Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

[JohnMnemonic]

41 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Skewing requires better imagination... Maybe I'll try to draw it...

Ok, skewing (boosting) seems to work for relative motion of photons and stationary observers. If we skew (boost) the diagram for light emitted in opposite directions by a stationary source and use one of the light beams as stationary frame, light moving in opposite direction will appear to move at 200% c, while the source at 100% c - and the symmetry will be maintained.

Problems seem to appear, if we will include frames, which move slower than light in relation to stationary observer, but I think, that it still might work - it depends, how the doppler's effect looks like from the perspective of emitted light - will the source "chase" tha light, or will it appear to be stationary... But in both cases we would get valid results...

We can also assume, that from the perspective of a photon, everything what moves slower than c will appear to move at 100% c in the direction opposite to light propagation - and it still would be valid...

10 minutes of thinking - that's all... Really - how no one didn't figure it out before? You don't have to be a genius, to understand it...

Does anyone want to elaborate?

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

But do you also completely ignore links to publications and assume, that they are just some rubbish?

No. You could look at the threads and see. if you discuss science, it will get debunked. But if all you are going to do is post links to articles, that's not going to work. You need to give people a reason to invest time and effort, and unless you are willing to do that yourself, don't expect anyone else to do so.

(edit to add: this is one of the reasons for the rule that discussion must take place here, rather than requiring people to click on links)

One problem here is that on at least one link all you provided was the abstract (the one from APS, which potentially had some credibility. But it was a conference abstract, not a paper). There is no way to actually look at the details of the argument. One wonders if you did your due diligence, or just grabbed a bunch of links from people who disagreed with relativity

Quote

links, which I posted in the response to Markus Hanke seem to be ok...

You are very trusting that researchgate screens their users. I don't think they do.

 

[studiot]

3 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

1)  Thanks! I will check it..

2) To be honest, I'm against the idea, that a constant velocity is causing physical time dilation. Of course I don't have nothing against relative time dilation - but then we would need also a second frame...

 

1) If you put one tenth the effort into studying that book you put into finding junk science on the internet you would be very knowledgable on the subject and able to answer simple questions about claims you make unlike (2) below.

2) That was not an answer to my question , although you obviously thought about it and shied away. This was because velocity, constant or otherwise, is immaterial in relativity.
The only thing that matters is relative velocity. Funny how they call it relativity isn't it?
My question was, of course, designed specifically to bring this point out.

3) Hearsay evidence is not allowed in a court of law, and the standard of evidence required in Science is far greater.
This is why the good folks here reject all this hearsay evidence you cannot support.     
Since the authors of your references are not present to answer for themselves, you must be prepared to stand in and substantiate them yourself.

4) I note you posted the same question as the one in your recently closed thread on another Physics site.
I didn't think it possible but a well respected senior member there gave you an even more cogent and easily digestible answer than Janus did here.

5) Did I mention that book by McComb? When you read it you will soon see that you can't add opposing velocities in the manner you just proposed two posts back. Mechanics does not work that way.

[JohnMnemonic]

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

No. You could look at the threads and see. if you discuss science, it will get debunked. But if all you are going to do is post links to articles, that's not going to work. You need to give people a reason to invest time and effort, and unless you are willing to do that yourself, don't expect anyone else to do so.

One problem here is that on at least one link all you provided was the abstract (the one from APS, which potentially had some credibility. But it was a conference abstract, not a paper). There is no way to actually look at the details of the argument. One wonders if you did your due diligence, or just grabbed a bunch of links from people who disagreed with relativity

You are very trusting that researchgate screens their users. I don't think they do.

 

To be honest, until you invited me into discussion, I didn't intend to elaborate on those publications - I just wanted to point out, that not all scientists accept the SR without any critical opinions...

Much more important for me is the fact, that I've made a time-space diagram and used it, to get a valid result for the perspective of a stationary photon...

We just can't use the Lorentz transformation to do it, as it was invented to keep the speed of light constant in all frames - that is the whole "problem"... And it took more, than 100 years, to find a simple solution... Hahaha!

