xyzt

Are you comparing yourself with Einstein? Because the parallel doesn't hold. The language of physics is math. You have no math. You have no experiments. Therefore, you have nothing. No one is stopping you. But what you are doing is not physics, it is just...talk.

I gave you a hint but you continued to make elementary mistakes, I'll give you another hint: [math]F_x=\frac{d}{dt} \frac{m_0u_x}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2}}=m_0 \frac{du_x}{dt}\frac{1-u^2/c^2+u_xu/c^2}{\sqrt{1-u^2/c^2}^3}[/math] [math]F_y=\frac{d}{dt} \frac{m_0u_y}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2}}=m_0 \frac{du_y}{dt}\frac{1-u^2/c^2+u_yu/c^2}{\sqrt{1-u^2/c^2}^3}[/math] So [math]F_x/F_y=?[/math] You need to learn how to do differentiation correctly. Until you do that, you will continue to make gross errors in your "physics". I put "physics" in quotes because what you are doing is not physics, it is the same fringe stuff Mahesh Khati was doing, combining basic errors. Or you can always go learn how it is done properly in the textbooks, Here is the link I gave you earlier, I suggest that you study it.

This is precisely what I do, I have plenty of arguments. I know that it is BS when the proponent: -has no experimental evidence -has no mathematical formalism (has only a long winded, rambling prose, like the one just posted by mephestopheles) -is deaf to any factual counter-arguments -other fringers come to the defense of the fringer that proposed the theory What gets posted in this forum doesn't fall in that category. The reason? See above.

In their minds it goes like this: they post some stuff that is contradicted by existent science and, in many cases, by experiment. The real scientists call them on it. This means that the real scientists "resist the change" and are "dogmatic". If we reject their BS, it means that we persecute them, the same way the Inquisition persecuted Galilei, Giordano Bruno, etc. In the meanwhile, science stagnates, since we act like the gestapo (Le Repeux own words to me) and "suffocate" their "new ideas". Right on cue, couldn't ask for better proof of my post above. Who needs education when we can post any BS we want on the internet?

You are welcome, BTW.

Well? Are you going to admit to your errors or are you going to disappear?

Read the references. There are quite a few.

Yes, it can, there are multiple modern formulations of SR that use only the first postulate. Mind you, SR is not a theory of light, so the second postulate has no place in the modern formulations. This thread should be in the main forum, it is not a speculation.

Well, it is textbook physics. You are making the same exact kind of errors as Mahesh Khati. Force is not frame invariant, so [math]F_x=0[/math] in frame S does not mean [math]F'_x=0[/math] in frame S'. Crack open any book on relativity and you will see how forces transform. The formula in post 53 in the thread is correct. Wrong. I will let you figure out where you made your error. I will give you a hint: [math]F_x=\frac{d}{dt} \frac{m_0u_x}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2}}[/math] and [math]F_y=\frac{d}{dt} \frac{m_0u_y}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2}}[/math] Calculate the derivatives, the first time you did it, you messed up.

There is no test for "absolute rest" because .... there is no such thing as "absolute rest". It is refreshing to see that you will never understand not only the special relativity but also its predecessor, the galilean relativity. Of course, none of this will stop you from posting and re-posting the same misconceptions over and over in ever longer posts.

So others have exposed your fringe ideas. Good.

Cranks have always have had doubt directed at relativity. To a lesser extent they have had doubts directed at QM. They doubt what they cannot understand.

Not again

Nope

m/s

You mean that you have been hijacking this thread with your crank claims? Absolutely.

Actually, your claims are false. I have debunked christopher's errors earlier in the thread, with hard facts (i.e. math and physics). You need to go back at the beginning of the thread and find the debunking posts. I also debunked your attempts at hijacking this thread with your own fringe ideas. Also with hard facts , i.e. math and physics. This is not the way science works, mainstream science does not compromise with crank claims, no matter how persistent and vociferous the proponents are.

There should be a way to lock this thread, it has been going in circles for a long time. There is no way of convincing christopher that he's wrong, so what is the point of wasting server storage and network bandwidth?

Well, I explained earlier, in great detail why your fringe ideas are wrong. No point in repeating the explanation, it doesn't take in your case.

Nope. You keep repeating the same mistake over and over. I will not explain why, I already did, i will just point out that you keep repeating the same mistake. Also nope.

There is no connection between the two cases. You are simply making up stuff.

No, it doesn't, you are still trying to pass word salads as science.

Absolutely, that's the ticket.

I already disproved your fringe ideas. That was not a waste of time. The waste of time is that you won't admit that your ideas were disproved and that you will continue forever to re-assert the same crankery. That is a waste of everybody's time.

The Doppler effect has nothing to do with the word salad: "atoms of the same kind emitting the same frequencies, which is what an atom needs to stay synchronized with another one" . Actinides emit on multiple frequencies. The Doppler effect has nothing to do with actinides. There is no meaning to "atoms needing to stay synchronized"