Error in relativity

[Dale E Hayes]

While I do believe the theory does support time travel there are some basic issues. Within the basics of any math, when an error is made in the beginning of the statement, the entire statement becomes void. Before anyone can prove or disprove the theory, 1st they must correct the basic Algebra that everyone know to be incorrect. Also see www.Timecorrections.com

 

 

[Dale E Hayes]

How do we know he or she is not?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Split from time travel thread. Posting speculations in the science section is thread hijacking. Please review the rules

If you are going to critique relativity, at least start with Einstein's 1905 paper to cut down on the blatant errors on your site. Time doesn't show up in E=mc^2 — so what? Einstein dealt with that elsewhere in developing relativity.

[mississippichem]

While I do believe the theory does support time travel there are some basic issues. Within the basics of any math, when an error is made in the beginning of the statement, the entire statement becomes void. Before anyone can prove or disprove the theory, 1st they must correct the basic Algebra that everyone know to be incorrect. Also see www.Timecorrections.com

 

Your website is fraught with unit errors. A joule times a kilogram divided by a joule is not a second, it's a kilogram.

 

You can't define time in units of mass.

 

There are many other issues with your use of physics terminology and mathematics but lets take this one step at a time.

[Dale E Hayes]

Your website is fraught with unit errors. A joule times a kilogram divided by a joule is not a second, it's a kilogram.

 

You can't define time in units of mass.

 

There are many other issues with your use of physics terminology and mathematics but lets take this one step at a time.

 

 

You cannot define energy as time. Energy is a function of time just as mass.

 

My apologies I did not mean to hijack the thread and will not do so again.

 

 

[mississippichem]

You cannot define energy as time. Energy is a function of time just as mass.

 

It doesn't matter what energy is a function of if the units in the equation don't balance.

 

See dimensional analysis. Usually the first topic covered in high school phys/chem. Its all about multiplying and canceling units to get the left and right hand sides of an equation to agree.

[Ophiolite]

Should there not be a rule that says threads based on faulty dimensional analysis don't even get the luxury of the Speculations sub-forum? Just a thought.

[mississippichem]

Should there not be a rule that says threads based on faulty dimensional analysis don't even get the luxury of the Speculations sub-forum? Just a thought.

 

Short answer yes.

 

Wait. I mean no...the phrasing has me confused on how to answer.

 

You know what I mean

Edited November 22, 2011 by mississippichem

[michel123456]

While I do believe the theory does support time travel there are some basic issues. Within the basics of any math, when an error is made in the beginning of the statement, the entire statement becomes void. Before anyone can prove or disprove the theory, 1st they must correct the basic Algebra that everyone know to be incorrect. Also see www.Timecorrections.com

 

From your site

(E1=ME2)= T

 

How did you come to that?

 

I have to admit comments of Swansont, Mississippichem & Ophiolite (in the order of appearance) make sense.

Edited November 22, 2011 by michel123456

[Dale E Hayes]

Did you read the paper?

 

 

[ajb]

The equation E=MC2 is an incomplete statement.

From your webpage.

 

Sure, it refers to a very specific frame of the particle, the particles rest frame. This also assumes the particle has a (positive non-zero) mass. The full relation you need is

 

[math]m^{2}c^{4} = E^{2}- p^{2}c^{2}[/math],

 

which are the classical equations of motion for a relativistic particle, massive or massless. That is, all physical particles satisfy the above "mass-shell condition". Here [math]p[/math] is the particles 3-momenta (suppressed indices). This condition holds in all inertial frames of reference. In the rest frame of a massive particle (p=0) the classical equations of motion reduce to

 

[math]E= mc^{2}[/math],

 

taking the positive square root.

 

You are right, time does not appear in the equations of motion, neither does the position. This is actually an important point. The physics does not depend on time or position, this leads to the conservation of the mass of a particle. That is in any inertial reference frame everyone will agree on the [math]m^{2}c^{4}[/math] term, but not necessarily separately [math]E[/math] or [math]p[/math].

[michel123456]

Time is in C.

[Tres Juicy]

The web counter on your site says it all....

 

"While I do believe the theory does support time travel"

 

It doesn't really support time travel, it just doesn't rule it out.

 

There's a big difference

 

Science hasn't ruled out the possibilty of "the flying spaghetti monster" buts it's doubtful

[ajb]

Time is in C.

 

You should certainly think of [math]c[/math] as a universal constant that relates space and time. That is [math]c dt[/math] has units of length. In part because of this special relativity is based on the mixing of space and time: the Lorentz transformation do not preserve space and time separately between inertial frames.

[Dale E Hayes]

From your webpage.

 

Sure, it refers to a very specific frame of the particle, the particles rest frame. This also assumes the particle has a (positive non-zero) mass. The full relation you need is

 

[math]m^{2}c^{4} = E^{2}- p^{2}c^{2}[/math],

 

which are the classical equations of motion for a relativistic particle, massive or massless. That is, all physical particles satisfy the above "mass-shell condition". Here [math]p[/math] is the particles 3-momenta (suppressed indices). This condition holds in all inertial frames of reference. In the rest frame of a massive particle (p=0) the classical equations of motion reduce to

 

[math]E= mc^{2}[/math],

 

taking the positive square root.

 

You are right, time does not appear in the equations of motion, neither does the position. This is actually an important point. The physics does not depend on time or position, this leads to the conservation of the mass of a particle. That is in any inertial reference frame everyone will agree on the [math]m^{2}c^{4}[/math] term, but not necessarily separately [math]E[/math] or [math]p[/math].

 

Thank you:

You are the 1^st to understand one of the points.

Do you believe mass exists if time does not?

 

 

Edited February 24, 2012 by Dale E Hayes

[ajb]

Do you believe mass exists if time does not?

 

You will need to clarify what you mean here. I might guess that you are going to say something like "the time as experienced by a photon" or something very similar?