Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

[swansont]

11 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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

Until you do, and post the math here, stop saying you have solved the problem. It doesn't count unless you share it.

[JohnMnemonic]

 

11 hours ago, Eise said:

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’

So...? Maybe you don't know it yet, but the observable Universe in the macro-scale is a neural network... Universe works and looks like a giant brain...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.00816.pdf

Classifying the Large Scale Structure of the Universe with Deep Neural Networks

ABSTRACT We present the first application of deep neural networks to the semantic segmentation of cosmological filaments and walls in the Large Scale Structure of the Universe. Our results are based on a deep Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with a U-Net architecture trained using an existing state-of-the-art manually-guided segmentation method. We successfully trained an tested an U-Net with a Voronoi model and an N-body simulation. The predicted segmentation masks from the Voronoi model have a Dice coefficient of 0.95 and 0.97 for filaments and mask respectively. The predicted segmentation masks from the N-body simulation have a Dice coefficient of 0.78 and 0.72 for walls and filaments respectively. The relatively lower Dice coefficient in the filament mask is the result of filaments that were predicted by the U-Net model but were not present in the original segmentation mask. Our results show that for a well-defined dataset such as the Voronoi model the UNet has excellent performance. In the case of the N-body dataset the U-Net produced a filament mask of higher quality than the segmentation mask obtained from a stateof-the art method. The U-Net performs better than the method used to train it, being able to find even the tenuous filaments that the manually-guided segmentation failed to identify. The U-Net presented here can process a 5123 volume in a few minutes and without the need of complex pre-processing. Deep CNN have great potential as an efficient and accurate analysis tool for the next generation large-volume computer N-body simulations and galaxy surveys.

Haha! The worst nightmare of scientists comes true - SCIENCE PROVES GOD...

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Until you do, and post the math here, stop saying you have solved the problem. It doesn't count unless you share it.

Ok, sorry... I'm still working on it... My next step will be to use the time-space diagram to represent this scenario:

Using SR and my own concept of relativity and see, which will get me valid results for all 3 observers...

I know already the answer, but if you want, you can make the calculations by yourself...

 

20 hours ago, beecee said:

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

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

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

 

Only in your delusional world.

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.  

 

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

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

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.

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..
 

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

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

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.

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.

Funny... Somehow you've missed THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of my previous response:

21 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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...

The rest of your post has no scientific value for me, so I will simply ignore it...

 

**********************

 

13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

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.

Of course - just as there no such thing, as stationary observer, as everything is in motion - but it doesn't stop us from using it in calculations

Quote

 

13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

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

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.

Thanks! As always - you're the only one who speaks with science.

I know, that we don't observe stationary photons. We don't observe many other things - like dark matter or black holes...

This is why, it is called theoretical science - you make a claim and try to prove, that it is valid. If I will get valid results for the perspective of stationary light, then what's the problem?

Ahh - it will destroy half of the Standard Model... Well, sorry...  

Ok, I start from the perspective of red sphere...

Next step is to add the event in the middle of timeline...

Edited August 7, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

So...? Maybe you don't know it yet, but the observable Universe in the macro-scale is a neural network... Universe works and looks like a giant brain...

Simply gravity at work...nothing more, nothing less.

Quote

Haha! The worst nightmare of scientists comes true - SCIENCE PROVES GOD...

?? Probably the underlying problem for you and the ignorance and error ridden posts of yours.

Quote

 

Ok, sorry... I'm still working on it... My next step will be to use the time-space diagram to represent this scenario:

Using SR and my own concept of relativity and see, which will get me valid results for all 3 observers...

I know already the answer, but if you want, you can make the calculations by yourself...

 

 As I have already said, you can't, you won't. This is simply pretentious bluster.

Quote

Funny... Somehow you've missed THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of my previous response:

If you have trouble understanding English, it isn't my fault. Again time dilation as observed is caused by speed and gravity. It's all time dilation.

 

Quote

The rest of your post has no scientific value for me, so I will simply ignore it...

And yet it is you making unsupported claim and pretending you have invalidated 100 years of observation, experiment, and application. 

