Master Theory (edition 2)

[AlphaNumeric]

You have shown you are unwilling to engage in proper discussion or even use a modicum of logic about experiments. What do you think you gain by bumping your thread demonstrating said unwillingness on your part?

The LHC just found a new particle precisely where theory predicted it to be. That theory makes use of relativity, including Lorentz transforms. If Lorentz transforms were as you claim they should be the theory would not have been able to make such accurate predictions. The ability to change from a particles rest frame to the centre of mass frame to the lab frame is essential as it is used in all calculations for experimental predictions of quantum field theory. You claim those transforms are completely wrong yet time and again their predictions are born out.

The formula you quote follows from the two principles of special relativity. The formula ostensibly a particular form of how properties transform under the Lorentz transform. The LHC just demonstrated the Lorentz transform as the mainstream views it is extremely accurate. Using your formula would have given incorrect results. Thus your model is falsified and the mainstream model vindicated in that particular type of phenomenon, including the nature of Lorentz transforms which pertain directly to the formula you mention.

If you disagree explain how your work hasn't just been falsified. Explain how the particle prediction could have been so successful if the formulae used by the mainstream are, according to you, so completely wrong.

 

[Masterov]

If you disagree explain how your work hasn't just been falsified. Explain how the particle prediction could have been so successful if the formulae used by the mainstream are, according to you, so completely wrong.

1. Blindfolded a marksman can get to the target sometimes.

2. Problem (that are solved by Einstein) has an infinite number of solutions.
Einstein found only one of an infinite number of solutions.
One can construct an infinite number of alternative theories.
All of them will give the same predictions in some cases.

3. Only a direct measurement (by a calorimeter) of the energy of relativistic particles can be a proof of the validity of Einstein's theory.
Any indirect arguments can not be evidence.

4. Not the correct solution of the problem ("two pedestrians and a dog") gives a wrong decision.
It wrong decision gets to the target, but it does not hit exactly.
Lorentz transformations give close to the correct answer, but they do not give the correct answer.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

1. Blindfolded a marksman can get to the target sometimes.

Except this marksman hasn't missed once so your attempt to dismiss the decades of success SR has had has failed.

2. Problem (that are solved by Einstein) has an infinite number of solutions.
Einstein found only one of an infinite number of solutions.
One can construct an infinite number of alternative theories.
All of them will give the same predictions in some cases.

Yes, you can change the axioms and you get different models, that is just logic 101. However, we have implemented Einstein's model in many areas of physics and it hasn't been seen to fail once. If we used your claimed transform, the Galilean transform, then it would have failed the tests Einstein has passed.

Like I've said, Lorentz transformed are used to model dynamics in particle accelerators. The relativistic $$\gamma$$ factor is a hugely dominant factor in modern accelerators so if the transform were Galilean, which doesn't have the gamma factor, experiments would have shown significant deviations from expectations.

3. Only a direct measurement (by a calorimeter) of the energy of relativistic particles can be a proof of the validity of Einstein's theory.
Any indirect arguments can not be evidence.

You don't get to dismiss evidence just because you don't like it.

It wrong decision gets to the target, but it does not hit exactly.
Lorentz transformations give close to the correct answer, but they do not give the correct answer.

No, there is a HUGE difference in what Galilean and Lorentz transforms say when it comes to things moving at speeds close to light. Only at very low speeds are they approximately equal.

You're saying things demonstrably false.

 

[Masterov]

Except this marksman hasn't missed once so your attempt to dismiss the decades of success SR has had has failed.

By using your logic can prove that the earth is flat.
(dismiss the thousands of age of success?)

Yes, you can change the axioms...

I did not change the axioms.
No exist an axiom that announces absolute a transversal scales.
Transversal scales is relativist in Master Theory.
Transversal scales is absolute in SR.
Time is absolute in Master Theory.
Time is relativist in SR.

If we used your claimed transform, the Galilean transform, then it would have failed the tests Einstein has passed.

Relativistic effects of Master Theory are visual.
Galilean transform for real coordinates only.
Real coordinates are computed by double integrating (by time) acceleration.
Acceleration is absolute in Master Theory.

You don't get to dismiss evidence just because you don't like it.

Don't like?
$$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$$ have no direct experimental corroboration.
Do you like it?

No, there is a HUGE difference in what Galilean and Lorentz transforms say when it comes to things moving at speeds close to light. Only at very low speeds are they approximately equal.

You're saying things demonstrably false.

We're talking about different coordinates.
I'm talking about the actual coordinates.
You're talking about visual coordinates.

Actual coordinates no depend on light speed.
Visual coordinates depend on light speed.

Master Theory is relativistic theory.