Three Experiments Challenging SRT

[Masterov]

Sufficient to carry out a simple experiment: to be heated a piece of lead beam of relativistic electrons and to do measure the temperature of lead.

After publishing a table of three columns (potential difference accelerating field, the electron velocity, temperature, lead) all this questions will receive a definite answer.

____________________________

Hundreds of such experiments have been realized after Bertozzi.
Why none of them have been published?

You to do a talking-shop rather than publish these experiments.
Why?

What motivates you to hide from the public the results of these scientific experiments?

 

[przyk]

In modern physics, a lot of strange things.

1. Modern physics built on untested experiment, which was carried out half a century ago, in the heyday of radio tubes.

We got to the moon in those days. What's your point?

2. Strange things of physics is the lack of publication of simple experiments that would unequivocally prove SRT.

There is no such thing as an experiment that would unequivocally prove SRT or any other theory. If you were a scientist you should know that.

Hundreds of such experiments have been realized after Bertozzi.
Why none of them have been published?

Who performed these experiments?

If these experiments support SRT, they necessarily would have been published.

Why? If they support SRT, why publish the same result a hundred times? Just to keep you quiet?

The absence of similar experiments in the press clearly indicate that the experiment refutes SRT.

I could say the exact opposite: they are not in the press because they don't show anything new. And by saying that, I have provided just as much evidence for my case as you have for yours.

All this points to the fact that a scientific is trying to build modern science on a lie.

These experiments are all lies? The results of the last several decades of accelerator physics that confirm relativistic theories such as QED and the Standard Model are all lies? You have shown no such thing.

 

[Masterov]

In modern physics, a lot of strange things.

1. Modern physics built on untested experiment, which was carried out half a century ago, in the heyday of radio tubes.

We got to the moon in those days.

Strange argument in the scientific debate.

What's your point?

The experimental result was to be tested by independent laboratories and repeatedly define more exactly before it can become the basis for the construction of science.

Experiments Bertotsy not been so tested.

Why?

Half a century, it was not enough?

Obviously, the reason is something else.

Why try to build the physics on fraud?

 

[Masterov]

Hundreds of such experiments have been realized after Bertozzi.
Why none of them have been published?

Who performed these experiments?

These (very simple) experiments are a simple test of the efficiency of particle accelerator and the resulting need to calibrate calorimeters.

Today calorimeters calibrated formulas SRT, and the results obtained in this gauge, confirm SRT.

SRT proved by SRT.

This is not a scientific method.

 

[Masterov]

If these experiments support SRT, they necessarily would have been published.

Why? If they support SRT, why publish the same result a hundred times? Just to keep you quiet?

All experiments confirming SRT (all - indirect!) published and replicated.
If a direct verification of the SRT has been successful, then it certainly would have been published.
Direct experiment, confirming the SRT, it is - a real triumph of this theory.
Ignore it no one would.

The absence of such publications clearly points us to the fact that the experiment refutes SRT.

 

[Masterov]

The absence of similar experiments in the press clearly indicate that the experiment refutes SRT.

I could say the exact opposite: they are not in the press because they don't show anything new. And by saying that, I have provided just as much evidence for my case as you have for yours.

This is an outright lie, as there is no published direct experiment that would confirm SRT.

Direct experiments of Liangzao FAN refute SRT.

 

[OnlyMe]

This is an outright lie, as there is no published direct experiment that would confirm SRT.

AND.., wait for it..., There is no published direct experiment that DISPROVES SRT.

You logic on this line of reasoning has been both flawed and unreasonable.

 

[Masterov]

All this points to the fact that a scientific is trying to build modern science on a lie.

These experiments are all lies? The results of the last several decades of accelerator physics that confirm relativistic theories such as QED and the Standard Model are all lies? You have shown no such thing.

Among these experiments, no direct experiment.
All experiments were indirect.

 

[rpenner]

Presumably Masterov thinks a direct experiment is to pry up a corner of the universe to check which patented theories the universe operates on.

 

[Masterov]

This is an outright lie, as there is no published direct experiment that would confirm SRT.
AND.., wait for it..., There is no published direct experiment that DISPROVES SRT.

You logic on this line of reasoning has been both flawed and unreasonable.

All pubd experiments do confirmation for Master Theory and for SRT equally.

 

[Masterov]

Presumably Masterov thinks a direct experiment is to pry up a corner of the universe to check which patented theories the universe operates on.

No.

Sufficient to carry out a simple experiment: to be heated a piece of lead beam of relativistic electrons and to do measure the temperature of lead.

After publishing a table of three columns (potential difference accelerating field, the electron velocity, temperature of lead) all this questions will receive a definite answer.

 

[rpenner]

You mean a low precision calorimetry experiment of bulk relativistic electrons would convince you where high precision calorimetry of individual electrons would not?

http://muj.optol.cz/richterek/data/media/ref_str/bertozzi1964.pdf

Here we have relativistic electron beam time-of-flight and calorimetry (using aluminum rather than lead).

// Edit -- I see the Bertozzi paper has been discussed since post 311, but Masterov invents reasons to distrust it (Denialist tactic: "Not good enough"/Changing goalposts) rather than looking at it in a fair manner.

