoteIf we can use the halves of single photon we would determine different number of interference.But it isn't just 'halves' of photons which are involved; every flow of em energy follows the 'rules' of diffraction. The two slits experiment is the very simplest (although, of course, the slits have finite width, in practice and have their own associated diffraction pattern). If you insist that the photon exists as 'fractions' you have to allow it to spread, in the limit,in all directions and be spread everywhere. Where's your 'little bullet' now?The Photon, as a concept, is a useful thing to explain many interactions but trying to use it when describing the propagation of em energy is seriously fraught. We are on to a loser if we insist in saying what anything 'really is' and this (what I am criticising) is an excellent example of that statement.
xersanozgen, Copernicus didn't determine that the Earth went around the Sun, he suggested it. What he was originally trying to do was produce more effective tide tables for navigators and this heliocentric system did just that - coupled with the observation that fewer epicycles were needed to account for some planetary orbits this way. Because it was a 'tidier' system in the mathematical sense it was seen to be right, by him and one or two others; elegance is still important in pure mathematics. He was never able to demonstrate his system directly.
There are some definitions in science history; they were imperfect. The reason of deficiency may be because of could not perceiving the complete of picture especially for universal subjects. An example and its identical for SR:
Also your posts are too many and too rambling to expect anyone to read them. Why not just post one post and wait for a reply?Failing that, get your own website and fill it with all the nonsense you want.