Three Experiments Challenging SRT

[Masterov]

Relativistic transformations (type LT) are not important in MT, because relativistic effects are visual (type - acoustic).

This is your misunderstanding of relativity, not found in any college level textbook. Relativity is the mental exercise of putting yourself in the shoes of another and working out how the same universe is described from a different place and different standard of rest. For special relativity, that mental exercise requires use of the Lorentz transform.

We can construct an analogue of the Lorentz transformations of acoustic origin.
Lorentz transformation and SRT have sense no more than these acoustic transformations (and the theory which is constant on the basis of these transformation).

============================

Мы можем построить аналог Преобразований Лоренца для акустических координат.
В Преобразований Лоренца и в SRT не больше смысла, чем в этих акустических преобразованиях и в той теории, которая постоянна на основе этих преобразований.

 

[Masterov]

Paradox?

This "Paradox" would be a death sentence for any other theory, but not for SRT.

Just like the word "paranoid" may mean "any mental disease", "paranoid schizophrenia" or "a fear that one has enemies", the word "paradox" means different things. In logic, a paradox is a self-contradiction. In physics, a paradox is a contradiction when two different physical theories are used to analyze the same situation.
In the twin paradox, the two different physical theories are the Newtonian concept that clocks that are started at the same time will read the same when brought together and the Special Relativistic concept that motion is a type of (hyperbolic) rotation of the space and time axes.
But if you use just one physical theory, there is no logical self-contradiction so we let reality cast the deciding vote between the two worldviews.

In your understanding: if a theory violates the law of conservation of energy, this fact is called "Paradox" of this theory.

In my mind: this is not a physical theory and has nothing to science.

SRT is not a scientific theory.
SRT is a PR-project.

The contemporary face of science determine not scientists, but - PRasts.

===============================

В вашем понимании: если теория допускает нарушение закона сохранения энергии, то это обстоятельство называется Парадокс

В моём понимании: такая теория не является физической и к науке не имеет никакого отношения.

SRT не является научной теорией.
SRT является PR-проектом.

Современное лицо науки определяют не учёные, а – пиарасты.

 

[Masterov]

No need of time dilation.

Contradicted directly by many experiments.

Many people will want to look at where you will be hiding your these your experiments, when there will be published repetitive experiment of Liangzao FAN.

================

Ìíîãèå ëþäè çàõîòÿò ïîñìîòðåòü íà òî, ãäå âû áóäåòå ïðÿòàòü ýòè âàøè ýêñïåðèìåíòû, êîãäà áóäóò îïóáëèêîâàíû ïîâòîðíûå ýêñïåðèìåíòû Liangzao FAN.

 

[Masterov]

Enough agree to make all spatial coordinates will be relativistic, and then the need of time dilation will disappear.

Untrue.

Untrue?

But Master Theory exist already.
It's true.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

In your understanding: if a theory violates the law of conservation of energy, this fact is called "Paradox" of this theory.

Special relativity has energy conservation. Yet another example of how you don't even know what you're denying.

 

[Masterov]

In your understanding: if a theory violates the law of conservation of energy, this fact is called "Paradox" of this theory.

Special relativity has energy conservation. Yet another example of how you don't even know what you're denying.

You pretend that you not understood me.

I only said that so-called: SRT-paradoxes has the same level as a violation of the law of conservation of energy.

Any of teses "Paradoxs" would be a death sentence for any other theory, but not for SRT.
For some reasons.
You want called these causes?

SRT has such "Paradoxs" no less than a mongrel dog has a fleas.

No need of time dilation.
Enough agree to make all spatial coordinates will be relativistic, and then the need of time dilation will disappear. Twin Paradox and Paradox Ehrenfest longer be relevant after this.

=========================

Вы делаете вид, что вы не поняли меня.

Я только сказал, что: так называемый SRT-парадоксы имеют такой же уровень, как и нарушение закона сохранения энергии.

Любой из этих парадоксов был бы смертным приговором для любой другой теории, но не на СТО.
По каким-то причинам.
Вы не хотели бы называть эти причины?

СТО имеет таких парадоксов не меньше, чем беспородные собаки блох.

Нет необходимости в замедлении времени.
Достаточно согласиться с ткм, чтобы все пространственные координаты стали релятивистскими, и необходимость замедления времени исчезнет следом за эти. Парадокс Близнецов и Парадокс Эренфеста перестанет быть актуальным после этого.