Not to mention, that solution acquired from the time-space diagram is just the same, as the one, which I figured out earlier...

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

To be honest, until you invited me into discussion, I didn't intend to elaborate on those publications - I just wanted to point out, that not all scientists accept the SR without any critical opinions...

Wow. Sun rises in east. Crackpots exist. News at 11.

14 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Much more important for me is the fact, that I've made a time-space diagram and used it, to get a valid result for the perspective of a stationary photon...

We just can't use the Lorentz transformation to do it, as it was invented to keep the speed of light constant in all frames - that is the whole "problem"... And it took more, than 100 years, to find a simple solution... Hahaha!

Not to mention, that solution acquired from the time-space diagram is just the same, as the one, which I figured out earlier...

So, what is it? Nobody has any cause to believe you until you share it, and you can't say it's valid until you have experimental confirmation of predictions it makes.

 

[JohnMnemonic]

And here's a publication (peer-reviewed), which supports everything, what I said in the previous post...

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.838.5669&rep=rep1&type=pdf

If someone wants to discuss - I'll be back in hour or two (I'm going out with my dog right now)

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

So, what is it? Nobody has any cause to believe you until you share it, and you can't say it's valid until you have experimental confirmation of predictions it makes.

And what is the experimental confirmation of the assumption, that time doesn't flow at c?

My confirmation is on the time-space diagram - wich was used by Einstein to make most of his claims...If he could, why I can't?

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

And what is the experimental confirmation of the assumption, that time doesn't flow at c?

Science makes no such claim.

It is an unsupported extrapolation of the fact that elapsed time tends to zero for a moving object, as v approaches c.

It is more accurate to say time in a frame moving at c is not defined; such a frame is not inertial.

[JohnMnemonic]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Science makes no such claim.

It is an unsupported extrapolation of the fact that elapsed time tends to zero for a moving object, as v approaches c.

It is more accurate to say time in a frame moving at c is not defined; such a frame is not inertial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

"Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to him will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in his frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s). This causes massless particles that travel at the speed of light to be unaffected by the passage of time."

...

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

"Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to him will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in his frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s). This causes massless particles that travel at the speed of light to be unaffected by the passage of time."

And wikipedia come with no caveats as to its technical accuracy?

As I said, it's the extrapolation from the limit a v approaches c. But if you think that the Lorentz transformation is valid, try getting from the photon's frame back into your frame.

[studiot]

40 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

We just can't use the Lorentz transformation to do it, as it was invented to keep the speed of light constant in all frames - that is the whole "problem"... And it took more, than 100 years, to find a simple solution... Hahaha!

 

Sorry but, this is entirely symptomatic of someone who only takes his material from cranks.

 

If you listened to respectable workers (like here) or read respectable publications you would know the real history of Lorenz and his transformation.

[Mordred]

Swansont is right in that the photon frame is not a valid reference frame, You get too many garbage answers when trying the LT transforms in that frame such as the photon being everywhere at once. For example a null geoedesic is denoted with a separation distance of ds^2=0. Hence the application of the term Null. We know it still takes time to get from event A to event B so stating time doesn't pass for the photon frame is obviously also garbage from the reference frame of the photon. The time of travel can only be shown via other reference frames Not the photons reference frame.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Mordred

[JohnMnemonic]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And wikipedia come with no caveats as to its technical accuracy?

As I said, it's the extrapolation from the limit a v approaches c. But if you think that the Lorentz transformation is valid, try getting from the photon's frame back into your frame.

No problem - if we will skew (boost) the diagram. Lorentz transfotrmation should be used ONLY, if we want to keep the constant velocity of light in all frames...

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Sorry but, this is entirely symptomatic of someone who only takes his material from cranks.

If you listened to respectable workers (like here) or read respectable publications you would know the real history of Lorenz and his transformation.

I didn't use any other materials, except the movie, which explains the Lorentz transformation and time-space diagram for frames in motion (what makes the base of SR)

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Swansont is right in that the photon frame is not a valid reference frame, You get too many garbage answers when trying the LT transforms in that frame such as the photon being everywhere at once. For example a null geoedesic is denoted with a separation distance of ds^2=0. Hence the application of the term Null. We know it still takes time to get from event A to event B so stating time doesn't pass for the photon frame is obviously also garbage from the reference frame of the photon. The time of travel can only be shown via other reference frames Not the photons reference frame.

