Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?
- Thread starter MacM
- Start date
- Status
Persol said:
So far the only english translations I have found have been to abstracts. However, I have e-mailed him in hopes of being able to access a copy of his work in english.
That however, does not alter the conclusions of the peer review board nor clear statments being made.
Until you have more than YOUR word I think the signifigance if obvious.
YOU LOSE.
Your response lack an creability what-so-ever. You fail to address the issue and you fail to address evidence.
Yes, cause IEEE is the organization I go to when I want peer reviewed physics. Until we have more than an AD FIAT DECLARATION of what this means for relativity, you really have no reason to put this forth as the knife in the back.
Hell, look at the other papers it was submitted with... and you're telling me this is a credible review of cutting edge physics?
Hell, look at the other papers it was submitted with... and you're telling me this is a credible review of cutting edge physics?
Persol said:
The very idea that only professional physicists know physics is quite telling.
That is saying a GP doesn't know medicine because he doesn't do brain surgery.
Your is an unjustified egotistical view. There are many many that work in the physics area that can and do consider Relativity Being a specialist is only getting more in depth but if something is flawed at the surface no amount of depth can salvage it.
In 1969 he became head of the microwave device physics group at the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Solid State Physics, Freiburg, Germany.
http://www.ime.jku.at/publications/Doppler6jj.pdf
Last edited:
Wow, that is so not what I said. Yes, other people (generally not named MacM) can have a firm understanding of physics. This does not mean they are experts in the field.
Yet that wasn't even my main point. I've been on various IEEE working groups and been to several joint conferences. The peer review process is not exactly in depth. For periodicals you have plenty of eyes on it. For conferences, it's usually one person... who doesn't even necessarily review it. As far as I can tell this was only submitted at a conference.... a conference where just about every submitted paper was accepted.
Just because it was published by IEEE doesn't mean it is right, and in this case it doesn't even mean it was peer reviewed... especially considering the language barriers. I could care less about the guy's credentials... which in this case doesn't even support your opinion. As you've been kind enough to demonstrate on these forums, knowing about electronics/nuclear reactors/etc does not mean you have a firm foundation when it comes to understanding relativity.
It should also be noted that your 'peer reviewed abstract' is not the same one that was submitted to IEEE... and the statements you are claiming were most likely not in there... and therefore had no chance of peer review.
But in the end, it doesn't matter... because you can't show us what he actually did. You just latched on to his statement and ran with it. I guess in your version of science, abstracts which support you are all that matter.
Last edited:
You're never going to stop making stuff up are you? I've lost count of the numbers of times you've said 'X said/claimed Y'... when it was never actually said.
Even ignoring your above lie, you still seem to miss the point. Relativity is a well founded theory. You've spent 2 years here trying to disprove it. You haven't. Now you are trying to use this guy's paper as your proof... and it isn't. This isn't about having a 'lock on truth'... this is about you continually claimed that relativity is wrong and trying to support your case by lies and generally misleading comments. You attempts are infantile at best. How many times have you posted a problem which is supposed to 'show a contradiction in relativity'? How many times have you linked to papers (most of which you didn't even read) which don't say what you claim they do?
You've once again latched onto somebody elses paper as your 'proof', without having even a quick glance at it... and somehow it is up to us to show where the mistake is.
So not only are you now forgetful... you're delusional as well.
Persol said:
Another example of somebody getting their head out of their ass and thinking.
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO2PDF/V11N2ENG.pdf
This supports my claim that relativity is based on bad assumptions regarding the equivelence between EM and the material matter universe.
MacM:
I will ignore your direct reply to me, since it is the same old same old. It suffices to reply to your "summary".
All clocks tick at 1 tick per second in their own reference frame, but not in other frames. That is what time dilation is all about.
B's clock runs slow in A's frame, so this is false.
Wrong.
In A's frame, clock A ticks at 1 tick per second. In A's frame, clock B ticks at 0.435 ticks per second.
Wrong. Such a test will clearly show that the clock rates are as I have said.
This is a MacM FIAT assertion.
Wrong again.
I will ignore your direct reply to me, since it is the same old same old. It suffices to reply to your "summary".
All clocks tick at 1 tick per second in their own reference frame, but not in other frames. That is what time dilation is all about.
B's clock runs slow in A's frame, so this is false.
Wrong.
In A's frame, clock A ticks at 1 tick per second. In A's frame, clock B ticks at 0.435 ticks per second.
Wrong. Such a test will clearly show that the clock rates are as I have said.
This is a MacM FIAT assertion.
Wrong again.
James R said:
Actually I am not even going to respond to your fiat. You choose to ignore absolute facts handed to you. I will instead rely upon current evidence which supports my view and not ours. I will drown you in such evidence. Lets see you start to properly show error is such evidence.
It has become clear that not only will you claim MacM is in error, etc, but that any scientist that disagrees with you is in error. Well lots of luck getting to the Nobel.
Persol said:
That is nothing but wishful thinking on your part. We notice you have not responded to the two cases I have posted thus far. MacM = 2, Persol 0.
His arguement that the local tick rate of 1/second has a different time interval is baseless. A proper conclusion would be to recognize the primary issue which is the shorter distance traveled. To claim otherwise it nonsense. End of arguement.
James R said:
I already have. Its conclusion are that time dilation does not occur OR if it occurs it occurs against a back drop of the CMBR. i.e. - My point about both clocks running slower meaning no systemic measurabe time differential or being only measurable against some UT.
- Status