Quote

 

Of course - just as there no such thing, as stationary observer, as everything is in motion - but it doesn't stop us from using it in calculations

Thanks! As always - you're the only one who speaks with science.

I know, that we don't observe stationary photons. We don't observe many other things - like dark matter or black holes...

 

BH's have been indirectly observed and are evidenced by the observation of spacetime and matter/energy effects that surround them.

DM is also indirectly evidenced by simple observations, not the least being the bullet cluster anomaly.

Both by there very nature can never be directly observed so just another desperate example of you trying to support the unsupportable.

Photons on the other hand, have no rest mass  period.

 

Quote

This is why, it is called theoretical science - you make a claim and try to prove, that it is valid. If I will get valid results for the perspective of stationary light, then what's the problem?

You can't and you won't...more pretentious bluster.

Edited August 7, 2018 by beecee

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Simply gravity at work...nothing more, nothing less.

Gravity and magnetohydrodynamics - to be specific...

And this is beautyful...

Quote

 As I have already said, you can't, you won't. This is simply pretentious bluster.

I've already did it, now I'm just presenting the results..

Quote

If you have trouble understanding English, it isn't my fault. Again time dilation as observed is caused by speed and gravity. It's all time dilation.

Nope. You can't be more wrong... Go ask someone smarter - maybe Markus Hanke

Quote

BH's have been indirectly observed and are evidenced by the observation of spacetime and matter/energy effects that surround them.

DM is also indirectly evidenced by simple observations, not the least being the bullet cluster anomaly.

Both by there very nature can never be directly observed so just another desperate example of you trying to support the unsupportable.

Photons on the other hand, have no rest mass  period.

Indirect evidence... I have direct evidences for many things...

Of course, that photons don't have rest mass... Who said they have?

Quote

You can't and you won't...

And what you are going to do, to stop me...?  

Here's time-space diagram for the perspective of yellow sphere:

I just skewed (boosted) the coordinates, leaving the c constant - and it is still valid...

 

Sorry - I need to change the orientation of paths

Now it is good:

I have to fix the perspective of red sphere and cross the paths in the middle of timeline...

Like this...

Funny - I don't see no problem here... I'm just skewing the perspectives, while keeping c constant and it works perfectly in every case...

Edited August 7, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

58 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Gravity and magnetohydrodynamics - to be specific...

Gravity primarily remembering that gravity is always an attractive force and acts over long range.

58 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

I've already did it, now I'm just presenting the results..

Sure, let's now wait for some proper professional peer review.

Quote

Nope. You can't be more wrong... Go ask someone smarter - maybe Markus Hanke

I've already asked a few posts back, for those smarter then I, to also review my posts and claims. So far it is you that is wrong in the whole scenario you are pretending you know something about.

Quote

Indirect evidence... I have direct evidences for many things...

You are being obtuse again. Let me educate you once more...BH's and DM by there very nature, can only ever be indirectly evidenced. But in actuality, with the gravitational waves discoveries of recent times, one can now say that BH's are confirmed. Or does this also offend your delusional sensibilities?

Quote

Of course, that photons don't have rest mass... Who said they have?

And of course are never and can never be at rest.

Quote

And what you are going to do, to stop me...?  

Why would I stop you? I have absolutely no qualms or objections re anyone being able to invalidate any incumbent theory. But as I have already mentioned elsewhere, the first step in invalidating any incumbent theory, is to know that theory thoroughly. You don't and thereby is the reason/s for your potential failure.

Quote

 

Here's time-space diagram for the perspective of yellow sphere:

I just skewed (boosted) the coordinates, leaving the c constant - and it is still valid...

 

Your links and pretty pictures do not impress me. Again SR and as an extension GR have both been validated and verified many thousands of times and have many real life actual applications.....not withstanding the many kooks and nuts on u tube claiming it is wrong.

I may be a learner and an amateur at this game, but I still can sort out the wheat from the chaff. 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2018 by beecee

[studiot]

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

I may be a learner and an amateur at this game, but I still can sort out the wheat from the chaff.

You managed to find some wheat to sort out? +1

Pray tell where?

 

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Gravity primarily remembering that gravity is always an attractive force and acts over long range.