 

[Masterov]

This fact of that the results of these experiments contradict SRT, is the reason for the absence of the results of these experiments in the press.

It is more likely that they are simply bad experiments (poor calibration, poor experimental design, inferior description of equipment, incomplete analysis) not published in any journal of good reputation. Also you say "these experiments" but only focus on the temperature experiment which did not measure how many electrons hit the target and so cannot be used to explain all the results as a per-electron velocity-energy relationship.

I concede that FAN are could did not control the anode current.
But I think it's unlikely.

FAN has done a very important job: it experimentally confirmed my theoretical assumptions of modern physics is based on lies.

And many times I have showed that this lie carefully concealed.
But no one wants to say - why?

========================

Я допускаю, что FAN мог не контролировать анодный ток.
Но я думаю, что это маловероятно.

FAN сделал очень важную работу: он экспериментально подтвердили мои теоретические предположения: современной физики строится на лжи.

И я много раз показал, что эта ложь тщательно скрывается.
При этом никто не хочет сказать: почему это происходит?

 

[origin]

You pretend that you not understood me.

I only said that so-called: SRT-paradoxes has the same level as a violation of the law of conservation of energy.

Any of teses "Paradoxs" would be a death sentence for any other theory, but not for SRT.
For some reasons.
You want called these causes?

SRT has such "Paradoxs" no less than a mongrel dog has a fleas.

I know that english is not your first language so let me help you to understand what rpenner was saying simply,

The paradoxes you are talking about are not paradoxes in SRT.

 

[Masterov]

I know that english is not your first language so let me help you to understand what rpenner was saying simply,

The paradoxes you are talking about are not paradoxes in SRT.

I also say that the SRT-paradoxes are not paradoxes.

Any of these "Paradoxes" is a death sentence for a scientific theory.
But someone very cunning can masterly lie to cover another lie.
So, for example, LT has a consequence: two observers see time dilation of each other. (Transverse Doppler effect.)

In our world, this is not possible because it violates the principle of causality.
But: Using the LT and cumbersome calculations, lead us to believe that this is possible.

Violation of the principle of causality is serious, like serious is the violation of the law of conservation of energy.

How many more time do you, physics, will deceive itself, will deceive each other and the public?

Conduct a simple experiment: to heat a piece of lead by super relativistic electrons.
See for temperature: does not increase in proportion to the potential difference of the accelerating field.
Temperature ceases to grow along with the speed.

This means that the Coulomb force depends on the speed, and your statement that you were able to disperse the electrons to energies measured MeV (and more) is a lie, for which you will be ashamed.

===================

Я также сказал, что SRT-парадоксы не являются парадоксами.

Любой из этих "Парадоксов" является смертным приговором для научной теории.
Но кто-то очень хитрый может виртуозно лгать, чтобы покрыть еще одну ложь.
Так, например, LT имеет следствие: два наблюдатели видят замедление времени друг у друга. (Поперечный эффект Доплера).

В нашем мире это невозможно, потому что это нарушает принцип причинности.
Но: используя LT и громоздкие расчеты, приводят нас к мысли, что это возможно.

Нарушение принципа причинности является настоль же серьезным, насколько серьезным является нарушением закона сохранения энергии.

Сколько еще времени вы, физики, будет обманывать себя, будет обманывать друг друга и общественность?

Проведите простой эксперимент: нагрейте кусок свинца супер релятивистскими электронами.
Следите за температурой: не увеличивается пропорционально разности потенциалов ускоряющего поля.
Температура перестает расти вместе со скоростью.

Это означает, что кулоновские силы зависит от скорости, и ваши заявления о том, что вы смогли разогнать электроны до энергии, измеряется МэВ (и более), является ложью, за которую вы будете стыдиться.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Any of these "Paradoxes" is a death sentence for a scientific theory.
But someone very cunning can masterly lie to cover another lie.
So, for example, LT has a consequence: two observers see time dilation of each other. (Transverse Doppler effect.)

In our world, this is not possible because it violates the principle of causality.
But: Using the LT and cumbersome calculations, lead us to believe that this is possible.

Violation of the principle of causality is serious, like serious is the violation of the law of conservation of energy.

How many more time do you, physics, will deceive itself, will deceive each other and the public?