Actually you will get 100% valid results with the time-space diagram, if you skew (boost) the coordinates - just like in this movie:

You can't use Lorentz transformation, if you want change the perspective to a stationary photon, as it was invented only to keep the constant value of c in all frames - while in this case, we reduce it's velocity to 0...

There's only thing, which can be questioned, if we want to treat photon as a stationary frame - which scenario should be the starting point: the one, in which source of light is stationary, or the one, in which it is in motion. I guess, that the second option is better, but in both cases we will get a 100% valid result. In first case, source will appear to move at 100% of c, while in the second one, velocity of the source will be subtracted from c (reversed Doppler's effect???)...

It couldn't be more simple and logical...

Nice tool: http://www.trell.org/div/minkowski.html

One more thing - if we want to change the point of view from a stationary photon to a stationary source of light, first we need to skew (boost) the diagram back to the position, in which speed of light is constant in all directions - only then we can use LT to make the source a stationary frame... Voilla!

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[studiot]

56 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Sorry but, this is entirely symptomatic of someone who only takes his material from cranks.

If you listened to respectable workers (like here) or read respectable publications you would know the real history of Lorenz and his transformation.

I didn't use any other materials, except the movie, which explains the Lorentz transformation and time-space diagram for frames in motion (what makes the base of SR)

 

Nonsense, you must have listed a couple of dozen web and other references.

 

Please keep to verifiable truths.

58 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

as it was invented only to keep the constant value of c in all frames

Again you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Why do you not respond when you are offered correct historical records?

[JohnMnemonic]

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

Nonsense, you must have listed a couple of dozen web and other references.

Please keep to verifiable truths.

I simply figured out the solution, after watching that movie. Ok... To be honest, I figured out the solution yesterday, but after watching the movie, I've just learned, how to use time-space diagram, to prove it. I don't know, if I'm so smart, or maybe rather those things are just quite easy to understand...  

Quote

Again you don't know what you are talking about.

Oh, really? LT was invented only, to keep the same velocity of light in frames, which move in relation to eachother (slower, than c). If not the constant c, we could skew (boost) the coordinates, while changing the perspective from one frame to another. Generally, until we discuss the relativity of motion at velocities lower, than c, we have to use LT. But if we want to change the perspective to a frame, which moves at c, we need to skew the diagram, until light is placed at d = 0. Coordinates have to be skewed as well, when we want to change the perspective between different photons...

Quote

Why do you not respond when you are offered correct historical records?

Because some 2 hours ago I've learned, how to prove one of my "radical" claims, using a method, which was used by Einstein - and right now I want to visualise it using a 3D software and start working on a movie...

Don't worry - I will read the book, after I finish...

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

6 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Just as astronomy or classical mechanics is a theory - that means not too much...

No, wrong again. They are scientific disciplines or catagories.

Quote

And yet, in many cases GR explains things much better. SR is not wrong, until we won't try to define the relation between a photon and something else (and maybe the time dilation due to constant velocity)

Didn't I just say that? Which again means that neither Newtonian, SR or GR is wrong and each have their own zone of applicability..sheesh!

Quote

And somehow you still wasn't able to notice, that it contradicts the basic laws of relative motion? Of course, if you are talking talking all the time about relative (apparent) time dilation - then ok. However, what I disagree with is the actual (real) time dilation - the one, which creates the twin paradox in SR...

Fail again, since the so called "twin paradox"is not really a paradox.

 

Quote

For me a theory, is something what is still theoretical and still needs a visual or experimental confirmation. For example classical mechanics is NOT a theory for me, as each of it's aspects can be proved by real life observations. And for the same reason, astronomy, QM and MHD are NOT theories as well. SR and GR deal however with things, which are beyond our perception at this moment...

So you make up your own definitions and meanings as you go? Got it, and that's why you fail and are wrong.

