Moontanman Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 I thought this was the onion or something when I first saw it, aether? FTL? Universal time? http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_special_theory_of_relativity_has_been_disproved_theoretically_999.html
swansont Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 They never mention the actual paper in the article (they just say "the paper" — sounds legit), but it's certainly flawed in some way(s). Unless this was supposed to run the first of next month.
StringJunky Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) My instant reaction was "Bollocks". Having read it, I still think the same. There are mo references or even authors mentioned. I think you know that. X-posted with SwansonT Edited March 2, 2016 by StringJunky
ajb Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 I guess the 'paper' is László G. Mészáros, Special Relativity: a Contradicting Theory or an Account for an Optical Phenomenon, http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0272. But be warned, it is viXra 'paper'.
DrmDoc Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Although I haven't read the paper, I came across this DNews video link which discusses findings published by the University of Cambridge scientist in the Physical Review Letters on a computer generated five dimension black hole study. The video's host describes how a computer generated five dimensional black hole predicts something called a negative singularity, which could disprove some aspects of Einstein's theories.
ajb Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 ... which could disprove some aspects of Einstein's theories. Or show that the five dimensional theory is more complicated than the four dimensional theory. It of course now depends on what results you are referring to. Some will hold in all dimensions and other only in 4 (or less or for some small range). Then you have questions about energy conditions and if the matter needed to support these space-times is physical and/or if there are some formation mechanisms and so on...
Strange Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 The comments (so far) on that article page are refreshingly sensible. But I'm sure that won't last ...
DrmDoc Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Or show that the five dimensional theory is more complicated than the four dimensional theory. I agree; the video's host mentioned that Einstein's theories are based on four dimension rather than five. Even as a novice, I would expect some distinction in the applicable physics between varying dimensions.
swansont Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 I guess the 'paper' is László G. Mészáros, Special Relativity: a Contradicting Theory or an Account for an Optical Phenomenon, http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0272. But be warned, it is viXra 'paper'. I saw that mentioned in the comments, but "the paper" described in the article seems like it has more breadth and depth. Anyway, I think the viXra paper goes off the rails no later than when it assumes that Boyles law can be applied between frames, as if PV was an invariant. PV is an energy term. Why would it be invariant?
ajb Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Anyway, I think the viXra paper goes off the rails no later than when it assumes that Boyles law can be applied between frames, as if PV was an invariant. PV is an energy term. Why would it be invariant? I totally agree. The paper I think is just wrong in that respect.
Moontanman Posted March 2, 2016 Author Posted March 2, 2016 I think I am going to keep up with this as much as i can and see how it turns out, just when i thought I was getting used to things they way they are someone steps up and says nope they weren't that way at all! What a wonderful time to be alive!
Mordred Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) Don't bother, I just read the paper its utter garbage. Its a measly 4 pages and uses extremely basic formulas. He didnt include observer affect on energy via redshift. However posted one basic thermodynamic equation without proper correlation. An average high school student could write a better paper. For one thing he never mentioned is the Observer influence is detailed in the stress-momentum tensor of the Einstein field equations. including the pressure term. Edited March 3, 2016 by Mordred
StringJunky Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 Don't bother, I just read the paper its utter garbage. Its a measly 4 pages and uses extremely basic formulas. He didnt include observer affect on energy via redshift. However posted one basic thermodynamic equation without proper correlation. An average high school student could write a better paper Any serious rebuttal to Relativity is not going to be deposited at vixra, don't you think?
Mordred Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 Any serious rebuttal to Relativity is not going to be deposited at vixra, don't you think? I never trust any vixra article. Many science forums have literally banned that as a valid reference for good reason lol. Even if the rebuttal was on a reputable site a mere 4 pages with 3 to 4 basic equations wouldnt be sufficient.
StringJunky Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 I never trust any vixra article. Many science forums have literally banned that as a valid reference for good reason lol. Even if the rebuttal was on a reputable site a mere 4 pages with 3 to 4 basic equations wouldnt be sufficient. I'd be no good then, presenting a science paper. Anything more than A4 and I think I'm being verbose.
Daecon Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 The link in the OP says that the article has been withdrawn.
Phi for All Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 I'd be no good then, presenting a science paper. Anything more than A4 and I think I'm being verbose. Whoa, tl;dr 2
Robittybob1 Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 Whoa, tl;dr What does that mean in English please?
Robittybob1 Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 Too long; didn't read. So was it said in jest? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93797-relativity-is-wrong/#entry909201 Unless a post has a definite reference how do we know what was tl:dr? I have the feeling now the A4 length science paper is tl:dr. Thanks for the explanation Daecon.
DrP Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 It was clearly in jest... look at the context from the quoted post from SJ. Was typical of his style and sense of humour.
Phi for All Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 So was it said in jest? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93797-relativity-is-wrong/#entry909201 Unless a post has a definite reference how do we know what was tl:dr? I have the feeling now the A4 length science paper is tl:dr. Thanks for the explanation Daecon. I sometimes feel like you're humor impervious. Your tendency to overanalyze costs you a lot here.
StringJunky Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) I immediately got Phi's humour.... long may it continue. If I was capable mathematically, to the necessary level, my papers would be formula-dense and word-free to keep it just on an A4. I think this is a good attitude because you don't want to bore your reader with excess words that meander around your subject and just act as fillers, which serve no real communicative purpose. Edited March 3, 2016 by StringJunky
imatfaal Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 I immediately got Phi's humour.... long may it continue. If I was capable mathematically, to the necessary level, my papers would be formula-dense and word-free to keep it just on an A4. I think this is a good attitude because you d Don't want to bore your reader with use excess words that meander around your subject and just act as fillers, which serve no real communicative purpose. ftfy 3
Recommended Posts