I'm looking for it a few years already.Why don't you try looking it up for yourself?Where is a description and results of experiments?
Last edited:
I'm looking for it a few years already.Why don't you try looking it up for yourself?Where is a description and results of experiments?
Any materials which contrary to SRT prohibited to publish in Russia.Seriously, if your theory is so good go get it published and stop posting about it on a web forum where no one can do anything about it.
You cannot prove a negative in physics because you cannot exhaustively test all possible situations. However, all particle experiments done to date show the behaviour of particles, both in terms of their velocity dependent decay rates and their momentum-energy relationships, to fall in line with special relativity.The fact that the matter can not travel faster than light is not a fact which was proved by experiment.
False, we can track their motion in calorimeters in colliders.Speed or time of flight of the tau lepton no been measured.
Physicists don't exclude such possibilities. The recent widely reported (but now confirmed to be an experimental mistake) measuring of faster than light neutrinos, despite them having non-zero positive masses, shows experiments do look at such properties to check.Tau lepton could move faster than the speed of light.
A complete and utter fabrication. You have absolutely no evidence for that. As the neutrino experiment I just mentioned shows, experiments which are done rigorously and which contradict special relativity DO get published. Being published doesn't mean "The mainstream community considers this absolutely and irrefutably true". The neutrino experimentalists published the work because they wanted outside help to understand it, to check their methods and conclusions.Any materials which contrary to SRT prohibited to publish in Russia.
Your opinion isn't worth a single ruble then. You don't get to make up your own definitions for words. It is scientific because it makes testable predictions from a logically derived set of conclusions developed from clearly stated axioms. Even if it's predictions were to be false it wouldn't stop being scientific. We know Newton's models are all wrong on some level of another but they are still valid science. However, that's assuming special relativity contradicts experiments, which it doesn't. And as for common sense, that's a terrible guide. Most people don't even have common sense, never mind have good sense when it comes to science. If you had actually been involved in any real worthwhile research you'd have learnt that a lay person's common sense is not a good guide to understanding the real world.My opinion:
1. SRT is not a scientific theory because it contradicts to the experiment and to common sense.
2. To protection SRT applied methods of the medieval Inquisition, therefore SRT is a religious doctrine.
For the protection of scientific theories to apply such methods unacceptable.
Publishers do not agree with me too.Then publish it somewhere else either way stop posting it here. No one agrees with you or cares, nor can we do anything about it even if we did.
You have TRILLIONS energy on paper only.Secondly colliders DO accelerate electrons through more than 0.25MeV. They go into the TRILLIONS!
The resolution of your instrument is not possible to measure the transit time $$2,9 10^{-13}c$$.False, we can track their motion in calorimeters in colliders.Speed or time of flight of the tau lepton no been measured.
Yes, if did not measure energy by a calorimeter.You cannot prove a negative in physics because you cannot exhaustively test all possible situations. However, all particle experiments done to date show the behaviour of particles, both in terms of their velocity dependent decay rates and their momentum-energy relationships, to fall in line with special relativity.The fact that the matter can not travel faster than light is not a fact which was proved by experiment.
SRT do exclude such possibilities.Physicists don't exclude such possibilities...Tau lepton could move faster than the speed of light.
MT and SRT predict all the effects of the same, except for the effects in the calorimeter.Your opinion isn't worth a single ruble then. You don't get to make up your own definitions for words. It is scientific because it makes testable predictions from a logically derived set of conclusions developed from clearly stated axioms. Even if it's predictions were to be false it wouldn't stop being scientific. We know Newton's models are all wrong on some level of another but they are still valid science. However, that's assuming special relativity contradicts experiments, which it doesn't. And as for common sense, that's a terrible guide. Most people don't even have common sense, never mind have good sense when it comes to science. If you had actually been involved in any real worthwhile research you'd have learnt that a lay person's common sense is not a good guide to understanding the real world.My opinion:
1. SRT is not a scientific theory because it contradicts to the experiment and to common sense.
2. To protection SRT applied methods of the medieval Inquisition, therefore SRT is a religious doctrine.
For the protection of scientific theories to apply such methods unacceptable.