 

Quote

I agree... And this is examtly why astronomy, QM or MHD are ŃOT theories - they don't need to be proved or modified anymore. Of course, in the case of QM, there are still couple aspects, which are still theoretical - like the Higgs Field for example - but the part, which is being used by quantum physicists in their laboratories is no longer a theory, only an assembly of LAWS (just like the classical mechaniocs)

No theories they are and theories they remain. For obvious reasons imbedded in the scientific method.

Quote

 

Is third Newton's law a theory?

No...

 

A scientific theory is NOT a wild guess. It must be consistent with known experimental results and it must have predictive power. As new knowledge is gained, theories are refined to better explain the data. A law is a mathematical relationship that is consistently found to be true. from WIKI:

 

Quote

And neither are magnetic fields, plasma currents, reconnections, wavefunction, entanglement and all other things, explained by QM and MHD - those are LAWS OF PHYSICS

They are aspects of particular theories.

 

Quote

I'm talking about a different kind of time dilation... This one:

Time dilation is caused by either speed or gravity 

 

 

Quote

By Doppler's effect, I mean Doppler's effect - nothing else

The doppler effect is real enough. But your error comes to the fore by not recognising and/or accepting when cosmological and gravitational effects come into play

[JohnMnemonic]

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, wrong again. They are scientific disciplines or catagories.

And relativity isn't? QM is not a discipline neither?

Quote

Didn't I just say that? Which again means that neither Newtonian, SR or GR is wrong and each have their own zone of applicability..sheesh!

They ARE wrong, if they are not used in proper cases...

For example SR is wrong, when we want to use it to describe the perspective of a photon - luckily I've already found the proper solutiion

Quote

Fail again, since the so called "twin paradox"is not really a paradox.

In this case, opinion is like an ass - each one has it's own.

Half of scientists tells, that one twin will get older, due to lower velocity, while second half tells, that both with age at the same rate. I belong to the secon half (although I'm not a professional scientist)

Quote

So you make up your own definitions and meanings as you go? Got it, and that's why you fail and are wrong.

Which one? You mean theory being theoretical?

Quote

No theories they are and theories they remain. For obvious reasons imbedded in the scientific method.

So you say, that classical mechanics is a theory? Well, that's your opinion - but I don't care about it too much...

Quote

A scientific theory is NOT a wild guess. It must be consistent with known experimental results and it must have predictive power. As new knowledge is gained, theories are refined to better explain the data. A law is a mathematical relationship that is consistently found to be true. from WIKI:

So? Until it's prediction won't match the observation, it will remain a theory...

Quote

They are aspects of particular theories.

Just like Newton's 3'rd LAW is an aspect of the theory of classical mechanics... You can call it as such - I don't care, as 99% of scientists will call it my way

Quote

Time dilation is caused by either speed or gravity 

Now you contradicted your own claims. Time dilation due to gravity is real, but as you said in previous post, time dilation due to velocity is relative...

Or maybe you just changed your mind...?

Quote

The doppler effect is real enough. But your error comes to the fore by not recognising and/or accepting when cosmological and gravitational effects come into play

For now I try to stick with SR... There will be time, to discuss gravity and other aspects of GR, when I finish fixing the SR - but don't worry, I'm already on the right path...

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[studiot]

28 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Oh, really? LT was invented only, to keep the same velocity of light in frames, which move in relation to eachother (slower, than c). If not the constant c, we could skew (boost) the coordinates, while changing the perspective from one frame to another. Generally, until we discuss the relativity of motion at velocities lower, than c, we have to use LT. But if we want to change the perspective to a frame, which moves at c, we need to skew the diagram, until light is placed at d = 0. Coordinates have to be skewed as well, when we want to change the perspective between different photons...

Yes, really.

Perhaps you could cite the paper in which Lorentz predates Einstein to that world shattering proposition.

Lorents introduced his tranformation following his famous experiment as a possible explanation for the null result.
This explanation had nothing to do with the speed of light.

But perhaps you prefer to base your hypotheses on fantasy history.

