Three Experiments Challenging SRT

[rpenner]

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

You are an idiot.
Bertozzi had a thermocouple, not a thermometer. The readings off the thermocouple were calibrated to heat supplied to the aluminum block. Therefore demands for the temperature readings are at once specious and demonstrate you don't understand technical aspect of 50-year-old experiments.

I will ignore hereinafter any mention of Bertozzi.

We will not ignore your intellectual dishonesty. Presented with the most cited article on calorimetry of a relativistic electron beam, you invent specious claims of why "it is not good enough" and when that fails, you proceed to ignore it entirely. But when you cut yourself off from evidence, that only makes you less connected to reality -- it doesn't make the evidence go away.

 

[przyk]

???

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

No and I don't need to think that. As I have explained, there is plenty of experimental support for relativity, much of it from accelerator physics. You just won't hear it.

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

No, you don't. I said that the calibration does not need to assume SRT.

The maximum energy of an electron moving at the speed of light, even including the rest energy, is about 766 keV. Energies measured for particles in accelerator experiments are often tens or hundreds of GeV or more. That is a factor of 100,000 or more difference. It is ridiculous for you to try to dismiss that as "calibration error", especially without referencing how any calibration is actually done.

Even that is forgetting that we can compare one accelerator to another and see that one is really more powerful than another just by the interactions it produces. There are also cases where the same accelerator was increased in power over its lifetime, and we could see the difference.

Bertozzi?
Again - Bertozzi?

You didn't know? Does this mean you dismissed the paper without even reading it?

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

Yes it does. Both the energy and the speed of the electrons was measured during the experiment.

Bertozzi experiment proves nothing.

Bertozzi's experiment proves that you will do anything to ignore a result that supports SRT.

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

Experiments are not worthless just because you declare them "not direct". Once again, you show that you will automatically invent excuses to ignore any result that appears to support relativity, and there are a lot of those. You have not shown that you have a better explanation for all these experiments. You just invent an excuse for ignoring them. You have not shown that you have a better alternative to mainstream relativistic quantum field theories that are supported by decades of accelerator physics. You just ignore that too. In fact, I have no idea how you would propose to integrate "master theory" into something like a modern quantum field theory because "master theory" isn't even a valid symmetry.

It is not impressive when you dismiss experiments because you think they are "not direct". It would still have to be an incredible coincidence for these experiments and decades of accelerator physics to agree with the predictions over and over again, and "incredible coincidence" isn't the first explanation we usually think of for things in physics.

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

Do you have a better explanation for all of these experimental results? Didn't think so.

and (also) may to prove that the speed of matter can be greater than the speed of light.

No matter has ever been detected moving faster than the speed of light.

 

[Masterov]

(1)
I gave several reasons that do not allow to regard Bertozzi's experiments as justification for building a scientific theory.
One of these reasons (any) enough to forget about Bertozzi's experiments.
I have nothing to add to what has been said regarding experiments Bertozzi today.
Therefore, further discussion of experiments Bertozzi with me does not make sense.

(2)
I do not forbid you to build scientific theories on bases a falsifications and a lies.
I have not a capabilities to ban to you to talk.

I let you know that your scientific theory based on a fraud, on a bases of a lies, on untested experiments, on data that were covered with mold from old age.

(3)
What you are building is not a science.
But I do not forbid you to call the science your nonsense that you publish in their articles.
I have no right to forbid to you that either.

 

[Masterov]

Master Theory is justified by the same experiments that justify SRT.

In any published experiment has not been proved the existence of absolute of cross-scale and the lack of absolute of time.

Not even proved that the energy of the relativistic electrons is proportional to the potential difference of the accelerating field.

Einstein's theory of relativity is based on speculations, on frauds, on garbling, on cheating and on outright lies.

 

[przyk]

I gave several reasons that do not allow to regard Bertozzi's experiments as justification for building a scientific theory.

Bertozzi's experiment is not used as a justification for relativity. The experimental support for relativity is very strong with or without Bertozzi. The relativistic energy and momentum formulas are everyday experience for anyone working with particle accelerators. We are only citing Bertozzi for the benefit of the closed minded: you reflexively ignore anything that supports SRT. You invent the silly excuse that you are only interested in seeing a calorimetry experiment where both energy and speed are measured directly. So we show you just such an experiment - despite the fact it isn't even necessary - and you proceed to invent excuses for ignoring that too.