You're making a mistake 1st years, learning special relativity for the first time, shouldn't even be making. The 'twin paradox' is not an actual paradox, it is called it because it runs counter to our intuition but it isn't logically inconsistent. If you could do the special relativity calculations you'd find that you cannot have both twins meet up again and them both be younger than the other. One and only one is always younger than the other. Which one is the younger one is also simple to work out. Saying "The twin paradox invalidates special relativity!" is just plain ignorant.

Similarly your complaints about SR not conserving energy is also false, something I've already told you. If you knew how to do any of the calculations in special relativity you'd know it includes energy conservation. Just apply Noether's theorem to a relativistic Lagrangian or Hamiltonian for an object. The energy is related to the Hamiltonian; if the Hamiltonian is time independent then the energy is constant. It's straight forward to show that $$\partial_{t}H = \partial_{t}L$$ where L is the Lagrangian and H the Hamiltonian and L is found by integrating along a world-line curve C the line element, $$L = \int_{C} \textrm{d}s$$. In special relativity we have $$ds^{2} = dt^{2} - dx^{i}dx_{i} = \eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}$$. Defining $$\dot{t} = \partial_{\tau}t$$ etc we get $$\sqrt{ds} = \sqrt{ \dot{t}^{2} - ||\dot{\mathbf{x}}||^{2}} d\tau$$. This is dependent on $$\dot{t}$$ but not t explicitly. Therefore $$\partial_{t}L = 0$$ so $$\partial_{t}H = 0$$ so $$\partial_{t}E = 0$$ so E is constant. For more elaborate systems incorporating special relativity the principle is exactly the same, you check $$\partial_{t}L=0$$ and you're done. For example, in quantum electrodynamics we get this, which means that it's impossible to construct a theoretical system within QED which doesn't violate energy conservation, no matter how convoluted you make it.

You should be ashamed of how you make claims you cannot back up, make assertions for which you have no evidence, lie about people here and complain about models/theories you obviously know nothing about.

 

[Masterov]

One and only one is always younger than the other.

OK

Discuss it.

Which of the two of the twins will be younger than?
And - why?

=====================

OK

Обсудим это.

Какой из двух близнецов будет моложе?
И - почему?

 

[OnlyMe]

OK

Discuss it.

Which of the two twins budkt younger?

=====================

OK

Обсудим это.

Какой из двух близнецов будкт моложе?

The one who is traveling relative to the other.

The standard thought experiement (I left paradox out on purpose), assumes that one twin remains on a planet at rest relative to the other twin's journey.

The clock on the planet that the thought experiment begins at, will keep time a constant rate throughout the whole journey of the twin that travels.

While the clock of the twin that does travel, will run slower proportionally to his/her velocity during the trip. It does not matter which direction the traveling twin is moving as long as he/she is moving relative to the twin on the planet, his/her clock will run slower and when they meet at the end, the traveling twin will be younger.

There are many variations that get sometimes very complicated. In the end it always returns to which twin was the one who was moving during the thought experiment.

 

[Masterov]

Similarly your complaints about SR not conserving energy is also false, something

I did not say that law of conservation of energy of SRT are broken.

I talked about that SRT has abnormalities of the same order as a violation of the law of conservation of energy.

In SRT violates the principle of causality from of transverse Doppler effect.

==============================

Я не утверждал, что в SRT нарушается закон сохранения энергии.

Я говорил о том, что в SRT возникают нарушения того же порядка, как и нарушение закона сохранения энергии.

В SRT нарушается принцип причинности в следствии поперечного эффекта Доплера.

 

[Masterov]

The one who is traveling relative to the other.
...
In the end it always returns to which twin was the one who was moving during the thought experiment.

Each of us is traveling relative to the other (even through to sleep).

One twin sleeps in a bed, and the other twin is sleeping in a spaceship.

You state that time of spaceship are slower.

What (what is name of it? what and in what physical quantities measure it? what does it depend?) physical parameter responsible for the rate of flow of time in a space ship?

=======================

Каждый из нас путешествует, даже если спит в постели.

Один близнец спит в кроваи, а другой близнец спит в космическом корабле.

Вы утверждаете, что в космическом корабле время течёт медленнее.

Какой физический параметр отвечает за скорость течения времени в космическом корабле?
Как называется?
Как и в каких величинах измеряется?
От чего он зависит?

 

[OnlyMe]

Each of us is traveling relative to the other (even through to sleep).

