Prof Reza Sanaye

So the next time that you read an experimental writeup saying that we test SR against earlier theory by proving the existence of a transverse component that wouldn't be there unless SR was right, and that any excess transverse component results are explicable by recoil effects, and have no deeper significance because there's no other theories redder than SR ... you'll understand that not only did the author not have a clue as to what they were doing, neither did the journal referees, the journal editors, or the authors of the earlier works cited in defence of that position. Because of the way that the SR-testing literature developed, with incompetent analysis inflating or manufacturing the "significance" of results, if you are an experimenter, in order to be able to compete with those existing peer-reviewed "inflated" claims, you pretty much NEED to use the same illegal tricks to inflate your results, or you won;t get published. The use of convenient untrue comparisons in SR testing is like the use of performance-enhancing drugs in athletics ... once their use becomes endemic, the honest athlete can no longer compete, and either has to cheat in the same way, or has to give up and find some other sport. In athletics, being caught cheating results in bans and maybe medals being taken away. In SR testing, being caught using bad assumptions to make your figures better carries no penalty. Not only will the community not censure you or downgrade your results, they will not even report that something has gone wrong. As long as your dodgy result favours SR and disfavours possible competition, the community will actually defend your dodgy result, and will try to prevent others from revealing what went wrong. She could OR she could not. . .. It is not for our scholastic presuppositions to determine that . .. It is for the Lady Gorilla herself to decide for her own stomach . .. .

Of course, it is debatable like all ideas or concepts, but it seems logical to me that before defining where and how "something" is likely to exist and move, this something must first be conceived of as possessing physical properties that will explain how it can exist in a stable manner as a material object, and only then attempting to define where it moves (involving the space concept), which motion involves a delay between its presence at a given location in space and then at another location (involving the time concept) because once defined as a material object, this something cannot conceivably be present at both location at the same moment. The ladies & gentlemen at CERN only have to be expert in getting their hardware to work under a specific theoretical system. They do not need to be expert (or even to have competent newbie-level knowledge) of how that hardware might work under some parallel system of theory. When it comes to knowing how to compare SR and Newtonian results, in a scientifically correct way, they don't know how to do it. Because they've been trained on a set of literature that's incompetently written and mathematically wrong, and they've internalised a load of those wrong results. Mainstream educational resources will tell you that E=m0c2 is unique to SR, that transverse redshifts only happen under SR-based systems, that if SR wasn't right, particle path-lengths before decay would be shorter by gamma, and that there's no theory that predicts redshifts stronger than SR. All of these statements are provably sub-amateur garbage. In real life, E=m0c2 is an exact result under SR, Newtonian theory, and any other relativistic system ... Lab-transverse redshifts are expected under any theory that includes some influence of the state of motion of the emitting mass on the properties of light (ranging from "no transverse effect" for "no influence" to a Lorentz-squared effect for emission theory) ... SR, Newtonian theory and every other potential relativistic theory agree exactly as to the decay positions of particles, given an agreed energy or momentum and rest frame decay time ... and Newtonian theory predicts motion-shifts that are redder than SR, rather than the other way around. Don't take my word for it. Try a really basic calculation: Under SR, the recession redshift is E'/E = sqrt[ (c-v) / (c+v) ], while under C19th Newtonian theory, it's E'/E = (c-v)/c Plug in any sensible value of v (say, half lightspeed). With SR, that gives E'/E = sqrt(0.5/1.5) = sqrt(1/3) = ~0.577.. With "Newtonian" Dopppler, we get E/E=0.5 . 0.5 is a smaller number than 0.577 . The Newtonian predictions are redder than the SR predictions. In fact, they are always redder than the SR predictions, for a given "nominal" velocity value, by an additional Lorentz factor.

We know 'Newton' is no valid etc etc {Quote // by the kind permission of Senior Member Eise} this makes no sense when we see Newton is all of a sudden proven right with/without the Conditionalized Habit of Relativity. Fresh Data speak for themselves in case we do not distort them or misinterpret them or do not make claims not dissimilar to WE KNOW EARTH IS FLAT. You are NOT supposed to be embarrassed at receiving new data . . . . No , Mr Genius , You are not . . .. . . . I , too , wish we could push our Most Respectable Heads into sand . .. Alas ! Alas ! We simply can't ;;;;;;;;;;;;

I always thought a moderator has the obligation to guide interlocutors not to write extremely impolitely . . .. If it indeed is true that CERN tested Newton’s equation for the kinetic energy (E = ½ mv^2) by accelerating a charged particle (proton) to 7 TeV instead of the maximum possible energy of 470 MeV limited by ½mc² possible according to Newton’s equation; then is it possible that they are getting FTL velocity for the accelerating protons without any limit; violating SR? It could be very interesting in light of the fact that quasars are reported to be ejected at velocities even at few orders of magnitude of c! Of course, it may be true that a charged particle like proton would be more difficult to accelerate than the ejection of a (possible) neutral mass of a quasar. An accelerating charged particle would lose energy through bremsstrahlung radiation ; ; ; ; ; 😲 !!!!!

my !! You order me to ask for the thread to be shut. why don't you yourself do that ?? !!!!