 

Common sense should suggest to you that there must be something behind what I am saying or I wouldn't bother to mention it.
It makes no difference to me who first stated the Lorentz transformation, I ask again, why do you think it is called the Lorenz tranformation not the Einstein transformation?

This is the ultimate in pig headedness.

35 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

I simply figured out the solution, after watching that movie. Ok... To be honest, I figured out the solution yesterday, but after watching the movie, I've just learned, how to use time-space diagram, to prove it. I don't know, if I'm so smart, or maybe rather those things are just quite easy to understand...  

Are you then denying all the quotes in your previous posts on this subject?

 

Would you like me to list them as forum quotes and formally count them?

[JohnMnemonic]

52 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes, really.

Perhaps you could cite the paper in which Lorentz predates Einstein to that world shattering proposition.

Lorents introduced his tranformation following his famous experiment as a possible explanation for the null result.
This explanation had nothing to do with the speed of light.

But perhaps you prefer to base your hypotheses on fantasy history.

 

Common sense should suggest to you that there must be something behind what I am saying or I wouldn't bother to mention it.
It makes no difference to me who first stated the Lorentz transformation, I ask again, why do you think it is called the Lorenz tranformation not the Einstein transformation?

This is the ultimate in pig headedness.

Ok, maybe it was invented for different purpose - it doesn't actually matters, as in SR it is being used, to maintain the constant speed of light in all frames, which are in relative motion (at velocities, lower than c).

I promise, that I will read that book, but at this moment I don't need to learn about it's history, to use it for time-space diagrams... I don't even need to learn the equations, as I can simply use an online calculator...

http://www.trell.org/div/minkowski.html

I HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ALL OF YOU:

Is there a symmetry in relativity Doppler's effect?

Will I observe the same distortion of a sound wave, for a source, passing next to stationary me and for me passing next to a stationary source?

This has significant meaning for the model of relativity, which I'm making right now...

If there wouldn't be no symmetry in relativity Doppler's effect, then we would be able to learn the definitive velocity of a moving source, by looking at the relation between it's motion and the waves, which it emits...

Ok - I start to look for the answer by myself... I will tell you, if I find something

Found it - according to mainstream science, Doppler's effect is asymmetric for the sound waves and symmetric for the light... Funny... But after spending a minute to think about it, it started to make sense for me - It's all because the crazy constant c

There's a significant difference between the light and other waves - it's the medium, in which waves propagate. A wave moving in a bowl of water is a nice example, which shows, how tricky is the light... If we accelerate the bowl, waves on the water surface will behave, like in the case of a stationary source of light. But if the wave propagates in stationary water, it will behave like source of light in motion. Most funny is the fact, that in the case of light, instead of accelerating the medium, we just have to change the point of view... How not to love relativity and the constant c? It makes things such more complicated...

Is time the medium for light...? <<<just joking (or maybe I'm not... I'm not sure...)

Anyway, if there wouldn't be no symmetry of relativity Doppler's effect for the light, I would have to change my mind and start to claim, that the rate of REAL time flow would indeed depend on the constant velocity of a frame. Luckily, it seems, that twins are still aging at the same rate... Phew!

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

31 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

And relativity isn't? QM is not a discipline neither?

Relativity is a branch of physics and consists of SR as a subset or special case of GR, both of course being tested validated and verified many thousands of times. Issues you will keep on avoiding.

Quote

They ARE wrong, if they are not used in proper cases...

They are innaccurate when used outside their zones of applicability. But again this is simply your way of avoiding the fact as everyone has told you, that SR and as a result GR, are entirely consistent and verified. 

 

Quote

For example SR is wrong, when we want to use it to describe the perspective of a photon - luckily I've already found the proper solutiion

As you have been told many times, any reference frame of the photon is really meaningless. And of course since you now "claim"to have found the solution, I take it that you will now write up a paper for professional peer review...not of course with any of the crank sites that you eagerly link to. Your first lesson in discovering/learning about science and any aspect of science, is that the Internet is filled with nonsensical claims along with the reputable ones.

Quote

In this case, opinion is like an ass - each one has it's own.

