Strange Posted June 5, 2019 Posted June 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: I have decided before to not continue to answer this thread because it was moved to Speculations You can't be surprised by that. You are claiming that one of the best tested theories is wrong. Actually, two of the best tested theories are wrong: you are also saying that quantum field theory is wrong. 4 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: and also other reasons. The fact you now realise you made a silly mistake but are too embarrassed to admit it?
Jan Slowak Posted June 5, 2019 Author Posted June 5, 2019 13 minutes ago, Strange said: You can't be surprised by that. You are claiming that one of the best tested theories is wrong. Actually, two of the best tested theories are wrong: you are also saying that quantum field theory is wrong. The fact you now realise you made a silly mistake but are too embarrassed to admit it? 14 minutes ago, Strange said: You can't be surprised by that. You are claiming that one of the best tested theories is wrong. Actually, two of the best tested theories are wrong: you are also saying that quantum field theory is wrong. The fact you now realise you made a silly mistake but are too embarrassed to admit it? I have never talked about quantum field theory!
Strange Posted June 5, 2019 Posted June 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: I have never talked about quantum field theory! You say that special relativity is wrong, therefore you are claiming that quantum field theory is wrong. (Which means that the transistors in your computer don't work.)
DanMP Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 21 hours ago, Jan Slowak said: I have analyzed the derivation of LT in [7]. But whatever you read about LT it says that reference systems S and S' move relative to each other at constant speed v. For example, if S' moves to the right with v, S moves to the left with -v. Yes, but when in S' we write x' and t' ... Why not also v'? The speeds are not seen/measured identical from different frames, so why this time v'=v? [This question is addressed to all the participants in this thread, not just to Jan Slowak.]
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Posted June 6, 2019 20 hours ago, Strange said: You say that special relativity is wrong, therefore you are claiming that quantum field theory is wrong. (Which means that the transistors in your computer don't work.) ?!
Strange Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: ?! Quite. It is unbelievable that you would claim this.
swansont Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 QFT is based on relativity. If SR is wrong, QFT must be. Also, GPS can’t work, etc. It’s why we know your little fantasy is poppycock 1
DanMP Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: It is unbelievable that ... It is also unbelievable that you don't have an answer to my question. I'm still waiting ... Edited June 6, 2019 by DanMP more clarity -2
Strange Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 1 hour ago, DanMP said: Yes, but when in S' we write x' and t' ... Why not also v'? The speeds are not seen/measured identical from different frames, so why this time v'=v? [This question is addressed to all the participants in this thread, not just to Jan Slowak.] That is a good point. The velocity measured in S' should be marked v'. (However, it is not clear if Jan Slowak ever references v'. I think he always references the speed as measured in S. This mixing of frames is often a source of confusion for people who don't understand SR.) 48 minutes ago, DanMP said: It is also unbelievable that you don't have an answer to my question. I'm still waiting ... I didn't see it!
DanMP Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Strange said: That is a good point. The velocity measured in S' should be marked v'. (However, it is not clear if Jan Slowak ever references v'. I think he always references the speed as measured in S. This mixing of frames is often a source of confusion for people who don't understand SR.) The origin of the confusion(?) is not really Jan Slowak, as you can see in the pdf offered here. 6 minutes ago, Strange said: I didn't see it! This is odd, because it is the second time I posted this question in this thread. First time was yesterday. So, again, why v'=v (in value, because in fact v'=-v)?
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Posted June 6, 2019 I have started this thread to discuss my ideas, my pictures. Why do you ask for v' ? Start your own thread! -1
Strange Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: I have started this thread to discuss my ideas, my pictures. Why do you ask for v' ? Start your own thread! ! Moderator Note You do not have the right to tell other people how to discuss the topic. If you think a post is off topic, report it.
DanMP Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: Why do you ask for v' ? Start your own thread! I'm sorry but it was you who insisted to talk about that particular derivation : Quote I have explained at the beginning that I have analyzed the derivation of LT from[7] Modern Physics; Second edition; Randy Harris; Chapter 2; Special Relativity; 2008You cannot refer to other letters, we must overcome this first. I referred to your source, so I'm not really off-topic. Sorry anyway, I just wanted to understand it better. 1 hour ago, DanMP said: It is also unbelievable that you don't have an answer to my question. I'm still waiting ... When I wrote "you", I meant: 2 hours ago, DanMP said: all the participants in this thread Edited June 6, 2019 by DanMP
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Posted June 6, 2019 32 minutes ago, Strange said: ! Moderator Note You do not have the right to tell other people how to discuss the topic. If you think a post is off topic, report it. I know, I have no rights, you have all of them!
swansont Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 55 minutes ago, DanMP said: So, again, why v'=v (in value, because in fact v'=-v)? If v is a scalar it’s fine to say v’=v it must be so owing to the symmetry of the scenario. The frames are in relative motion, but either one can claim to be at rest
DanMP Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 20 hours ago, swansont said: If v is a scalar it’s fine to say v’=v it must be so owing to the symmetry of the scenario. The frames are in relative motion, but either one can claim to be at rest Ok, thank you! I apologize for insisting with this question.
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 ! Moderator Note Since the OP hasn't come back with anything to back up their wild claims, I am closing this. 1
Recommended Posts