Special Relativity Is Refuted

As I said, there's no point in arguing with a crank. They'll believe what they want to believe, despite reality proving them wrong.
 
I proved that the calculus is correct. Otherwise, prove it is false.

So, the calculus stands.

The calculus has been shown to be wrong, and your assertions contradict the available experimental evidence.

Take a moment to step back and think about what that should tell you.
 
The calculus has been shown to be wrong, and your assertions contradict the available experimental evidence.

Take a moment to step back and think about what that should tell you.

The calculus has not been shown wrong.

Otherwise, let's see your proof.
 
The calculus has not been shown wrong.

Otherwise, let's see your proof.
Here, RPenners glorious post:
Hello, back from a long drive and dinner.
There are five glaring mistakes on page 2, which is exactly what we expect when the level of discussion is "the article used calculus"

The Five mistakes I would like to unravel are:
1) Incorrect manipulation of expressions, which ignore the postulates. Thus he stops talking about the physics of light.
2) Ignoring the rest of the Lorentz transform
3) The absurd assertion that radially propagating light also propagates along a vertical line with fixed y.
4) The misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that just because "$$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0$$, if x increases, then x' increased."
5) This misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that $$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0$$ and $$\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} > 0$$ and $$x' < 0$$ are enough to conclude that in the primed frame the light is moving toward the coordinate origin.

Correct manipulation of expressions
Given $$z = 0 \, , \; 0 < x \, , \; 0 < y \, , \; 0 < v < c $$, $$c^2 t^2 = x^2 + y^2$$ describes a two-dimensional surface. So solutions are necessarily parameterized by two independent variables.
$$t(x,y) = \frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$$ is one possible parameterization.
$$x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta$$ is another.
$$x(y,t) = \sqrt{c^2 t^2 - y^2}$$ is another.

So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of x and t, we have the related choices:
$$x'(x,y) = \left( x - v t(x,y) \right) \gamma = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{c \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c x - v \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} \\ y'(x,y) = y \\ t'(x,y) = \left( t(x,y) - \frac{v x}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{\frac{1}{c} \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} - \frac{v x}{c^2}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{c \sqrt{c^2-v^2}} $$

Partial derivatives are only partial derivatives

Now we can take partial derivatives of these expressions, remembering to do the work Mr Banks ignored:
$$ \begin{array}{rclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{c - \frac{v x}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & 0 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{\frac{cx}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} - v}{c \sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{x}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \\ \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{- v y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & 1 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \end{array}$$

So here we can see that even though $$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0$$, $$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial y} < 0$$ and so the sign of $$\partial x'$$ is indeterminate unless we add a constraint on $$\partial x \, , \; \partial y$$. Mr. Banks sees to hold y constant, but then he is no longer describing the propagation of rays of light but where the expanding sphere of light meets the line $$y = y_g$$ which is akin to a searchlight beam hitting a wall and not akin to a particle. Like a spot on the wall lit up by a laser pointer, it is not constrained to move slower than light.
$$\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} = c \sqrt{1 + \frac{y^2_g}{x^2}} > c$$

Directions need more than one coordinate
Even with all the problems, does the imaginary choice move away from the new coordinate origin?
To answer this, we must take the dot product of the velocity with the position in the new coordinate system and check the sign.
$$x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} = x'(x,y) \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} + y'(x,y) \frac{\partial y'}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial t'} = c \frac{c \sqrt{x^2+y^2}-v x}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} $$ which is always greater than zero, indicating that even in the bad physics, Mr. Banks has also erred when "the article used calculus."

A better way
Because of the conservation of angular momentum, we should use a better parameterization to see the fate of actual rays of light. $$x(\theta,t) = ct \, \cos \theta \, , \; y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta$$ is natural.
So when we parameterize x', t' and y' in terms of theta and t, we have the related choices:
$$x'(\theta,t) = \left( x(\theta,t) - v t \right) \gamma = \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \\ y'(\theta,t) = y(\theta,t) = ct \, \sin \theta \\ t'(\theta,t) = \left( t - \frac{v x(\theta,t)}{c^2} \right) \gamma = \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t $$

$$ \begin{array}{rclrclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{-c \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & ct \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & \frac{\frac{v}{c} \, \sin \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & - c t \, \sin \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta} & = & c t \, \cos \theta \\ \frac{\partial x'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial y'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \sin \theta & \frac{\partial t'(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta }{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & \frac{\partial x(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \cos \theta & \frac{\partial y(\theta,t)}{\partial t} & = & c \, \sin \theta \end{array}$$

So how fast is light moving in the unprimed frame (holding theta constant)?
$$\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x}{\partial t} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y}{\partial t} \right)^2} = c$$
And in the unprimed frame?
$$\sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial y'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} \right)^2} = \sqrt{\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2 + \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right)^2} = c$$

So is the light moving towards the origin in the primed frame?
$$\left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} t \right) \left( \frac{c \, \cos \theta - v}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) + \left( ct \, \sin \theta \right) \left( c \sin \theta \frac{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1 - \frac{v}{c} \, \cos \theta } \right) = \frac{c^2 t (v-c \cos \theta)^2}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2} (c-v \cos \theta)} + \frac{c^2 t \sqrt{c^2 - v^2} \sin^2 \theta}{c - v \cos \theta} = \frac{c^2 t (c-v \cos \theta)}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}} > 0$$
Of course not. Only someone without the ability to understand special relativity would think so. Only someone who doesn't understand calculus would calculate so.
This handwaving:
Let's see, we are viewing the SLW propagating along a fixed y line with z = 0 in the unprimed frame.