Ok , Area . .. . So Sorry for elucidating . . . We now deem it as both Provocative and Irrelevant . . . .. . . . . .

Excuse me ; these are stipulations that YOU are adding. The original author did not say so.

I think whistle blowers are , most of the time (not always) , healthy functionals for the well-being of a democracy.

Quote from beecee : "The speed of light is a constant and always travels at "c"." [ End of Quote ] This statement has experientially proven to be incorrect. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Quote from beecee : " Space and time are both variable quantities and two opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak...without space, there is no time, without time, there is no space." [ End of quote ] It is not so. We cannot categorically asseverate that without space , for example , there's no time. Refer to Bergson's detailed discussion of the issue of time. Nor may we be absolutely certain that space can never exist without time. Refer to QM's way of handling this.

And , as I explained in my four previous posts , a US president DOES have the ability to influence legislation. It is NOT as kid-plain as you are claiming that legislation is under NO influence from the president . . .. .

Wiki : Much of the legislation dealt with by Congress is drafted at the initiative of the executive branch.[35] In modern times, the "executive communication" has become a prolific source of legislative proposals. The communication is usually in the form of a message or letter from a member of the President's Cabinet, the head of an independent agency, or the President himself, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.[36] The president may personally propose legislation in annual and special messages to Congress including the annual State of the Union address and joint sessions of Congress. If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress. Beyond these official powers, the U.S. president, as a leader of his political party and the United States government, holds great sway over public opinion whereby they may influence legislation.

He(Obama) didn't do it as per conspiracy theory. He committed the crime right in front of all glaring eyes under the very wide sunshine. Just one instance is the service he did to American car industry. Congress makes legislation. Which party's Congress men and C-women suggest those legislations to Congress ? Both ! And one more : In what manner is Biden enabled to spend that amount of nearly 2 trillion $ ?? Quote from Wiki : The powers of the president of the United States include those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution as well as those granted by Acts of Congress, implied powers, and also a great deal of soft power that is attached to the presidency.[1] The Constitution explicitly assigns the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. The president shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed and the president has the power to appoint and remove executive officers. The president may make treaties, which need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, and is accorded those foreign-affairs functions not otherwise granted to Congress or shared with the Senate. Thus, the president can control the formation and communication of foreign policy and can direct the nation's diplomatic corps. The president may also appoint Article III judges and some officers with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. In the condition of a Senate recess, the president may make a temporary appointment. Incidentally , How is it that power is exchanged every now and then only in between Democrats and Republicans and no third part ? No fourth party ?? !! And one more last : You are not obligated to be so very very scared of conspiracy theories. . . .. though this is not my original line here . . , , ,.,. , . . ,. , ..

I cannot convince myself that Democrats are/will be doing much better than the former republican one . Democrats & Republicans both are either directly or indirectly almost always playing into the hands of corporate America + Wall Street. During the process of electing Obama , especially the 2nd term , much interest and enthusiasm was aroused for doing something in favor of a semi-radical reform to return America back to some simulacrum of normalcy : especially over the issue of abject poverty // but also over the slavery that is called a lifetime job or a long-life job. Then you see what Obama did to all those crowds of truly willing young people ? He simply told them to go home -- now that they have trusted him -- and to put everything at his own hands to make a really better America. The youth put their trust in him and said bye-bye and went home. Then what deep-rooted fundamental change did he bring to America ? He acted more like a traitor. Started connecting with corporate America + Wall Street , for the very simple reason that he had no original intention of making America over. His plan was to slowly turn American corporate debt nationalized. A grave sin . . . . . .. Which , of course , he did very well to accomplish . . . . Alas ! Alas ! Now Biden himself is a zillionaire. And his son. How can such a person feel the calamity of office workers and truck-drivers doing many many hours of drudgery for only maintaining a minimal level of decency throughout their lives ??? Biden's team say they wanna transform US economy somehow fundamentally. Biden has a $1.9 trillion economic rescue plan—But question is : out of whose pocket are these Dollars to come ??

Excuse me Awaterpon ; How can I be made to understand an alternative for mass and yet another alternative for acceleration ?? !! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ @ everybody ; I am real open to plough back the whole physics from the very beginning I am NOT talking rhetorically or metaphorically I am , rather , talking REALLY In case there IS anybody here offering any alternative brand of classical and/or modern physics , then I shall certainly be more than glad to read and learn ....

First, I should appreciate you for expatiating upon your thesis in so much detail and figures and illustration etc etc .......... Other questioners generally don't do that to this extent. Second , You want us to ask Qs. I have gotten a Question : You have written at the very beginning : " Why are mathematicians afraid of contradictions? " Have you ever read any of the writings of Kurt Godel ??