One of these reasons (any) enough to forget about Bertozzi's experiments.

None of those reasons were any good. You also demonstrated you did not understand the experiment.

Therefore, further discussion of experiments Bertozzi with me does not make sense.

I want everyone to see just how far you will go to invent excuses for ignoring exactly the experiment you asked for.

It never seems to occur to you, even for a second, that SRTs predictions might actually be correct and there might just be nothing wrong with Bertozzi's experiment. It never seems to occur to you that there aren't hundreds of Bertozzi experiments in the literature because we just don't have the same singular obsession with calorimetry experiments that you do.

I do not forbid you to build scientific theories on bases a falsifications and a lies.
I have not a capabilities to ban to you to talk.

I likewise do not forbid you from considering these experiments or the experimental success of relativistic quantum field theories.

I let you know that your scientific theory based on a fraud, on a bases of a lies, on untested experiments, on data that were covered with mold from old age.

Like I said, your accusations of fraud etc. are just that: accusations, with no substance to them.

 

[przyk]

Master Theory is justified by the same experiments that justify SRT.

False. You have never shown that "master theory" is a viable alternative to relativity with regard to all of these experiments. You have not shown that "master theory" can replace relativity in high energy/accelerator physics.

Even that is giving "master theory" too much credit. Like I have explained before, "master theory" is not even a valid symmetry. It is just a few ad hoc equations with no explanation of how they are actually implemented. Because "master theory" is not even a symmetry, incorporating it into theories is going to be much tougher than incorporating relativity, and I have seen you make no effort in that direction at all.

 

[Masterov]

I was tired by empty talking-shops.

We can to discuss endlessly it, but words do not solve the problem.

Once in independent laboratories will be shown that the temperature of a piece of lead continues to grow in proportion to the potential difference under the influence of relativistic electrons (while the velocity of the electrons is almost unchanged) - Einstein's theory will have the right that to be a scientific theory.

Reimplementation of Liangzao FAN's experiments will answer the question only: which of the two theories (SRT or Master Theory) can claim the right to become the scientific theory.

 

[przyk]

Reimplementation of Liangzao FAN's experiments will answer the question only

That is unbelievably closed-minded thinking.

It may be the only thing you will look at, but it is not the only thing the rest of the world will take into consideration.

 

[Masterov]

I see that my opponents are afraid repeated experiments.
This means that the results of these experiments are they known in advance.
The results of these experiments are not in favor of SRT.
My opponents have fear that they will be responsible for the forgeries, for fraud, for intentionally misleading the public, for embezzlement of huge finance of science.

 

[Masterov]

SRT - not a scientific theory.
SRT - a brain disease which causes dementia.
SRT cause a injuring the brain: a man who professes SRT ceases to sufficiently perceive the world and are deprived of the opportunity to think logically.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I see that my opponents are afraid repeated experiments.

No, you're afraid to consider other experiments.

This means that the results of these experiments are they known in advance.

Yet more delusions of conspiracies.

My opponents have fear that they will be responsible for the forgeries, for fraud, for intentionally misleading the public, for embezzlement of huge finance of science.

When old science is shown to be false that doesn't mean all the people who used to work on it are frauds. Was Newton a fraud, after all we know his gravity and mechanics results aren't entirely accurate? Was Maxwell a fraud, after all we know classical electromagnetism isn't entire accurate? Being mistaken in science isn't fraud, it is a necessary part of science. We learn by seeing the mistakes others have made and trying to avoid repeating them. These delusions of "You'll all be guilty of fraud!" are insane.

 

[przyk]

I see that my opponents are afraid repeated experiments.
This means that the results of these experiments are they known in advance.
The results of these experiments are not in favor of SRT.
My opponents have fear that they will be responsible for the forgeries, for fraud, for intentionally misleading the public, for embezzlement of huge finance of science.