Again, despite your obtuseness, the twin paradox is not a paradox at all. Perhaps one of our other knowledgable participants will explain it to you

 

Quote

Half of scientists tells, that one twin will get older, due to lower velocity, while second half tells, that both with age at the same rate. I belong to the secon half (although I'm not a professional scientist)

No wrong again. Most all scientists realize that due to the acceleration/decelleration phase of the travelling twin, that when he or she returns to Earth, he or she will find that the stay at home twin has aged much more. Whatever "second half" you ascribe to is the crank section and in the tiniest minority.

 

Quote

Which one? You mean theory being theoretical?

I've given you the accepted fact on what a scientific theory is and what a law is. 

 

Quote

So you say, that classical mechanics is a theory? Well, that's your opinion - but I don't care about it too much...

What you actually care about as far as science is concerned is neither here nor there. It means nothing and makes no difference with the real scientific efforts being constantly practiced by the professionals and in time will be lost in cyber space, as obviously you have no intention of writing up any paper for any potential professional review.

 

Quote

So? Until it's prediction won't match the observation, it will remain a theory...

SR and GR are well supported and verified theories, as opposed to wild arse guesses and baseless hypotheticals that you are pushing.

Quote

Just like Newton's 3'rd LAW is an aspect of the theory of classical mechanics... You can call it as such - I don't care, as 99% of scientists will call it my way

You have both the official definition of a scientific theory and a physical law. That trumps whatever made up fairy tale version you wish to incorporate rather then admit you have been wrong from go to whoa.

Quote

 

Now you contradicted your own claims. Time dilation due to gravity is real, but as you said in previous post, time dilation due to velocity is relative...

Or maybe you just changed your mind...?

 

Or maybe you are continuing with being obtuse, or as another ha said, remain pig-headed in the face of evidence against your nonsense. Again time dilation can be caused by either relativistic speeds and/or gravitation. Both are real effects as well as being relative. Here's your free lesson. Time and space are not absolute, while the speed of light is absolute or invariant. Go it?

 

Quote

For now I try to stick with SR... There will be time, to discuss gravity and other aspects of GR, when I finish fixing the SR - but don't worry, I'm already on the right path...

Your knowledge on both is askew to put it as nice as possible and defies the reality in the scientific world, that both SR and GR are validated and verified accepted theories/models of the reality around us and put to practical uses everyday.

52 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

This has significant meaning for the model of relativity, which I'm making right now...

 Best of luck!!! I'll let others more attuned to the finer points of SR to answer your question. 

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Relativity is a branch of physics and consists of SR as a subset or special case of GR, both of course being tested validated and verified many thousands of times. Issues you will keep on avoiding.

Yes, yes yes... I don't care...

Quote

They are innaccurate when used outside their zones of applicability. But again this is simply your way of avoiding the fact as everyone has told you, that SR and as a result GR, are entirely consistent and verified. 

Of course - it was verified long time ago, that SR doesn't work for the frame of a photon...

Don't worry - I already know, how to fill this gap...

Quote

As you have been told many times, any reference frame of the photon is really meaningless.

Nope - it is the most significant frame of reference, if we want to get a model of relativity which is valid in ALL frames

Quote

And of course since you now "claim"to have found the solution, I take it that you will now write up a paper for professional peer review...

And only then you will believe, that I was right?

Listen to yourself - you accept things, only when someone with authority tells you, that you have to accept them...

But I won't judge you...

Quote

not of course with any of the crank sites that you eagerly link to. Your first lesson in discovering/learning about science and any aspect of science, is that the Internet is filled with nonsensical claims along with the reputable ones

And what, if I will write a paper, which will be peer-reviewed and published on the internet - just as the papers, which I tried to show you

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.838.5669&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Of course, you will simply treat it as some nonsensical claims, without even reading the title, until someone with authority won't tell you, that you have to accept those claims without any question - and then you will start to treat them as Absolute Truth...

Sad....
 

Quote

SR and GR are well supported and verified theories, as opposed to wild arse guesses and baseless hypotheticals that you are pushing.

Then maybe you should show my wild arse guesses and baseless hypotheticals to someone with authority and ask about his opinion...