Interaction between magnetic fields is stronger. Plasma makes 99,9% of matter in Universe. Even in Solar System...

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-universe-is-99-9-plasma-1

http://theastronomist.fieldofscience.com/2010/09/magnetic-fields-in-cosmology.html

You just stopped with your knowledge in the beginning of XX century

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

I've already asked a few posts back, for those smarter then I do also review my posts and claims. So far it is you that is wrong in the whole scenario you are pretending you know something about.

So you asked wrong question, or didn't understand the answer

Time dilation due to acceleration and gravity is definitive. Time dilation due to velocity is relative

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

And of course are never and can never be at rest.

Of course... Nothing is at rest in the Universe...

Quote

Your links and pretty pictures do not impress me.

Of course - first you would need to understand, what they mean...  

Last step is to boost the coordinates to light and it will still remain valid.... But we need to change perspectives each time, to get valid result - because at speed of light c becomes relative. 

Where's the problem....?

Oh, there's of course the time dilation due to Doppler's effect - but it is relative

 

Edited August 7, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

38 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Interaction between magnetic fields is stronger. Plasma makes 99,9% of matter in Universe. Even in Solar System...

The Plasma and/or Electric universe hypothetical was debunked many years ago, if that's what you are suggesting. Gravity is also an accumulative force and again the prime reason for solar systems, galaxies, galactic groups and walls...but this is off topic from your other nonsense that is the subject of this thread.

Quote

So you asked wrong question, or didn't understand the answer

I asked for clarification or corrections on any of my statements and claims. None was contradicted. You alone have that honour.

Quote

Time dilation due to acceleration and gravity is definitive. Time dilation due to velocity is relative

It's all time dilation as I said, and each frame of reference is as valid and correct as any other frame. Or are you also going to show your ignorance and dispute that?

Quote

Of course... Nothing is at rest in the Universe...

Your being obtuse again. The frame of reference of a photon is totally unrealistic as everyone has told you. Side stepping that fact is as stupid as your past $50 reward nonsense.

 

Quote

 

Of course - first you would need to understand, what they mean...  

Last step is to boost the coordinates to light and it will still remain valid.... But we need to change perspectives each time, to get valid result - because at speed of light c becomes relative. 

Where's the problem....?

 

You have been contradicted and shown to be in error by all contributors to this thread. SR and GR stand as unchallenged and verified despite your claims and this so far non existent proof and/or evidence which we are all waiting for.

But hey, this is all now rather boring, so I'll let you play your game of oneupmanship and have last reply before any thread closure as per your last efforts. Your delusions of grandeur facade seems inpenetrable at this time.

Edited August 7, 2018 by beecee

[JohnMnemonic]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

The Plasma and/or Electric universe hypothetical was debunked many years ago, if that's what you are suggesting. Gravity is also an accumulative force and again the prime reason for solar systems, galaxies, galactic groups and walls...but this is off topic from your other nonsense.

Tell this to people from nasa, who make pseudo-scientific models of magnetosphere.

Gravity has no chance with electromagnetism...

 

Looks to me, like a model of galaxy...

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

ou have been contradicted and shown to be in error by all contributors to this thread. SR and GR stand as unchallenged and verified despite your claims and this so far non existent proof and/or evidence which we are all waiting for.

But hey, this is all now rather boring, so I'll let you play your game of oneupmanship and have last reply before any thread closure as per your last efforts. Your delusions of grandeur facade seems inpenetrable at this time.

since you're an amateur like me your opinion has no value to me

[JohnMnemonic]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Again, this is off topic. If you want to discuss the long defunct Plasma or Electric universe, start another thread.

Then stop talking about gravity

[beecee]

Just now, JohnMnemonic said:

Then stop talking about gravity

Stop being silly. GR is our accepted, validated and verified theory of gravity, that by extension from SR, that you are trying to invalidate but failing miserably.

[JohnMnemonic]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Stop being silly. GR is our accepted, validated and verified theory of gravity, that by extension from SR, that you are trying to invalidate but failing miserably.

I don't care... Stop talking to me

[Strange]

Just now, JohnMnemonic said:

I don't care... Stop talking to me

That's probably easy for you to achieve: stop posting drivel on the forum.

