ravell Posted February 10, 2019 Posted February 10, 2019 (edited) In the program VETER v. 3.0 for verification the theory of relativity, available on the link: LINK DELETED are presented calculations regarding the observation of ticks rate of light clocks in motion. The calculations shown (numerically and graphically) in the "Frequency" and "Time" sheets, clearly prove that is not true the claim of relativity theory, that every two clocks maintaining a constant velocity with respect to each other, will both see (measure) the other as running slow.(To open this program you do not need to log in to Dropbox, but select: Download> Download directly and after opening the program in Excel, select Enable editing.) Edited February 10, 2019 by Strange Remove link
Ghideon Posted February 10, 2019 Posted February 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, ravell said: The calculations shown (numerically and graphically) in the "Frequency" and "Time" sheets, clearly prove that is not true the claim of relativity theory, that every two clocks maintaining a constant velocity with respect to each other, will both see (measure) the other as running slow. I'm not going to download programs, can you post the formulas here? Claiming the theory of relativity (SR and/or GR) is incorrect will require evidence. As far as I know there's plenty of scientific evidence and experiments confirming special and general relativity.
Strange Posted February 10, 2019 Posted February 10, 2019 ! Moderator Note If you want to discuss your idea you need to do it here. Asking people to download a potentially dangerous file type is not acceptable
Janus Posted February 10, 2019 Posted February 10, 2019 Unless you set up an actual physical experiment with light clocks and recorded real results that conflicted with Relativity, you proved nothing.
ravell Posted February 11, 2019 Author Posted February 11, 2019 On 2/10/2019 at 8:55 AM, Ghideon said: 'I'm not going to download programs, can you post the formulas here? Claiming the theory of relativity (SR and/or GR) is incorrect will require evidence. The relevant formulas are clearly presented in the VETER program available at the link: ! Moderator Note Link deleted, again. If you have something to say regarding the program and its implications, do that here in writing. This program is safe, available on the Internet since 2013 and has many users, and has been cited many times in this forum. Moving this program from the Relativity section to the Speculations and removing its link without any substantive objections is incomprehensible and reflects the strange intentions of the moderator. Quote As far as I know there's plenty of scientific evidence and experiments confirming special and general relativity. Could you provide the recommended link to these scientific evidence and experiments confirming special and general relativity?
beecee Posted February 11, 2019 Posted February 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, ravell said: Could you provide the recommended link to these scientific evidence and experiments confirming special and general relativity? There are many many reputable links listing the facts and evidence verifying both SR and GR, beyond any reasonable doubt. The fact that they are still overwhelmingly supported by mainstream science also supports that premise. No, I have not checked your link as yet. 1
swansont Posted February 11, 2019 Posted February 11, 2019 1 hour ago, ravell said: This program is safe, available on the Internet since 2013 and has many users, and has been cited many times in this forum. ! Moderator Note That's not a criterion in the decision. We don't actually know what is being downloaded, and we also have a rule about links. See rule 2.7 (and I have a feeling I have pointed this out before) Quote Moving this program from the Relativity section to the Speculations and removing its link without any substantive objections is incomprehensible and reflects the strange intentions of the moderator. ! Moderator Note Nothing strange about moving non-mainstream material to the speculations section. Quite the opposite. On 2/10/2019 at 9:43 AM, ravell said: clearly prove that is not true the claim of relativity theory, that every two clocks maintaining a constant velocity with respect to each other, will both see (measure) the other as running slow. Given that there is but one equation, and the symmetry of the situation, this only shows that you have done the calculations incorrectly. It would be like claiming that addition is not commutative, because of some result you have obtained on your calculator. 1 hour ago, ravell said: Could you provide the recommended link to these scientific evidence and experiments confirming special and general relativity? GPS works, for starters. 1
Ghideon Posted February 11, 2019 Posted February 11, 2019 2 hours ago, ravell said: Could you provide the recommended link to these scientific evidence and experiments confirming special and general relativity? The Scientific Background paper for the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics summarise experimental achievements regarding predictions by general relativity. The paper also contains 50 references to other papers: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/advanced-physicsprize2017.pdf (There's also a "popular science" version: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2017.pdf) @swansont was quicker to respond with my favourite; GPS. +1
Strange Posted February 11, 2019 Posted February 11, 2019 3 hours ago, ravell said: Moving this program from the Relativity section to the Speculations and removing its link without any substantive objections is incomprehensible and reflects the strange intentions of the moderator. ! Moderator Note You claim that special relativity is wrong. Therefore your incorrect "theory" belongs in Speculations. 3 hours ago, ravell said: Could you provide the recommended link to these scientific evidence and experiments confirming special and general relativity? There is over a century of scientific results confirming special relativity. You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity Or: Quote Einstein’s Theory of Special relativity is sometimes presented as if it were a piece of philosophy or mathematics that arose purely from abstract thinking about space and time. This is not the case. Einstein based his theory firmly on experimental results known to him. Subsequently, the implications of his theory have been widely tested over the past century. No repeatable and generally accepted experiment has been found in disagreement with special relativity. https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/nph120/Cosmol/specrel.pdf Or: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Or many other sources of information. On the other hand, we have a complete absence of evidence from you. ! Moderator Note Unless you provide some convincing evidence that the theory of relativity is wrong, this thread will be closed.
Strange Posted February 11, 2019 Posted February 11, 2019 ! Moderator Note You have been told multiple times not to keep posting links to your erroneous spreadsheet. This thread is closed. 1
Recommended Posts