I just hope, than in the difference to you, people, with authority can use their own brains...

Quote

You have both the official definition of a scientific theory and a physical law. That trumps whatever made up fairy tale version you wish to incorporate rather then admit you have been wrong from go to whoa.

Ok ok ok - you won. Look how smart you are... 

It is a theory, or it is a law, or it is a discipline - call it as you like. I don't care about this baseless argument anyway... I'm trying to make something important and I won't waste anymore time on some stupid word games...

Quote

Or maybe you are continuing with being obtuse, or as another ha said, remain pig-headed in the face of evidence against your nonsense. Again time dilation can be caused by either relativistic speeds and/or gravitation. Both are real effects as well as being relative. Here's your free lesson. Time and space are not absolute, while the speed of light is absolute or invariant. Go it?

Sure... So what kind of time dilation is according to you caused by velocity - relative or definitive one?

In the case of gravity, it's the definitive one...

Quote

Your knowledge on both is askew to put it as nice as possible and defies the reality in the scientific world, that both SR and GR are validated and verified accepted theories/models of the reality around us and put to practical uses everyday.

Wow! In a single post, you gave four or five different versions of the same "argument", which for me doesn't have no value anyway... Do you think, that if you will keep repeating, that SR and GR are verified, validated and accepted, I will suddenly change my mind and admit how stupid I was, trying to use my own brain?

Sorry, but I'm not you...  

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[studiot]

Having been dismissed as the voice of accuracy and reason by that of fantasy and self delusion I will go and do something useful like checking on my single malt stock until you can post the procedure for turning lead into gold.

 

Bye.

[JohnMnemonic]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Having been dismissed as the voice of accuracy and reason by that of fantasy and self delusion I will go and do something useful like checking on my single malt stock until you can post the procedure for turning lead into gold.

 

Bye.

I will let you know, when I finish - right now I'm still putting the pieces together...

It would be nice however, if someone would try to discuss my claims, using actual science, instead of private opinions and impessions...

Bye...

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

48 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Yes, yes yes... I don't care...

I wouldn't really be popularising that too much if I were you...not a good look.

Quote

Of course - it was verified long time ago, that SR doesn't work for the frame of a photon...

It doesn't need to. And obviously not withstanding your denial and pig-headiness, it still is the accepted verified reality we use everyday.

Quote

Don't worry - I already know, how to fill this gap...

Of course you do. Far easier then admitting you have been and are entirely wrong.

 

Quote

Nope - it is the most significant frame of reference, if we want to get a model of relativity which is valid in ALL frames

Only in your delusional world.

Quote

And only then you will believe, that I was right?

Well since you won't write up the paper, and since you certainly will not succeed, and since this is just more delusions of grandeur, analogous to the mythical "reward" you offered in one of your posts,  my belief or otherwise is incidental.  

 

Quote

Listen to yourself - you accept things, only when someone with authority tells you, that you have to accept them...

I accept reputable knowledge that has been verified and validated thousands of times, rather then the unsupported nonsensical rhetoric you are expert at.

Quote

But I won't judge you...

And I won't judge you: I don't need to, you have convicted yourself.

Quote

And what, if I will write a paper, which will be peer-reviewed and published on the internet - just as the papers, which I tried to show you

As I and others have told you, there is much rubbish and nonsense on the net and your desire to be associated with that is not a good look. Vixra for example...enough said Try some reputable links and then be man enough to admit you are essentially wrong in your claims.

Quote

 

Of course, you will simply treat it as some nonsensical claims, without even reading the title, until someone with authority won't tell you, that you have to accept those claims without any question - and then you will start to treat them as Absolute Truth...

Sad....

 

What's even more sad, is your refusal to be able to admit your errors of judgement and silly claims, driven by delusions of grandeur and a desire for one-up-manship contest you seem to have turned this into..
 

Quote

Then maybe you should show my wild arse guesses and baseless hypotheticals to someone with authority and ask about his opinion...

There are I think around five other knowledgable people here who are refuting your claims and seeing an obvious delusional capacity.

Quote

Ok ok ok - you won. Look how smart you are...