[JohnMnemonic]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

That's probably easy for you to achieve: stop posting drivel on the forum.

His post brings no value to the conversation. I would love to hear some opinion about those time-space diagrams...

First he starts an off-topic conversation and then accuses me of making off-topic claims...

Edited August 7, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

Just now, JohnMnemonic said:

His post bring no value to the conversation. I would love to hear some opinion about those time-space diagrams...

Your posts are nothing more unsupported unevidenced rhetoric that defy observations, experimentations and the reality of applications of SR and GR. I suggest you stop acting childish and either put up or shut up with regards to your claim of having solved some non existent problem. In the meantime I will refute your nonsense as I see fit, and in line with forum rules.

Found an interesting link

http://spacetimecentre.org/vpetkov/courses/reid.html

Conclusion

I’m showing as a final slide a table that made an impression on me when I first saw it many years ago. It lists 13 key experiments that have a testing relevance to Special Relativity in the columns, and the predictions of 6 alternative theories to Special Relativity in the rows. The red boxes mark the places where the experimental results disagree with the predictions of the theory. Only Special Relativity is in agreement with all testing experiments.

theory

Light Propagation experiments

Experiments from other fields

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

aether theories

stationary aether,  no contraction

A

A

D

D

A

A

D

D

N

A

N

D

D

stationary aether,  Lorentz contraction

A

A

A

D

A

A

A

A

N

A

N

A

D

aether attached to ponderable bodies

D

D

A

A

A

A

A

D

N

N

N

A

N

emission theories

original source

A

A

A

A

A

D

D

N

N

D

N

N

N

ballistic

A

N

A

A

D

D

D

N

N

D

N

N

N

new source

A

N

A

A

D

D

A

N

N

D

N

N

N

special relativity

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

 

Legend:

A: the theory agrees with experimental results
D: the theory disagrees with experimental results
N: the theory is not applicable to the experiment

1: Aberration, 2: Fizeau convection coefficient; 3: Michelson-Morley; 4: Kennedy-Thorndike; 5: Moving sources and mirrors; 6: De Sitter spectroscopic binaries; 7: Michelson-Morley, using sunlight
8: Variation of mass with velocity; 9: General Mass-Energy equivalence; 10: Radiation from moving charges; 11: Muon decay at high velocity; 12: Trouton-Noble; 13: Unipolar induction, using moving magnet.

much more at link  http://spacetimecentre.org/vpetkov/courses/reid.html

[swansont]

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Interaction between magnetic fields is stronger. Plasma makes 99,9% of matter in Universe. Even in Solar System...

Calculate the magnetic effect of the sun on the earth's orbit. Compare to gravity.

 

[JohnMnemonic]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Calculate the magnetic effect of the sun on the earth's orbit. Compare to gravity.

 

I know, that without gravity Universe wouldn't work. But something tells me, that if Standard Model would include MHD effect on the rotation of galaxies, we wouldn't need dark matter. 

Anyway, this is just another off-topic discussion

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

http://spacetimecentre.org/vpetkov/courses/reid.html

But did I said anything about some aether... I'm simply using time-space diagrams - primary tool of scientists, who deal with relativity...

[beecee]

20 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

But did I said anything about some aether... I'm simply using time-space diagrams - primary tool of scientists, who deal with relativity...

There are probably hundreds of kooky inspired hypothetical nonsense out there like yours. Why would they even consider it as it doesn't even tick one box?

Now obviously you are still just talking about presenting your evidence, so tell me how long will this talking continue without presenting said evidence?

In the meantime SR and GR stand as is, validated, verified with many practical applications, and cheap unsupported rhetorical claims such as yours, on a forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry will in time simply be lost in cyber space. 

 

[JohnMnemonic]

Just now, beecee said:

There are probably hundreds of kooky inspired hypothetical nonsense out there like yours. Why would they even consider it as it doesn't even tick one box?

Now obviously you are still just talking about presenting your evidence, so tell me how long will this talking continue without presenting said evidence?

In the meantime SR and GR stand as is, validated, verified with many practical applications, and cheap unsupported rhetorical claims such as yours, on a forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry will in time simply be lost in cyber space. 

