Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

@Emil --

You said, and I quote you directly here:

Emil said:
@Arioch,
For me it is a theory like GR and much better than SR.
But you are entitled to your opinion.
Click to expand...

As I said, this is not my opinion, it's the only standard in science.

Are you aware the speed of the neutron is higher that the speed of the photon?
Click to expand...

Are you aware that these results are extremely controversial(which isn't bad in and of itself) and that they haven't been duplicated yet? Are you also aware that there are multiple explanations being proposed for the results that are perfectly concurrent with Relativity?

No, apparently you weren't because you said this with the implication that it proves relativity wrong(of course, if relativity were wrong then your cell phone wouldn't work).
 
@Arioch
You said, and I quote you directly here:
Arioch said:
It's not my opinion...
Click to expand...
As I said, What? I do not talk to you? who convinced you and how , it is your job.

Arioch said:
Are you aware that these results are extremely controversial(which isn't bad in and of itself) and that they haven't been duplicated yet? Are you also aware that there are multiple explanations being proposed for the results that are perfectly concurrent with Relativity?
Click to expand...
Sylwester Kornowski said:
Can you prove that my ET does not lead to the speeds of neutrinos consistent with the data obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments and with the data concerning the supernova 1987A explosion?
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding these results is crack posting.
Arioch said:
No, apparently you weren't because you said this with the implication that it proves relativity wrong(of course, if relativity were wrong then your cell phone wouldn't work).
Click to expand...
LOL...Can you show me how "if relativity were wrong then your cell phone wouldn't work" ?
 
@Emil --

As I said, What? I do not talk to you? who convinced you and how , it is your job.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not my opinion it's the standard that every scientist uses when evaluating a hypothesis or theory.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here though. I'm not sure if you're using a translator and are having problems with the language or if you just aren't good at wording things in a manner which makes sense, but pretty much all I'm getting from you is gibberish.

LOL...Can you show me how "if relativity were wrong then your cell phone wouldn't work" ?
Click to expand...

It's quite simple really, without the calculations and calibrations using relativity all of the communications satellites would crash or burn up in the atmosphere. Beyond that, without relativity none of the satellites would send any usable signals due to the time dilation experienced at relativistic speeds(which satellites travel at, albeit very low relativistic speeds).

The technology we use every day confirm relativity, though we know from QED that relativity is incomplete. So it's not dead wrong the way that you imply merely not finished yet.

Of course, I fully expect you to just dismiss this completely without even bothering to check up on it because that's what you woomeisters do.
 
Arioch said:
@Emil --
It's quite simple really, without the calculations and calibrations using relativity all of the communications satellites would crash or burn up in the atmosphere. Beyond that, without relativity none of the satellites would send any usable signals due to the time dilation experienced at relativistic speeds(which satellites travel at, albeit very low relativistic speeds).

The technology we use every day confirm relativity, though we know from QED that relativity is incomplete. So it's not dead wrong the way that you imply merely not finished yet.

Of course, I fully expect you to just dismiss this completely without even bothering to check up on it because that's what you woomeisters do.
Click to expand...
@Arioch
My cell phone works well and without GPS.


You have learned Einstain's theory and for 100 years you spamming the science.(How you developed it in 100 years?)
Feature is the concern of a scientist and not the result.
Any search in this field, you spam it.
You know only simply reproduce Einstein's theory.

So please don't spam. We know Einstein's theories.
 
@Emil --

Your cell phone might work just fine without gps, however the cell towers don't. No cell towers equals no cell phones, no relativity equals no cell towers, therefore no relativity equals no cell phones.

And who's spamming anything, you're the one who brought up relativity, not me.
 
@Emil --

Says you. Got anything to back that incredible bullshit up? Or am I to take it on faith?
 
@Emil --

Says the neutron speed, but you are not able to understand.
Click to expand...

Wow, somebody can't read. I already stated my reasoning for not accepting that as evidence that relativity is wrong. Not only haven't the results of that experiment been replicated(meaning that we have no idea whether or not they're true yet) but there are several possible explanations for that result that are concurrent with the theory of relativity.

bullshit is to deny the evidence.
Click to expand...