Saying "I believe special relativity to be an accurate and highly useful model of reality" isn't a religious belief. Religion works on faith, which is the 'excuse' people give when they don't have evidence. You don't need faith to say SR is good science, it's a demonstrated fact that SR is good science. And before you jump up and down and say "Look, look, you just said SR is a fact!! Religious dogma!", please note that I didn't say that at all.
Besides, let's consider your approach. You have no experimental data for your claims, just like a creationist. You have no understanding of the science, just like a creationist. You have deliberately refused to accept any evidence or rationale beyond a preset narrow minded requirement which you base on ignorance, just like creationist Kent Hovind and his $250,000 challenge.
If you were truly open minded, honest and scientific you'd actually learn something about SR before dismissing it and you'd realise there's more ways to test the predictions of SR than the one and only way you're demanding is provided to you. As such you are being staggeringly hypocritical when you complain others are being religiously dogmatic. Science is moving along, exploring, experimenting and examining, and you're refusing to listen to anything which isn't what you want to hear.
You've invented your own little paranoid world of conspiracies, all in an effort to avoid facing up to the fact your claims are laughable and your knowledge non-existent. You need to stop blaming other people for your lack of achievement, it's you who is the issue here, not some shadowy conspiracy.
Yes but that doesn't mean physicists don't check. All the stuff in the news about neutrinos last year shows that physicists still compute what results would happen if special relativity were violated and then look for it in experiments.SRT do exclude such possibilities.
Another claim you don't only not have evidence for but there's evidence against! Scattering processes and synchrotron radiation depends on the motion of the particles, allowing us several independent ways to measure the motion and energy of the particles in an accelerator.You have TRILLIONS energy on paper only.
You have no more than 0.255MeV in the calorimeter.
No more than.
I know of four ways of measuring the energy of relativistic particles:Another claim you don't only not have evidence for but there's evidence against! Scattering processes and synchrotron radiation depends on the motion of the particles, allowing us several independent ways to measure the motion and energy of the particles in an accelerator.You have TRILLIONS energy on paper only.
You have no more than 0.255MeV in the calorimeter.
No more than.
Conspiracies?Can you do something other than make false claims about physicists and whine about conspiracies which don't exist?
I know of four ways of measuring the energy of relativistic particles:
1. By velocity: $$E=m_oc^2/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$
2. By summ: $$E=\Sigma e\Delta U_i$$
3. By radius of the trajectory of a charged particle in a magnetic field: $$E=ReHc^2/v$$
4. By measuring the energy in the calorimeter.
The first three methods are computed by formulas SRT or - according to the formulas of classical electrostatics.
They all give the same result, but this result is not correct:
1. Prove the validity of SRT, by SRT's formula is not valid.
2. The use of formulas of classical electrostatics in the relativistic electrodynamics is not valid also.
The fourth method gives different results from the first three.
The fourth method is correct only.
Measurements of the energy in the calorimeter are valid only.
The results of these measurements do not coincide with the results of the first three methods.
This is the reason absent any publications of these experiments.
It is for this reason these results are not available in the literature.Conspiracies?
I have not talked about a conspiracies.
I'm not whine about a conspiracies.
You were talking about a conspiracies the first time.
SRT has strong support in the scientific community.
It is a fact.
SRT-lobby has a huge overbearing resource.
The theory of flat earth had less support in Middle Ages.
Both theories (SRT and the flat-earth theory) have identical methods of protected.
You no burned a scientists yet, but prohibits publication without explanation.
For example, in scienceforums.net my topic was removed without any explanation.
Publishers politely suggest look for another publisher, which will undertake to publish.
Nobody argues with mathematics.
You behave like religious fanatics.
1. No every.Every journal you submit this to tells you you're wrong, but somehow all of them are wrong and you are right.
Realize?You realize that SR actually has experimental evidence in favor of it by way of the fact that GPS satellites require time correction due to the speed with which they travel around the earth, right (among others)?
I - one?But yet you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Just because you don't get it doesn't make it wrong.
1. No every.
2. No tells. (Journals refuse publication without explanation.)Realize?
But I don't think so.
All relativist effects been expel from all computation of GPS satellites.I - one?
But he been - one - too:
I - not sole who require the experimental confirmation for SRT.
A religious fanatics of science - many.
Maybe you want me to do repairs in your apartment?Actually let me be more specific. What I am looking for is the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit in arcseconds/century.
Maybe you want me to do repairs in your apartment?