Can you see that you cared?
Can you see that your post is illogical?
Can you see the number greater than 80 thousands?
Good luck
Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'
- Thread starter Sylwester Kornowski
- Start date
Can you see that you cared?
Can you see that your post is illogical?
Can you see the number greater than 80 thousands?
Good luck
Below is the link to my new paper (6 pages)
http://vixra.org/abs/1701.0672
The Origin of the Halton Arp “Quantized” Inherent Redshift
Abstract
The Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) shows that the Halton Arp “quantized” inherent redshift results from shifted luminosity of quasars with some redshifts, not from higher abundances of quasars with such redshifts. The two functions describing dependence of the cosmological and inherent light travel time (LTT) on redshift are continuous but for the inherent LTT there are some increases in luminosity for 15 different redshifts: 0.061, 0.30, 0.60, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, 2.63, 3.46, 4.48, 5.73, and so on - we obtained perfect consistency with observational facts. It leads to an illusion that the quasars with shifted luminosity are more numerous.
SST shows that the quasars are the very distant objects because due to the inherent LTT, even quasars with very low redshift are already in LTT equal to 6.8 Gyr.
Here we described the mechanism leading to the shifted luminosities.
The cosmological and inherent LTTs result from different mechanisms of emission of photons by cosmic objects because of annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs into two photons. The inherent LTT is produced by accretion discs whereas the cosmological LTT concerns the supernovae.
Contrary to SST, within the General Theory of Relativity (GR) we cannot explain the origin of the shifted luminosity of quasars with strictly defined redshifts so the GR cosmology is only an approximate description of the expanding Universe.
http://vixra.org/abs/1701.0672
The Origin of the Halton Arp “Quantized” Inherent Redshift
Abstract
The Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) shows that the Halton Arp “quantized” inherent redshift results from shifted luminosity of quasars with some redshifts, not from higher abundances of quasars with such redshifts. The two functions describing dependence of the cosmological and inherent light travel time (LTT) on redshift are continuous but for the inherent LTT there are some increases in luminosity for 15 different redshifts: 0.061, 0.30, 0.60, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, 2.63, 3.46, 4.48, 5.73, and so on - we obtained perfect consistency with observational facts. It leads to an illusion that the quasars with shifted luminosity are more numerous.
SST shows that the quasars are the very distant objects because due to the inherent LTT, even quasars with very low redshift are already in LTT equal to 6.8 Gyr.
Here we described the mechanism leading to the shifted luminosities.
The cosmological and inherent LTTs result from different mechanisms of emission of photons by cosmic objects because of annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs into two photons. The inherent LTT is produced by accretion discs whereas the cosmological LTT concerns the supernovae.
Contrary to SST, within the General Theory of Relativity (GR) we cannot explain the origin of the shifted luminosity of quasars with strictly defined redshifts so the GR cosmology is only an approximate description of the expanding Universe.
Below is the link to my new paper (2 pages)
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0014
Dark Energy and Dark Matter in Theories of Atoms
Abstract
Here I present my comment to an article entitled “Do Dark Matter And Dark Energy Affect Ordinary Atoms?” by Chad Orzel posted on the website of Forbes.
Applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we justify that dark energy can be neglected while in the theories of atoms the dark matter plays a significant role and its omission causes that there appear infinities, free parameters, mathematical indeterminate forms - sometimes such messy theories, even though there are free parameters included, lead to results inconsistent with the experimental data, for example, it concerns the magnetic moment of muon calculated within QED.
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0014
Dark Energy and Dark Matter in Theories of Atoms
Abstract
Here I present my comment to an article entitled “Do Dark Matter And Dark Energy Affect Ordinary Atoms?” by Chad Orzel posted on the website of Forbes.
Applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we justify that dark energy can be neglected while in the theories of atoms the dark matter plays a significant role and its omission causes that there appear infinities, free parameters, mathematical indeterminate forms - sometimes such messy theories, even though there are free parameters included, lead to results inconsistent with the experimental data, for example, it concerns the magnetic moment of muon calculated within QED.
Below is the link to my new paper (3 pages)
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0047
Basic Structures of Different Size Scales
Abstract
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we listed the basic structures in the Universe at different scales. They are as follows: multi-loop-like structures, condensate-like structures, atom-like structures, and binary systems.