 

Please... You're wasting our time... If you don't have anything to say about those time-space diagrams, then remain silent. I already know your opinion and, as I said eariler, I don't care about it. Let those with authority speak...

[beecee]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

You managed to find some wheat to sort out? +1

Pray tell where?

Ooops, yeah, my mistake. 

 

33 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Please... You're wasting our time... If you don't have anything to say about those time-space diagrams, then remain silent. I already know your opinion and, as I said eariler, I don't care about it. Let those with authority speak...

Remain silent??  My dear friend, I will continue in line with the rules to refute your nonsensical claims, and your now very obvious game of one-up-manship. I'll say it again, when are you going to present your evidence or proof to support your unsupportable claim? Today?Tomorrow?, next week? next year?

I'm rather confident that if you continue with the empty rhetoric and fail with your presentation of evidence, then this thread will probably be closed.

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

I know, that without gravity Universe wouldn't work. But something tells me, that if Standard Model would include MHD effect on the rotation of galaxies, we wouldn't need dark matter. 

Yes, gravity is by far the primary reason the universe is the way it is, gravity as per GR. And as we all know SR is simply a subset or special case of GR.  

And even more importantly, if you decide to get familiar with the scientific method, you may realize that science isn't about "something tells me"  but about the presentation of evidence that you are shockingly bereft of.

[JohnMnemonic]

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

Ooops, yeah, my mistake. 

 

Remain silent??  My dear friend, I will continue in line with the rules to refute your nonsensical claims, and your now very obvious game of one-up-manship. I'll say it again, when are you going to present your evidence or proof to support your unsupportable claim? Today?Tomorrow?, next week? next year?

I'm rather confident that if you continue with the empty rhetoric and fail with your presentation of evidence, then this thread will probably be closed.

Yes, gravity is by far the primary reason the universe is the way it is, gravity as per GR. And as we all know SR is simply a subset or special case of GR.  

And even more importantly, if you decide to get familiar with the scientific method, you may realize that science isn't about "something tells me"  but about the presentation of evidence that you are shockingly bereft of.

...Learn how to use time-space diagrams and come back - then we can speak again...

It's easy - it took me just one day...

Edited August 7, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

...Learn how to use time-space diagrams and come back - then we can speak again...

It's easy - it took me just one day...

Learn not to be so obtuse and side step relevant questions. 

Again...when are you going to present your evidence and/or proof that is supposed to support your illogical, unsupportable claim? Afterall, isn't that why the other thread was closed?

Afterall SR and GR are 100% validated and verified with practical applications.

Edited August 8, 2018 by beecee

[JohnMnemonic]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Learn not to be so obtuse and side step relevant questions. 

Again...when are you going to present your evidence and/or proof that is supposed to support your illogical, unsupportable claim? Afterall, isn't that why the other thread was closed?

Afterall SR and GR are 100% validated and verified with practical applications.

Please... Make him quiet...

[beecee]

30 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Please... Make him quiet...

Quote

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

Quote

I don't care

That's a sample of what we have to deal with when asked the simple question of when are you going to present this evidence or proof of your claim. Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

Again if we go back a few pages it is seen that you were even ignorant of what a scientific theory was....So again, you need to [1] Learn the scientific method, [2] Learn what a scientific theory entails, [3] Study up on SR/GR, [4] Be aware why both are validated, verified and have practical applications, [5] Be aware before you make any outrageous claims against incumbent models/theories, evidence is necessary to support your hypothetical, [6] Or an experiment invalidating the incumbent model/theory and aligned with your own hypothetical, [7] Answer all relevant questions about your hypothetical, and [8] Accept that the onus is on you to support your hypothetical and not for anyone else to defend the mainstream.

Eight points off the top of my head that you have failed to align with. You really need to do better and stop just simply trying to get the last say in as if that will help the nonsense you are presenting. This is a science forum, not a play center.

Edited August 8, 2018 by beecee

[Eise]

Time to close the thread. JohnMnemonic has shown extensively that he will not deliver any of the 'calculations', only the 'results'. Beecee nicely put all the points together in his latest posting.

JohnMnemonic's postings have become pure trolling.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Eise