 

[Masterov]

You mean a low precision calorimetry experiment of bulk relativistic electrons would convince you where high precision calorimetry of individual electrons would not?

http://muj.optol.cz/richterek/data/media/ref_str/bertozzi1964.pdf

Here we have relativistic electron beam time-of-flight and calorimetry (using aluminum rather than lead).

And as your calorimeter are calibrated?
By SRT-formulas?
Then an experiment are no-correct.

No need to measure energy.
Enough measure temperature.

If the temperature continues to rise in proportion to the potential difference of the accelerating field (while the velocity of the electrons remains virtually unchanged = c), then SRT is a scientific theory, which is proved by experiment.

Otherwise SRT lying.

 

[przyk]

Strange argument in the scientific debate. The experimental result was to be tested by independent laboratories and repeatedly define more exactly before it can become the basis for the construction of science.

You are changing the subject. You were claiming that the experiment somehow wasn't good enough just because it was performed nearly 50 years ago. That is not a good argument against it.

Obviously, the reason is something else.

Why try to build the physics on fraud?

Your repeated accusations of fraud are not evidence of fraud.

These (very simple) experiments are a simple test of the efficiency of particle accelerator and the resulting need to calibrate calorimeters.

Today calorimeters calibrated formulas SRT, and the results obtained in this gauge, confirm SRT.

No they're not. Calorimeters used in particle accelerators measure energy deposits by converting the energy to photons and measuring how much light is produces. I have already explained this to you.

All experiments confirming SRT (all - indirect!) published and replicated.
If a direct verification of the SRT has been successful, then it certainly would have been published.

It was. rpenner has even kindly found a freely available copy of Bertozzi's paper for you.

Direct experiment, confirming the SRT, it is - a real triumph of this theory.
Ignore it no one would.

Yet you seem quite desperate to ignore it.

This is an outright lie, as there is no published direct experiment that would confirm SRT.

This is an outright lie, given Bertozzi's experiment was published.

Among these experiments, no direct experiment.
All experiments were indirect.

Most experiments in physics are "indirect". That doesn't give you an excuse to ignore them. Relativity has an excellent experimental track record. You just don't want to hear it.

 

[przyk]

And as your calorimeter are calibrated?

That is explained in the paper.

By SRT-formulas?

No. Read the paper:

The current produced by a thermocouple attached to the disk (Fig. 4) caused a galvanometer to deflect, indicating the temperature rise. Since the time interval during which charge was collected was typically about 7 min, whereas the thermal time constant of the disk was about 50 min, the heat losses during the measurement were negligible. The thermocouple system was calibrated by passing a current through a $$200\,\mathrm{\Omega}$$ resistor also imbedded in the disk. A current of 24 mA flowing for 133 sec caused the galvanometer to deflect 19 divisions. In this way each division of the galvanometer deflection was found to be equivalent to about 0.80 joules of energy absorbed by the aluminum disk.

 

[Masterov]

Strange argument in the scientific debate. The experimental result was to be tested by independent laboratories and repeatedly define more exactly before it can become the basis for the construction of science.

You are changing the subject. You were claiming that the experiment somehow wasn't good enough just because it was performed nearly 50 years ago. That is not a good argument against it.

???

You think valid: to build a science on one, single, the experiment which no one had tested?

That you are building is not science?

 

[Masterov]

These (very simple) experiments are a simple test of the efficiency of particle accelerator and the resulting need to calibrate calorimeters.

Today calorimeters calibrated formulas SRT, and the results obtained in this gauge, confirm SRT.

No they're not. Calorimeters used in particle accelerators measure energy deposits by converting the energy to photons and measuring how much light is produces. I have already explained this to you.

nobody does a calibration of a calorimeter.
I understand you correctly?

That would be weird.

 

[Masterov]

All experiments confirming SRT (all - indirect!) published and replicated.
If a direct verification of the SRT has been successful, then it certainly would have been published.

It was. rpenner has even kindly found a freely available copy of Bertozzi's paper for you.

Bertozzi?
Again - Bertozzi?

It's Megillah (the same old story).

Bertozzi experiment does not show that the temperature of the aluminum disk continues to grow, while the speed of an electrons does not change.

In papers Bertozzi no table of measurements of temperature Aluminum drive.

Betotstsi's experimental work (which no one checked) can not be the basis for a scientific conclusion.

Bertozzi experiment proves nothing.

I will ignore hereinafter any mention of Bertozzi.

 

[Masterov]

Direct experiment, confirming the SRT, it is - a real triumph of this theory.
Ignore it no one would.

Yet you seem quite desperate to ignore it.

You have no direct experiment that validates SRT, and that I could ignore.

 

[Masterov]

Among these experiments, no direct experiment.
All experiments were indirect.

Most experiments in physics are "indirect". That doesn't give you an excuse to ignore them. Relativity has an excellent experimental track record. You just don't want to hear it.

Those indirect experiments that you have, do not prove the existence of time dilation.


Those experiments, which have been published, may indicate the presence of slow time, and (also) may to prove that the speed of matter can be greater than the speed of light.