Time dilation (split from The Collatz Conjecture)

[Antony Howard Stark]

Check this out first please . Well one of my friends brother who passed out class 10 wrote it.

Is it correct or is it just a good attempt by a 15 yr old

I know it's out of topic but since I've decided to discuss my so called theories on this forum I'd like it to start with this

I'd be very obliged if you all could just review and express your views about the paper.

 

A-New-Dimension-to-Time-Dilation-3 (1).pdf

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Antony Howard Stark said:

Check this out first please . Well one of my friends brother who passed out class 10 wrote it.

Is it correct or is it just a good attempt by a 15 yr old

I know it's out of topic but since I've decided to discuss my so called theories on this forum I'd like it to start with this

I'd be very obliged if you all could just review and express your views about the paper.

 

A-New-Dimension-to-Time-Dilation-3 (1).pdf

I will suggest the mods move this to the Speculations forum. 

Also note that you must present the idea here

[Antony Howard Stark]

Speculation?

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Antony Howard Stark said:

Speculation?

Well you said “my theories”. 

[Antony Howard Stark]

Sorry about that. Can we not just  check it once and then argue ?

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Antony Howard Stark said:

Sorry about that. Can we not just  check it once and then argue ?

You need to start a new thread

[Antony Howard Stark]

Come on its just wasting time. It is just a  4 page article just read it ones

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, Antony Howard Stark said:

Come on its just wasting time. It is just a  4 page article just read it ones

Why do you think the rules don’t apply to you?

[Antony Howard Stark]

By the way why isn't anyone else seeing this. They might just be better than you. Anyone there .?

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, Antony Howard Stark said:

Come on its just wasting time. It is just a  4 page article just read it ones

!

Moderator Note

If you want to discuss it here, you need to post it here — enough information for the discussion to proceed.

 

[Antony Howard Stark]

I already  did that it's in the pdf.  By the way what is a moderator note ?

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, Antony Howard Stark said:

By the way what is a moderator note ?

!

Moderator Note

A note from a moderator.

 

15 minutes ago, Antony Howard Stark said:

I already  did that it's in the pdf.  

!

Moderator Note

From rule 2.7: "members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos."

Not everyone has the ability to read files or watch videos on their device. 

 

[Strange]

5 hours ago, Antony Howard Stark said:

I'd be very obliged if you all could just review and express your views about the paper.

Are you going to defend this, even though you didn't write it?

1. What are the "loopholes" in the theory of relativity?

2. Do you [the author] understand the difference between (and the significance of) the speed of light in a vacuum being invariant, and the speed of light in a medium, which is not invariant (like anything else that moves with less than the speed of light)?

3. What are the "inaccuracies which have taken place in practically conducted experiments"?

In summary, the paper has invented a non-existent problem to solve. A bit like asking if the speed of light is different if we paint the lab walls red instead of white.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Strange
clarity

[swansont]

There's a conceptual problem demonstrated in trying to extrapolate from a light clock behaving differently in atmosphere to this being a fundamental feature of atomic clocks. Which do not operate at atmospheric pressures, anyway.

[Strange]

On 19/09/2018 at 10:21 AM, Antony Howard Stark said:

Come on its just wasting time. It is just a  4 page article just read it ones

You were very keen to discuss this yesterday. Why has it all gone quiet now?

[Ghideon]

I only have basic knowledge about relativity but thought it could be worth the time to check this out. The first part of the chapter INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND states:

Quote

In 1905 the great physicist albert eintstein[10] published his theory of general relativity[11,13,14,18] followed by his theory of time dilation

(bold by me to highlight)

Maybe just a minor thing but not a promising start. And it is then contradicted by the paper's first reference: 

Quote

Miller, arthur i. (1981), albert einstein's special theory of relativity. emergence (1905)

Unfortunately it does not look like this revision of the paper is worth spending time on. How was the paper reviewed?

Edited September 20, 2018 by Ghideon
spelling

[studiot]

Er, I think 1905 was the special theory and 1915 or 1917 was the general theory.

[Strange]

Just now, Ghideon said:

(bold by me to highlight)

Maybe just a minor thing but not a promising start. And it is then contradicted by the paper's fist reference: 

Good catch!

20 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

How was the paper reviewed?

This doesn't look like a very prestigious journal. I wonder if he paid to have it published.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I wonder if he paid to have it published. 

Probably, the fee may differ depending on country of residence:

https://ijisrt.com/processing-charges

 

[Strange]

On 19/09/2018 at 5:39 AM, Antony Howard Stark said:

Check this out first please . Well one of my friends brother who passed out class 10 wrote it.

Is it correct or is it just a good attempt by a 15 yr old

I know it's out of topic but since I've decided to discuss my so called theories on this forum I'd like it to start with this

I'd be very obliged if you all could just review and express your views about the paper.

 

A-New-Dimension-to-Time-Dilation-3 (1).pdf

You were very keen to discuss this earlier. Do you have any response to the comments so far?