We have highlighted the structures that should be discovered or accepted in the future.
Black hole with a central singularity and 3-quark model of baryons do not fit into the generalized scheme presented here. There is place for the quarks as the loops.
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0047
Basic Structures of Different Size Scales
Abstract
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we listed the basic structures in the Universe at different scales. They are as follows: multi-loop-like structures, condensate-like structures, atom-like structures, and binary systems.
We have highlighted the structures that should be discovered or accepted in the future.
Black hole with a central singularity and 3-quark model of baryons do not fit into the generalized scheme presented here. There is place for the quarks as the loops.
Below is the link to my new paper (4 pages)
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0125
How Quasars Created the Dark-Matter Structures of Present-Day Galaxies?
Abstract
Here we described the mechanism of creation of the dark-matter (DM) structure in massive spiral galaxies by the initial quasars. Such mechanism moves the angular momentum of quasars to the outer regions of massive galaxies.
We calculated that range of the DM structure in the Milky Way should be about 51.5 kpc. We calculated also the range of the DM structure for dwarf galaxies with initial baryonic mass equal to giga-solar-masses on the assumption that now in their centre is the lightest gravitational BH - we obtained 1.9 kpc.
We as well answered following question: How can we detect loops of dark matter in the Earth experiments? Just we should mimic the mechanism in quasars - we should use strong magnetic field to create relativistic vortex of baryonic plasma.
We explained also why the DM structures cannot interact electromagnetically.
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0125
How Quasars Created the Dark-Matter Structures of Present-Day Galaxies?
Abstract
Here we described the mechanism of creation of the dark-matter (DM) structure in massive spiral galaxies by the initial quasars. Such mechanism moves the angular momentum of quasars to the outer regions of massive galaxies.
We calculated that range of the DM structure in the Milky Way should be about 51.5 kpc. We calculated also the range of the DM structure for dwarf galaxies with initial baryonic mass equal to giga-solar-masses on the assumption that now in their centre is the lightest gravitational BH - we obtained 1.9 kpc.
We as well answered following question: How can we detect loops of dark matter in the Earth experiments? Just we should mimic the mechanism in quasars - we should use strong magnetic field to create relativistic vortex of baryonic plasma.
We explained also why the DM structures cannot interact electromagnetically.
Below is the link to my new paper (4 pages)
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0152
The Origin of the Bimodal Distribution in the Estimates of the Hubble Constant
Abstract
By the early 1970’s estimates of the Hubble constant from Sandage and Tammann were hovering around 55. On the other hand, VandenBerg and deVaucouleurs obtained values near 100. Even at the beginning of the current millennium still was evident such bimodality. Then cosmologists corrected the diameters and magnitudes of galaxies to reconcile two or more groups receiving different values of Hubble constant. Such a “method” of averaging the results leads to a value of about 70.
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we show that the two different values for the local Universe follow from two different ways of emission of photons which causes that the same redshift leads to two different light travel times - it concerns supernova and its host galaxy. We obtain respectively 45.17 (the upper limit is 46.44) and values two times higher i.e. 90.34 (the upper limit is 92.88) - the mean value is 67.75 (the upper limit is 69.66), which are consistent with the recent observational data.
Emphasize that the bimodality does not result from assumed uncertainties - just bimodality is characteristic for the near Universe.
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0152
The Origin of the Bimodal Distribution in the Estimates of the Hubble Constant
Abstract
By the early 1970’s estimates of the Hubble constant from Sandage and Tammann were hovering around 55. On the other hand, VandenBerg and deVaucouleurs obtained values near 100. Even at the beginning of the current millennium still was evident such bimodality. Then cosmologists corrected the diameters and magnitudes of galaxies to reconcile two or more groups receiving different values of Hubble constant. Such a “method” of averaging the results leads to a value of about 70.
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we show that the two different values for the local Universe follow from two different ways of emission of photons which causes that the same redshift leads to two different light travel times - it concerns supernova and its host galaxy. We obtain respectively 45.17 (the upper limit is 46.44) and values two times higher i.e. 90.34 (the upper limit is 92.88) - the mean value is 67.75 (the upper limit is 69.66), which are consistent with the recent observational data.