So, applying the partial derivative with y and z fixed is natural and normal. That is the first place you are confused.

The paper applied the partial derivative correctly. Now, if the partial derivative is false, then make that statement so you can be corrected.

You then make the statement that holding y fixed and z = 0 is not a legitimate wan to analyze the SLW. I suggest you take a freshmen course in calculus to gain a better understanding of the partial derivative and it applications.

Now, if the partial derivative in the paper is false, prove that which means you will prove calculus is false.

But, that is the problem set up by the author.

Both calculus and SR cannot be true.
Does not constitute an effective rebuttal of RPenner's criticism.
 
Here, RPenners glorious post:

This handwaving:

Does not constitute an effective rebuttal of RPenner's criticism.

No, the Rpenner logic claimed one cannot use the partial derivative.

This violates logic.

Do you agree with RPenner?
 
There's no further point to this. One might as well argue with a tree stump.
 
Here, RPenners glorious post:

This handwaving:

Does not constitute an effective rebuttal of RPenner's criticism.

Here, RPenner made this statement.

"So how fast is light moving in the unprimed frame (holding theta constant)?"

Can you explain how theta is constant when y and z are fixed?

That is a very simple logic error.
 
No, the Rpenner logic claimed one cannot use the partial derivative.

This violates logic.

Do you agree with RPenner?

No, he certainly did not.

He stated that Banks had done so wrongly:

...
4) The misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that just because "$$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0$$, if x increases, then x' increased."
5) This misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that $$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0$$ and $$\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} > 0$$ and $$x' < 0$$ are enough to conclude that in the primed frame the light is moving toward the coordinate origin.
...

Then demonstrated how to find the partial derivatives correctly:

Partial derivatives are only partial derivatives

Now we can take partial derivatives of these expressions, remembering to do the work Mr Banks ignored:
$$ \begin{array}{rclrclrclrcl} \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{c - \frac{v x}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & 0 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{\frac{cx}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} - v}{c \sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial x} & = & \frac{x}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \\ \frac{\partial x'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{- v y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial y'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & 1 & \frac{\partial t'(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} & \frac{\partial t(x,y)}{\partial y} & = & \frac{y}{c\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}} \end{array}$$

And then demonstrated that the conclusions subsequently drawn were wrong:

So here we can see that even though $$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} > 0$$, $$\frac{\partial x'}{\partial y} < 0$$ and so the sign of $$\partial x'$$ is indeterminate unless we add a constraint on $$\partial x \, , \; \partial y$$. Mr. Banks sees to hold y constant, but then he is no longer describing the propagation of rays of light but where the expanding sphere of light meets the line $$y = y_g$$ which is akin to a searchlight beam hitting a wall and not akin to a particle. Like a spot on the wall lit up by a laser pointer, it is not constrained to move slower than light.
$$\frac{\partial x}{\partial t} = c \sqrt{1 + \frac{y^2_g}{x^2}} > c$$
 
Cranks live in their own little world. Reality need not intrude.
 
No, he certainly did not.

He stated that Banks had done so wrongly:



Then demonstrated how to find the partial derivatives correctly:



And then demonstrated that the conclusions subsequently drawn were wrong:

OK, you defended the Rpenner statement:

4) The misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that just because ", if x increases, then x' increased."
5) This misuse of multivariable calculus that asserts that and and are enough to conclude that in the primed frame the light is moving toward the coordinate origin.

Can you explain precisely how the article misused calculus as RPenner asserted?

Finally, can you prove as the light wave propagates between the origins of the two frames, it does not move toward the primed origin?

I see you believe in your case and know you are correct. So, present a picture of the events and prove with a picture that shows in between the origins that if the SLW propagates away from the unprimed origin that it also propagates away from the primed origin along a fixed y line with the invariance of the light like space time interval.
 
I'm still waiting for your mathematical proof that shows all the measurements ever made of the propagation of light, are wrong.

Let's start with Maxwell, say.

But, you aren't going to even try, are you? You just want attention.
You want the world to believe you're some kind of genius, right?

I'd start again, though, because so far you've only managed to look like a complete idiot.
 
Where is RPenner. These worshipping RPenner crackpot disciples that do not know anything are tiring.
 
Back
Top