Look:
Is it your?
Master Theory (edition 3)
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
Is it?
Why I did not see it?
I think that you the mathematics confuse with a "bull shit".
Maybe you do not know mathematics, but you are a qualified expert in the "bull shit"?
Difficult to translate this phrase.
I'll try to answer.
Paper (of the specification and of description of algorithms PGS satellites) have relativistic corrections (amendments).
But these corrections removed from a computer's calculation of satellites.
But I could not translate #5.
I'll try to answer.
"Master Theory"'s idea: cross-scale of Lorentz's transformation (y and z) have absoluteness.
Einstein had no reason in order to attach absoluteness to cross-scales.
I bereave of absoluteness for the cross-scales (y and z).
I made it relativistic.
So I got a free parameter.
For each value of this parameter you can build a separate RT.
Thus, I have shown that: a task that solved the Einstein ("Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") has an infinite number of solutions.
And SRT is one of this infinite number of possible theories only.
All theories is relativistic and speed of light in all inertial frames is same.
Among this infinite number of solutions, I found one in which time is absolute.
I called it "Master Theory".
Master Theory to bear resemblance to SRT in many respects.
These differences to be found in some specific experiments.
These experiments: time dilation experiments and experiments in which the energy of relativistic particles in the calorimeter is measured.
These experiments have not reliable publications.
Last edited:
1. Yes, you are. You're asserting there's a conspiracy in the Russian academic community to refuse to publish anything which is counter to relativity and you suggested it's actually much wider than just Russia. You're the conspiracy nut here.
2. Actually you can argue with maths applied to the real world. Galilean transforms are a consistent model for space-time properties but they are not the actual real description of how space-time works. And if you think you've presented mathematics to justify your claims you're very much mistaken. I happen to be a mathematician, I'm more than a little familiar with its applications to the real world.
3. I would say my English is better than yours. Besides, even if I couldn't spell to save my life that wouldn't make your wilful ignorance go away. Furthermore, it's a little hypocritical you start taking pot shots at other people's supposed poor English when, in your first post, you say things like "In Master Theory these formulas is stale".
You done speak grammar good.
You have absolutly no proof of this. You are clearly lying because it destroys your theory. I have provided to proof, where you have none. At this point I am simply leaving this conversation. Your not worth talking to and you're choosing to be obtuse and wilfully ignorant. The only people that will believe you at this points are idiots anyway. Have fun and good luck with nobel prize! :roflmao:
But go ahead, continue posting your theory on this internet forum and see how far you get with scientific community.
Last edited:
You're theory is complete nonsense. We know for a fact that time and length measurements are relative. Absent the 'Twin Paradox' means your theory is empirically round filed. You spewed this nonsense in physforum and now you're spewing the nonsense in this forum. Your disconnect with the scientific literature is seriously disturbing. To the point of disrespect. IE empirical knowledge which confirms your disconnect with reality.
Ok, ok I've actually got just one more post and then I am out of here. Look at post #66. Dude says:
"4. The chain reaction of an atomic bomb is not a consequence of SRT."
But yet his own equation that he keeps referring to is a derrivitive of the equation E=mc^2
He's right, the chain reaction is not part of SRT and by his own definition neither is his own equation.
:xctd::roflmao::bravo:
"4. The chain reaction of an atomic bomb is not a consequence of SRT."
But yet his own equation that he keeps referring to is a derrivitive of the equation E=mc^2
He's right, the chain reaction is not part of SRT and by his own definition neither is his own equation.
:xctd::roflmao::bravo:
The argument is your theory doesn't correlate with empirical evidence. That's why nobody is interested in your theory. IE it's round filed.
You expressed your opinion about SRT.
I would like to see reasoned opinions with respect to Master Theory.
What disrespect for the scientific literature. You're lucky I'm not a moderator. Your complete lack of intellectual honesty is disrespectful to forum members and all the scientists who have derived the literature from our universe.
Science isn't opinion. Master Theory fails to correspond with empirical evidence. It's round filed. Next time use the space between your ears for more than holding your ears apart.
You make me read the empty words again.
Your empty words can not beat the math.
Mathematics of Master Theory is simple and understandable even for a schoolboy.
You will not been able to deal with simple mathematics, which is set out in the first post of this topic.
Your's levels of math proficiency are insufficient in order to you can to discuss problems of school-math.
Is no need for a long time to learn to write what you write.
Your empty words can not beat the math.
Mathematics of Master Theory is simple and understandable even for a schoolboy.
You will not been able to deal with simple mathematics, which is set out in the first post of this topic.
Your's levels of math proficiency are insufficient in order to you can to discuss problems of school-math.
Is no need for a long time to learn to write what you write.
Pay attention to the fact that longitudinal coordinates of Lorentz transformations is relative but transverse coordinates (y and z) is absolute: (y '= y, and z' = z).
But Einstein had no reason to do absolute for transverse coordinates (unlike the longitudinal).
Well, you yourself think: if a longitudinal coordinates is relative, then why the transverse coordinates is absolute?
Is this justified?
ANSWER: NO!
Ie: transverse extent the same may depend on the speed! (Why - no?)
Analyze the case when relativism is really all relative! and is dedicated to the topic.
This topic is dedicated for analyze the case when relativism is really relative everywhere.
But Einstein had no reason to do absolute for transverse coordinates (unlike the longitudinal).
Well, you yourself think: if a longitudinal coordinates is relative, then why the transverse coordinates is absolute?
Is this justified?
ANSWER: NO!
Ie: transverse extent the same may depend on the speed! (Why - no?)
Analyze the case when relativism is really all relative! and is dedicated to the topic.
This topic is dedicated for analyze the case when relativism is really relative everywhere.
Last edited:
Answer: Your really dumb theory doesn't correspond with reality [empirical evidence] so it's 'round filed'. Trash can fodder. If you acted like a scientist you would move on. Instead you'll probably act like a crackpot and continue to spam public forums.
Masterov,
Ignore what the bad man says. Just think about how someday, scientists will generate gravitational redshift as a means of acceleration field generator propulsion. Someday, we will have starships that routinely travel to the moon, to Mars, Venus, and the asteroid belt where we will mine for ore. We will replace millions of transistors on IC chips with light emitting diodes. These IC LED packages will be used to generate gravity fields. All you have to do is ignore the bad man.
Don't ever listen to the bad man. Just put your fingers in your ears and go: la la la la la la!!! Remember that the bad man is trying to brainwash you into believing that relativity forbids superluminal motion, but look at this:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.3219v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.3219v1.pdf
Don't ever listen to the bad man. Just put your fingers in your ears and go: la la la la la la!!! Remember that the bad man is trying to brainwash you into believing that relativity forbids superluminal motion, but look at this:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.3219v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.3219v1.pdf
Quasar jets typically have apparent speeds around 10c, corresponding to intrinsic speeds of 99.9 percent of the speed
of light. Apparent speeds up to about 35c are observed
in some quasars.
of light. Apparent speeds up to about 35c are observed
in some quasars.