One twin sleeps in a bed, and the other twin is sleeping in a spaceship.

You state that time of spaceship are slower.

What (what is name of it? what and in what physical quantities measure it? what does it depend?) physical parameter responsible for the rate of flow of time in a space ship?

=======================

Каждый из нас путешествует, даже если спит в постели.

Один близнец спит в кроваи, а другой близнец спит в космическом корабле.

Вы утверждаете, что в космическом корабле время течёт медленнее.

Какой физический параметр отвечает за скорость течения времени в космическом корабле?
Как называется?
Как и в каких величинах измеряется?
От чего он зависит?

We measure time with clocks. So the clocks are the indicators. The clock of the twin that does the traveling, runs slower while it is moving than when it is at rest.

Yes we are all of us in motion..., moving. The thought experiment to simplify things asserts that everything is in the flat spacetime of SR and that the starting point or planet, is not moving relative to the thought experiment.

The thought experiment assumes ideal conditions. It excludes the influence of gravity and accelerations.

It determines that the traveling twin is in fact the twin that was moving, because both twins and their clocks start out on the planet.

It has been demonstrated that clocks that are moving do in fact seem to run slower than identical clocks that were not moved.

Even if you assume that the planet is moving, it is moving at a constant rate so the rate its clock ticks at never changes.

That still leads to a difference where the traveling twin's clock will be running slow compared to the clock on the planet.., while it is moving relative to the planet.

 

[Masterov]

You did not answer my question.

Two twins: one sleeping in a bed, while the other sleeps in a rocket (engine off).

Where is the difference? What slows down rocket time?

=====================

Вы не ответили на мой вопрос.

Два близнеца: один спит в кровати, а другой спит в ракете (двигатели выключены).

Где разница? Что замедляет время в ракете?

 

[RealityCheck]

The one who is traveling relative to the other.

The standard thought experiement (I left paradox out on purpose), assumes that one twin remains on a planet at rest relative to the other twin's journey.

The clock on the planet that the thought experiment begins at, will keep time a constant rate throughout the whole journey of the twin that travels.

While the clock of the twin that does travel, will run slower proportionally to his/her velocity during the trip. It does not matter which direction the traveling twin is moving as long as he/she is moving relative to the twin on the planet, his/her clock will run slower and when they meet at the end, the traveling twin will be younger.

There are many variations that get sometimes very complicated. In the end it always returns to which twin was the one who was moving during the thought experiment.

Hi OnlyMe, everyone.

Since I have mostly given up on this internet forum having any moderator fairness and objectivity, I now 'read-only' for the most part. I make an exception now simply because your above post goes to the heart of the 'want it both ways' SRT 'explanations' which are trotted out (not only by you OM) while 'the elephant in the room' is denied with a straight face.

For example, if (as SRT theory would have it) both motion and distance is 'only relative' between the objects involved, then how can each one say which of the two (stay home and traveling) twins is actually 'moving/accelerating' and which one is 'not' (each twin in a space ship and one moving off by accelerating away....that way all GR, ie planets etc, complications absent)?

Obviously, it is the 'absolute acceleration' factor/experience, not the 'relativity', which is the determining/absolute distinguishing factor in the end when comparison is made between twins 'ages' (clock/time duration/elapsed).

Moreover, since there is absoluteness in that acceleration process in relation to the space being traversed by the 'actually moving' (ie, actually accelerating) twin, that acceleration and speed-increment accumulation effect can only be with respect to the instantaneous space occupied/transitioned while the acceleration occurs.

Both these obvious things should put paid to the 'relative only' mantra in which SRT 'explanations' gloss over the absoluteness both of absolute acceleration and energy-space per se.

While the simplified SRT geometrical analysis/treatment of 'plain speed' and 'distance between objects' as 'relative only' is useful in practice, it does not really remove the logical/physical imperative of the 'elephant in the room': namely, that 'energy-space' is a real physical background and not just a relative abstract defined only by object 'separation'; and that acceleration/distance is with respect to that 'energy-space' (else in SRT there would be no way you could say which of the twins was 'moving' rather than the other, and the clocks would be irrelevant because of the situation being discussed in this thread now).

Carry on discussing, guys, while I return to read-only mode once more. Kneejerk reading of this post expected, so I won't be disappointed if those kneejerkers come back without even fairly/properly reading/understanding it at all.