Emphasize that the bimodality does not result from assumed uncertainties - just bimodality is characteristic for the near Universe.
Below is the link to my new paper (2 pages)
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0165
The Internal Structure of the Intermediate-Mass Black Hole in the Centre of the Globular Cluster 47 Tucanae
Abstract
B. Kiziltan et al. (9 February 2017) showed that pulsars in 47 Tuc imply a central black hole (BH) with a mass of about 2,200 solar masses (the upper limit is 3,700 solar masses whereas the lower limit is 1,400). Predictive power correlates with number of observed pulsars. The inference flattens with decreasing number of randomly selected pulsars.
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we suggest that the BH consists of 16 neutron black holes (NBH) entangled with 16 pulsars. With time, the set of 16 pulsars changes its constituents. SST shows that then mass of the central BH should be 2,536 solar masses. To such mass lead as well the observational data for 16 randomly selected pulsars.
More precise observational data should show whether predicted within SST the exact mass of the central BH is correct.
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0165
The Internal Structure of the Intermediate-Mass Black Hole in the Centre of the Globular Cluster 47 Tucanae
Abstract
B. Kiziltan et al. (9 February 2017) showed that pulsars in 47 Tuc imply a central black hole (BH) with a mass of about 2,200 solar masses (the upper limit is 3,700 solar masses whereas the lower limit is 1,400). Predictive power correlates with number of observed pulsars. The inference flattens with decreasing number of randomly selected pulsars.
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we suggest that the BH consists of 16 neutron black holes (NBH) entangled with 16 pulsars. With time, the set of 16 pulsars changes its constituents. SST shows that then mass of the central BH should be 2,536 solar masses. To such mass lead as well the observational data for 16 randomly selected pulsars.
More precise observational data should show whether predicted within SST the exact mass of the central BH is correct.
Below is the link to my new paper (4 pages)
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0186
The Origin of the One Peak in Globular-Cluster and Three Peaks in the Dwarf-Galaxy Mass Function
Abstract
The reviews of McLaughlin (2003) and of Brodie and Strader (2006) show that the globular cluster mass function in present-day galaxy halos is approximately log-normal with a peak log M = 5.3, where M is expressed in solar masses.
On the other hand, our investigation of distribution of disc masses of dwarf spiral galaxies (we used the 36 objects selected by Karukes et al. (6 January 2017)) leads to 3 peaks for log M = 8.017, 7.415 and 6.813.
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we showed the origin of such quantization of masses of discs and globular clusters within one coherent model. The peaks follow from the initial large-scale structure of the Universe described within SST.
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0186
The Origin of the One Peak in Globular-Cluster and Three Peaks in the Dwarf-Galaxy Mass Function
Abstract
The reviews of McLaughlin (2003) and of Brodie and Strader (2006) show that the globular cluster mass function in present-day galaxy halos is approximately log-normal with a peak log M = 5.3, where M is expressed in solar masses.
On the other hand, our investigation of distribution of disc masses of dwarf spiral galaxies (we used the 36 objects selected by Karukes et al. (6 January 2017)) leads to 3 peaks for log M = 8.017, 7.415 and 6.813.
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we showed the origin of such quantization of masses of discs and globular clusters within one coherent model. The peaks follow from the initial large-scale structure of the Universe described within SST.
In the mainstream cosmology, the origin of dark matter (DM) is still a tabula rasa.
There was published very interesting article entitled “One Law To Rule Them All: The Radial Acceleration Relation of Galaxies” by Federico Lelli, et al. (last revised 23 January 2017). We can read the arxiv original paper
https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08981
published also in The Astrophysical Journal or the popular science article in The ScienceDaily entitled “Radial acceleration relation found in all common types of galaxies”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170217012502.htm
The main conclusions are that “the observed acceleration tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from visible mass”. The tightness suggests that the mainstream views on DM are incorrect, that we must reformulate the current theories of formation and evolution of galaxies, and that we must formulate some extension of Einstein’s General Relativity (GR).