You see that we are not rushing to repeat an experiment just because you demand it. There are many reasons that could be the case. You choose to believe the reason that suits your personal agenda and prejudices. You have offered no independent evidence of forgery, fraud, embezzlement, or intentional misdirection of the public. There is a word for unfounded accusations of this kind: slander.

The relativistic relations for energy and momentum are confirmed and widely used in high energy physics. You are demanding an experiment to test what is already daily experience for experimenters who work in accelerator physics. You offer no reason for ignoring the results of accelerator physics in the first place.

You have the attitude of one who has decided in advance which result he wishes to see, and insists an experiment be repeated until it obtains the result he desires, instead of giving fair consideration to results we already have. That is truly a rotten and fraudulent foundation for your "science" and is evidence of severe bias on your part.

You accuse your opponents of not performing your experiment out of "fear". You ignore the simple explanation that the "opponents" you have faced on this forum are generally not experimental physicists, and even if they were would not necessarily have the time, interest, or ready access to equipment necessary to perform such an experiment, nor may they be in a sufficiently senior position to petition for or authorise the diversion of funds and resources and time. If you really think this experiment absolutely must be done, find and contact appropriately trained and equipped experimental physicists and pay them to do it for you, as you are the only person who thinks it is worth the time and effort.

 

[Masterov]

Newton no did forcibly-chamber (to a psychiatric hospitals) for his opponents, where healthy and intelligent people change into crazy.

Newton did not a obstacles of publications of his opponents.

SRT-lobby made it all.

 

[przyk]

Newton no did forcibly-chamber (to a psychiatric hospitals) for his opponents, where healthy and intelligent people change into crazy.

Newton did not prevent publications of his opponents.

Neither did Einstein.

All this made SRT-lobby.

You have no evidence of any organised suppression of relativity critics:

• With regard to the only person you named (Friedrich Adler), you neglected to mention that he had committed murder in October 1916.
• Even if your assertion of suppression of Soviet physicists is true and it was because they criticised relativity (and not for some other reason), you are citing examples of oppression in Russia during an era that is already notorious for the oppression of dissidents anyway. You have given no evidence the rest of the world was involved or follows similar practices.
• You have been given examples of published papers critical of relativity or investigating alternatives to relativity. They were obviously not suppressed. Last year's apparent discovery of superluminal neutrinos was widely reported. It was certainly not suppressed.

 

[Masterov]

I am not prepared to discuss the details of the problem and give the names and organizations, which are responsible for the fact that science has evolved in the medieval Inquisition, in which instead of scientific theories represent religious doctrine.

To Humanity has yet to understand the reasons that led to stagnation in science.
This work of the next generation of scientists.

I see my duty to initiate a discussion on this issue.

 

[przyk]

I am not prepared to discuss the details of the problem and give the names and organizations, which are responsible for the fact that science has evolved in the medieval Inquisition, in which instead of scientific theories represent religious doctrine.

Then you cannot expect anyone to take your accusations seriously without really good evidence.

To Humanity has yet to understand the reasons that led to stagnation in science.

You have no evidence of stagnation either. You have only proved that you object to a modern theory that you do not understand (you were calling Minkowski's equation a lie for a long time until you realised it was just a trivial statement of the invariance of c) and that you are unwilling to even consider experimental evidence in support of it. In particular, you completely ignore the fact that the relativistic energy and momentum relations are everyday experience for particle physicists.

If anyone here is trying to build science on a rotten foundation, it is you. Your entire position revolves around unfounded accusations of fraud or worse and on ignorance of much of the last several decades' worth of experimental results and experience. That's what you've shown here.

 

[Masterov]

I am not prepared to discuss the details of the problem and give the names and organizations, which are responsible for the fact that science has evolved in the medieval Inquisition, in which instead of scientific theories represent religious doctrine.

Then you cannot expect...

I can expect anything.

 

[przyk]

You expect people to take unsupported accusations of fraud, embezzlement, etc. seriously? In the modern civilised world, people are generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

[OnlyMe]

You expect people to take unsupported accusations of fraud, embezzlement, etc. seriously? In the modern civilised world, people are generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Not everywhere! Though that should be the case.

 

[przyk]

Well, I didn't say the whole world was civilised.