Good luck with the 'want it both ways' approach/explanations which keep dodging the fundamental questions/points actually being examined anew!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Hi OnlyMe, everyone.

Since I have mostly given up on this internet forum having any moderator fairness and objectivity, I now 'read-only' for the most part. I make an exception now simply because your above post goes to the heart of the 'want it both ways' SRT 'explanations' which are trotted out (not only by you OM) while 'the elephant in the room' is denied with a straight face.

For example, if (as SRT theory would have it) both motion and distance is 'only relative' between the objects involved, then how can each one say which of the two (stay home and traveling) twins is actually 'moving/accelerating' and which one is 'not' (each twin in a space ship and one moving off by accelerating away....that way all GR, ie planets etc, complications absent)?

Obviously, it is the 'absolute acceleration' factor/experience, not the 'relativity', which is the determining/absolute distinguishing factor in the end when comparison is made between twins 'ages' (clock/time duration/elapsed).

Moreover, since there is absoluteness in that acceleration process in relation to the space being traversed by the 'actually moving' (ie, actually accelerating) twin, that acceleration and speed-increment accumulation effect can only be with respect to the instantaneous space occupied/transitioned while the acceleration occurs.

Both these obvious things should put paid to the 'relative only' mantra in which SRT 'explanations' gloss over the absoluteness both of absolute acceleration and energy-space per se.

While the simplified SRT geometrical analysis/treatment of 'plain speed' and 'distance between objects' as 'relative only' is useful in practice, it does not really remove the logical/physical imperative of the 'elephant in the room': namely, that 'energy-space' is a real physical background and not just a relative abstract defined only by object 'separation'; and that acceleration/distance is with respect to that 'energy-space' (else in SRT there would be no way you could say which of the twins was 'moving' rather than the other, and the clocks would be irrelevant because of the situation being discussed in this thread now).

Carry on discussing, guys, while I return to read-only mode once more. Kneejerk reading of this post expected, so I won't be disappointed if those kneejerkers come back without even fairly/properly reading/understanding it at all.

Good luck with the 'want it both ways' approach/explanations which keep dodging the fundamental questions/points actually being examined anew!

welcome back... Reality Check be aware that they will probably try to goad you into participating in this thread with the motive to have it locked and discarded. My advice is to avoid being goaded into reacting to them if you can ...they will no doubt attack your post so be aware.....
=================
Добро пожаловать обратно ... Reality Check знать, что они, вероятно, попытается соблазнить вас принять участие в этой теме с мотивом, чтобы он блокируется и удаляется. Мой совет, чтобы избежать заманил в реагировании на них, если можно ... конечно, они будут атаковать ваш пост так что надо знать .....

 

[RealityCheck]

Hi QQ.

I've been back for a while now; it was a three day ban which expired some time ago. I now only 'read only' because I am appalled by the actions of those who should know better (in both duty and ethics as well as fairminded science discourse). Thanks anyway for your concern/headsup, mate. But I'm already all too aware of the tactics of evasion/baiting/framing which gets 'inconvenient' threads closed by trolls in concert with mods. I tried to get that sort of thing 'remedied' by the admin, remember? Let's see if my constructively motivated efforts had any salutary effects. Anyhow, that's why I have said I expect kneejerking (etc) from the selfsame trolls and mods who find searching questions/points 'inconvenient' to the usual glib matras-in-lieu-of-actually-addressing-the-points-as-identified (like I just identified). Don't worry, any such obvious repetition of those same tactics now that it has been exposed will be the final nail in the coffin of a supposed science discourse site. No loss to science discourse if such a site damns its own professed reasons for existing. Thanks again, mate. I won't feed the tactics/trolls. It's back to read-only mode for me until something else crops up that is too silly for words and must be commented upon accordingly! Cheers and good luck and good thinking to you!

PS: What's the bet that 'someone' will use this exchange between us just now to 'justify' closing this discussion/thread down? Or maybe something has been learned about fairness and free discourse at this site? Let's see if the responses to my previous post/points actually and properly address those points without the usual nonsense/parroting/trolling etc! There's a first time for everything! G'night.

 

[Emil]

Hey everyone.

Now what?

a and b have the same speed, so they periodically meet at the point of tangency of their trajectory.
When they meet they synchronize their clocks.
At the next meeting, which will be "the young" and which will be "the old" ?