1. It's not evidence yet, it hasn't been replicated.

2. I'm not denying anything, I'm the one who's not jumping on anything which looks like it might support my pet belief. I'm the one who's being rational and waiting until more is known to make a decision about this result. You're the one who's blindly accepting something just because you like it, and you might want to work on that flaw before it bites you in the ass one day.
 
@Arioch,
Are you going to stop trolling this thread?
I told you I know SR and this is not the SR!
 
@Emil --

Then why did you even bring it up in the first place? And anyways, why should I trust you to know anything? All you've done so far is display a frightening level of ignorance about scientific procedure and...well...just about everything else too.
 
Arioch said:
@Emil --

Then why did you even bring it up in the first place? And anyways, why should I trust you to know anything? All you've done so far is display a frightening level of ignorance about scientific procedure and...well...just about everything else too.
Click to expand...
I reported you as troll.
 
So now a troll is anyone who criticizes things you like? Damn, I must be an awful troll. However I must point out that I'm not trolling according to the standards of this site, so have fun wasting the time of the mods.
 
Are you aware the speed of the neutron is higher that the speed of the photon?
Click to expand...

Are you aware that the neutrino and the neutron are two very different things?
 
AlexG said:
Are you aware that the neutrino and the neutron are two very different things?
Click to expand...
Bah! You science types!
Next you'll be telling us chalk and cheese, or even shit and shinola are different things.
 
Emil said:
Why this thread is not in "Alternative Theories" subforum?
Click to expand...
Because I didn't realise the subforum was already online when I moved it.

Emil said:
Are you aware the speed of the neutron is higher that the speed of the photon?
Click to expand...
Are you aware the neutron and neutrino are not the same?

Emil said:
SR is just the greatest scam in history.
Click to expand...
Other than it being incorporated into pretty much all of theoretical physics from the last 100 years, physics which has advanced our understanding of the universe and ability to predict its behaviour enormously. Both relativity and quantum field theory include special relativity and so every test of them is a test of special relativity.

Emil said:
Are you going to stop trolling this thread?
I told you I know SR and this is not the SR!
Click to expand...
No, you don't know SR. That was firmly established in the physics subforum earlier in the week. You are deluding yourself if you think you understand relativity.

To say it is a scam is just flat out stupid. I know it might be hard for you to understand, given you don't understand SR, but some of us do understand it. Some of us took the time to work through it, to see how to go from its initial postulates to it's conclusions, it's quantitative predictions and how those can be tested. Some of us learnt the models which are built on top of special relativity, seeing how those too go from postulates to end conclusions and predictions. There's no conspiracy, anyone can go and buy a book on this stuff and learn it for themselves, see how it goes from start to end. There's no web of secrecy, no kick backs to academia for their silence, no supression of results. The very fact physicists have announced "Here's something which seems to contradict relativity?!" shows they are open to it being wrong.

So please explain how it is a scam. And your "Go away, you're trolling" comments to people who ask you to back up your claims is itself trolling. Why is it you SR denying hacks always demand other people answer your questions and justify their claims but when someone asks you to answer a question and back up your assertions you're suddenly all defensive. I reply with lengthy posts to you, Chinglu, Magneto, Sylwester, Motor Daddy etc and yet get accused of being scared or running away, all the while you lot can't answer even simple direct questions.

That is trolling and if you think no one notices you doing it then you're even more deluded than just thinking you 'know' special relativity.
 
@AlphaNumeric,

I understand more than you SR. You know just something mathematics.
You have no idea to establish conditions in which SR function.
You have some examples hallucinating.
I proved this every time but you are too arrogant to understand.
So once again this is not the SR.
 
Emil said:
@AlphaNumeric,

I understand more than you SR. You know just something mathematics.
You have no idea to establish conditions in which SR function.
You have some examples hallucinating.
I proved this every time but you are too arrogant to understand.
So once again this is not the SR.
Click to expand...

We have now entered woo-woo land.

Arguing with a crank is usless.
 
AlexG said:
We have now entered woo-woo land.

Arguing with a crank is usless.
Click to expand...
troll...
images
 
Self-portrait? Did you look in the mirror when drawing it, or did you do it from memory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top