Not really:Just standing on the shoulders of giants. .

Quote

Sure... So what kind of time dilation is according to you caused by velocity - relative or definitive one?

In each frame of reference time will always pass at one second/second. It is only when viewed from another outside frame that time dilation takes place, and that includes time dilation caused by gravity. In each frame though, each is as valid as the other.

Quote

 

Wow! In a single post, you gave four or five different versions of the same "argument", which for me doesn't have no value anyway... Do you think, that if you will keep repeating, that SR and GR are verified, validated and accepted, I will suddenly change my mind and admit how stupid I was, trying to use my own brain?

Sorry, but I'm not you...  

 

No skin of my nose matey. But certainly the pig headiness as someone else raised stands out like dog balls.

anyway I'm off and have a busy day ahead of me, rather then sitting here engaging in your delusions. bye have a good day.

Edited August 6, 2018 by beecee

[Markus Hanke]

11 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

It couldn't be more simple and logical...

Except that it’s wrong, (mainly) for two reasons:

1. There is no such thing as a stationary photon in vacuum. They don’t exist, because no particle with vanishing rest mass can accelerate or decelerate.

2. Velocities do not add linearly, except as an approximation in the Newtonian case. 

7 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Do you think, that if you will keep repeating, that SR and GR are verified, validated and accepted, I will suddenly change my mind and admit how stupid I was, trying to use my own brain?

It is important that you stay within the parameters of what we can actually observe in the real world. What we do observe is that photons always locally move at c, irrespective of the observer. What we don’t observe is stationary photons (or any other particle with vanishing rest mass). It’s all good and well if you can come up with some model in which photons can be stationary, but that model will evidently not correspond to the real world, so it will be meaningless. 

Also, if you break SR, you will also break the Standard Model, since Lorentz invariance implies CPT invariance, and vice versa. Since all of these work very well in the real world, this won’t go down very well.

[Eise]

10 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

And what, if I will write a paper, which will be peer-reviewed and published on the internet - just as the papers, which I tried to show you

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.838.5669&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Of course, you will simply treat it as some nonsensical claims, without even reading the title, until someone with authority won't tell you, that you have to accept those claims without any question - and then you will start to treat them as Absolute Truth...

Sad....

Not really.

The article was published in the  International Journal of Physics. I took a glance at the publisher, and found e.g. this article:

Quote

Abstract: With the help of ‘Heart of the God model of the universe’ [1],‘Siva’s classical Equation for space time’ [2] and ‘Siva’s Theory of quantum Gravity’ [3] a new particle ‘K-Suryon’ has been predicted. It is the elementary particle with mass 1.15 x 10-64 kg and radius 8.15 x 10-134 mts. It is described as the basic building block of ‘space- time’ & mass. 5.14 x 1010 K-Suryons forms a real particle ‘K-Suryon’ with a mass 5.91x10-54 Kgs. It has to be incorporated in standard model. This discovery will explain how the Quantum Gravity is synchronizing with General Relativity. It will open new ways of research in ‘dark matter’ and ‘black hole’ physics. It reveals the concept of mass creation more profoundly than ‘Higgs mechanism’

Peer reviewed... One can wonder who these peers are...

That you just take everything serious that fits your ideas, without using a skeptical mind set, that is sad.

10 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

And what, if I will write a paper, which will be peer-reviewed and published on the internet - just as the papers, which I tried to show you

The same peers of course that reviewed the above article...

10 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Of course - it was verified long time ago, that SR doesn't work for the frame of a photon...

It was not 'verified'. It follows from SR that there is no inertial frame for light. Did you already solve Swansont's problem?

Quote

if you think that the Lorentz transformation is valid, try getting from the photon's frame back into your frame

Show us your calculations.

10 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

It is a theory, or it is a law, or it is a discipline - call it as you like. I don't care about this baseless argument anyway... I'm trying to make something important and I won't waste anymore time on some stupid word games...

It was you that made misuse of this word game, when stating that SR is still just a theory. Beecee and I have uncovered it, and now you don't care...

Edited August 7, 2018 by Eise