On the other hand, within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) we showed that the DM structures do not consist of individual objects (for example, of black holes?) or particles (for example, of axions?) as it is in mainstream cosmology but they are the cosmological loops composed of the entangled Einstein-spacetime components. Sets of such DM loops can interact gravitationally or weakly via leptons with, for example, baryonic matter (BM) in galaxies. Within such a very simple model, knowing baryonic mass of a galaxy, we can calculate the orbital velocities of stars in the regions the interactions with the DM loops dominate i.e. we can define the rotation curves (see my papers concerning the massive galaxies, dwarf galaxies or accretion discs of black holes). Such SST model leads to the discovered DM---baryonic-mass-of-galaxies “tight correlation”. My paper concerning the rotation curves of massive galaxies was published by vixra already in October 2014 (last revised 18 June 2016)
http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0031
But on vixra you can find my other papers concerning the DM structures - it is the true cosmology (just GR partially incorrectly describes evolution of the Universe, especially its creation and expansion).
There was published very interesting article entitled “One Law To Rule Them All: The Radial Acceleration Relation of Galaxies” by Federico Lelli, et al. (last revised 23 January 2017). We can read the arxiv original paper
https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08981
published also in The Astrophysical Journal or the popular science article in The ScienceDaily entitled “Radial acceleration relation found in all common types of galaxies”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170217012502.htm
The main conclusions are that “the observed acceleration tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from visible mass”. The tightness suggests that the mainstream views on DM are incorrect, that we must reformulate the current theories of formation and evolution of galaxies, and that we must formulate some extension of Einstein’s General Relativity (GR).
On the other hand, within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) we showed that the DM structures do not consist of individual objects (for example, of black holes?) or particles (for example, of axions?) as it is in mainstream cosmology but they are the cosmological loops composed of the entangled Einstein-spacetime components. Sets of such DM loops can interact gravitationally or weakly via leptons with, for example, baryonic matter (BM) in galaxies. Within such a very simple model, knowing baryonic mass of a galaxy, we can calculate the orbital velocities of stars in the regions the interactions with the DM loops dominate i.e. we can define the rotation curves (see my papers concerning the massive galaxies, dwarf galaxies or accretion discs of black holes). Such SST model leads to the discovered DM---baryonic-mass-of-galaxies “tight correlation”. My paper concerning the rotation curves of massive galaxies was published by vixra already in October 2014 (last revised 18 June 2016)
http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0031
But on vixra you can find my other papers concerning the DM structures - it is the true cosmology (just GR partially incorrectly describes evolution of the Universe, especially its creation and expansion).
There are tens of unsolved basic problems in particle physics and cosmology.
There was published article entitled “Unifying inflation with the axion, dark matter, baryogenesis and the seesaw mechanism” by G.Ballesteros, et al. (21 February 2017). Authors try to solve five from the tens unsolved basic problems by introducing 6 new particles. We can read the arxiv original paper
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05414
published also in The Physical Review Letters, or the popular science article entitled “Group introduces six new particles to standard model (SM) to solve five enduring problems”
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-group-particles-standard-problems.html
The main conclusion is that we need 6 new particles to explain dark matter, to solve the strong CP problem, explain the origin of the small SM neutrino masses, the matter-antimatter asymmetry via thermal leptogenesis, and a stabilization of the effective SM potential at high energies due to a threshold mechanism.
First we can list the SM particles - in parenthesis is number of particles when we take into account antiparticles and the SM “colors”:
Quarks 6 (36)
Leptons 6 (12)
Carriers of strong interactions:
--Gluons 1 (8)
Carriers of weak interactions:
--W bosons 1 (2)
--Z bosons 1 (1)
Carriers of electromagnetic interactions:
--Photons 1 (1)
Higgs boson 1 (1)
__________________
Total number: 17 (61)
__________________
Authors of the paper propose 6 (14) new particles but it is not an end because there are the other unsolved basic problems! The new particles are as follows.
1) A vector-like color triplet fermion Q. The Dirac fermion Q can be split in two Weyl fermions with charges -1/3 and 1/3 so it looks as additional quark 1 (6). It solves the problem of overabundance of unwanted particles.
2) Primordial inflation is driven by two, not one, singlet scalar fields so there appears the modulus of the new singlet that leads to new particle rho 1 (1). The additional scalar field causes that the Higgs field does not move into instability region of the potential - such instability causes that the present electroweak vacuum is invalid.
3) The spin-0 axion: 1 (1), to explain dark matter.
4) Three right-handed heavy SM-singlet neutrinos 3 (6).
______________________________
Total number of new particles: 6 (14)
______________________________
Can you see the “method”? To explain new problems, there appear new free parameters, new free parameters, new free parameters….. Moreover, presented theory is very speculative.
This is not a serious physics! To the 17 + 6 = 23 (61 + 14 = 75) particles we must add next particles to solve the next basic problems and about 20 coupling constants describing interactions. What physical mechanisms quantized them? Why in SM appear free parameters as well? Why SM is such messy theory? And, first of all, why within SM we cannot calculate the half-integral spin of nucleons? Applying more and more parameters and functions taken from “ceiling” (i.e. without physical origin), we can explain everything and fit theoretical results to experimental data.
______________
On the other hand, in the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) all fields and particles are composed of free and bound non-gravitating tachyons i.e. in SST there is only one initial “particle”/piece-of-space. SST starts from 7 parameters only (and there do not appear free parameters) and a few new symmetries.
There was published article entitled “Unifying inflation with the axion, dark matter, baryogenesis and the seesaw mechanism” by G.Ballesteros, et al. (21 February 2017). Authors try to solve five from the tens unsolved basic problems by introducing 6 new particles. We can read the arxiv original paper
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05414
published also in The Physical Review Letters, or the popular science article entitled “Group introduces six new particles to standard model (SM) to solve five enduring problems”
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-group-particles-standard-problems.html
The main conclusion is that we need 6 new particles to explain dark matter, to solve the strong CP problem, explain the origin of the small SM neutrino masses, the matter-antimatter asymmetry via thermal leptogenesis, and a stabilization of the effective SM potential at high energies due to a threshold mechanism.
First we can list the SM particles - in parenthesis is number of particles when we take into account antiparticles and the SM “colors”:
Quarks 6 (36)
Leptons 6 (12)
Carriers of strong interactions:
--Gluons 1 (8)
Carriers of weak interactions:
--W bosons 1 (2)
--Z bosons 1 (1)
Carriers of electromagnetic interactions:
--Photons 1 (1)
Higgs boson 1 (1)
__________________
Total number: 17 (61)
__________________
Authors of the paper propose 6 (14) new particles but it is not an end because there are the other unsolved basic problems! The new particles are as follows.
1) A vector-like color triplet fermion Q. The Dirac fermion Q can be split in two Weyl fermions with charges -1/3 and 1/3 so it looks as additional quark 1 (6). It solves the problem of overabundance of unwanted particles.
2) Primordial inflation is driven by two, not one, singlet scalar fields so there appears the modulus of the new singlet that leads to new particle rho 1 (1). The additional scalar field causes that the Higgs field does not move into instability region of the potential - such instability causes that the present electroweak vacuum is invalid.
3) The spin-0 axion: 1 (1), to explain dark matter.
4) Three right-handed heavy SM-singlet neutrinos 3 (6).
______________________________
Total number of new particles: 6 (14)
______________________________
Can you see the “method”? To explain new problems, there appear new free parameters, new free parameters, new free parameters….. Moreover, presented theory is very speculative.
This is not a serious physics! To the 17 + 6 = 23 (61 + 14 = 75) particles we must add next particles to solve the next basic problems and about 20 coupling constants describing interactions. What physical mechanisms quantized them? Why in SM appear free parameters as well? Why SM is such messy theory? And, first of all, why within SM we cannot calculate the half-integral spin of nucleons? Applying more and more parameters and functions taken from “ceiling” (i.e. without physical origin), we can explain everything and fit theoretical results to experimental data.
______________
On the other hand, in the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) all fields and particles are composed of free and bound non-gravitating tachyons i.e. in SST there is only one initial “particle”/piece-of-space. SST starts from 7 parameters only (and there do not appear free parameters) and a few new symmetries.
Below is the link to my new paper (6 pages)
http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0004
Quantization of Masses of Galaxy Clusters
Abstract
It is partially a review paper. Here we have focused on creation and large-scale evolution of the Universe which are described mathematically in the cited papers. We recalled it because then the quantization of masses of galaxy associations is more understandable.
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we showed the origin of quantization of the total masses (dark matter plus baryonic matter) of the superclusters, clusters and groups of galaxies. Here we can find a statistical picture that leads to peaks in the mass function. SST shows that contrary to the nearby superclusters, the smaller parts in the distant superclusters (i.e. the clusters and groups) should be and are less isolated so the mainstream cosmology needs a revision because there was the evolution from the heavier structures to lighter structures, not from lighter to heavier. Masses of the galaxy superclusters should not change with time but with time in superclusters should appear clearly separated clusters and groups of galaxies.
http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0004
Quantization of Masses of Galaxy Clusters
Abstract
It is partially a review paper. Here we have focused on creation and large-scale evolution of the Universe which are described mathematically in the cited papers. We recalled it because then the quantization of masses of galaxy associations is more understandable.
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we showed the origin of quantization of the total masses (dark matter plus baryonic matter) of the superclusters, clusters and groups of galaxies. Here we can find a statistical picture that leads to peaks in the mass function. SST shows that contrary to the nearby superclusters, the smaller parts in the distant superclusters (i.e. the clusters and groups) should be and are less isolated so the mainstream cosmology needs a revision because there was the evolution from the heavier structures to lighter structures, not from lighter to heavier. Masses of the galaxy superclusters should not change with time but with time in superclusters should appear clearly separated clusters and groups of galaxies.
Too difficult for a dog?
Why the distant black holes are more massive than the near ones? According to the mainstream cosmology it should be a vice versa. Moreover, there is a time problem because the biggest black holes need much more time to be created.
Why the distant black holes are more massive than the near ones? According to the mainstream cosmology it should be a vice versa. Moreover, there is a time problem because the biggest black holes need much more time to be created.
This thread should be cessed or renamed "Sylwester's eternal delusion".
IDGAF how many views your silly, non-productive thread has produced over the years because it's nonsense.
It should be purged.
Or have a YUGE fucking disclaimer saying "This isn't science".
IDGAF how many views your silly, non-productive thread has produced over the years because it's nonsense.
It should be purged.
Or have a YUGE fucking disclaimer saying "This isn't science".
Kristoffer, your bigotry knows no boundaries.
It is clear that people interested in particle physics and cosmology, read my posts and papers.
This is not to duplicate the ideas of mainstream physics within which we for decades can not solve the basic problems.
It is time for new revolution in physics. And it will be because of the tens unsolved basic problems within the incomplete mainstream theories.
I can see that you did not read the recent scientific papers concerning black holes. It is the reason that your post is nonsensical. Can you read more and only then "discuss"?
It is clear that people interested in particle physics and cosmology, read my posts and papers.
This is not to duplicate the ideas of mainstream physics within which we for decades can not solve the basic problems.
It is time for new revolution in physics. And it will be because of the tens unsolved basic problems within the incomplete mainstream theories.
I can see that you did not read the recent scientific papers concerning black holes. It is the reason that your post is nonsensical. Can you read more and only then "discuss"?
Last edited:
Below is the link to my new paper (2 pages)
http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0066
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity from the Law of Conservation of Spin
Abstract
Here we showed that we can derive the Special-Theory-of-Relativity (SR) energy-momentum relation and the formula for relativistic mass on the basis of the law of conservation of spin on assumption that the SR length contraction is invalid.
The SR length contraction follows from the Lorentz Transformation so the Lorentz Transformation violates the law of conservation of spin - the SR needs a reformulation.
http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0066
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity from the Law of Conservation of Spin
Abstract
Here we showed that we can derive the Special-Theory-of-Relativity (SR) energy-momentum relation and the formula for relativistic mass on the basis of the law of conservation of spin on assumption that the SR length contraction is invalid.
The SR length contraction follows from the Lorentz Transformation so the Lorentz Transformation violates the law of conservation of spin - the SR needs a reformulation.
Where are your scientific arguments bigoted boy?
You violate rules of this Forum.
Oystein, can you notice that you behave worse than a rabid beast?
You proud of yourself?
You violate rules of this Forum.
Oystein, can you notice that you behave worse than a rabid beast?
You proud of yourself?