Three Experiments Challenging SRT

[Masterov]

Oh, and another thing Masterov - your continued use of insulting adjectives .. 'scab, mustiness', etc, is not conducive to factual responses. Rather, it probably makes others feel like responding in kind. Is that your motive ? If not, translation difficulties notwithstanding, you should strive to elicit subject reponses rather than insults.

scab? mustiness?
It I did?
But I do not use it words.

I used: mildew and eschar.
I'm not assured.
I use "translating computer".

I'm not sure what the point of the astronomical pics are, other than to detract from the OP, and to make you look like diverting.

I expect an answer to their questions.
I brought my small scientific discovery to make the process of waiting is not so tedious.
---------------------

Modern physics says that sunspots are the result of internal activity of the Sun.
I am sure, this is a fallacy.
Sunspots result from falling on Sun comets and meteorites.

Is not that interesting?

Jupiter devour small planet and (like huge stomach) to digesting this food millions of years.
No?

 

[Masterov]

I began to look the previous pages (I usually do not do it) and discovered many new things.

See post #602, about moles-prople.

Your parable about blind people creating a hypothetical generalized Galilean transform where $$K^{\tiny -\frac{1}{2}}$$ is the speed of sound is inapposite to the reasoning that lead to the development of special relativity. For example, within the precision of experiments to distinguish the difference, the speed of sound is not constant relative to the observers, but relative to the air. Thus post #602 supports my claim that you do not understand special relativity.

 

[Masterov]

The most difficult for scientists question to be answered in the near future: "Why do so many smart people admired and raised up to heaven evendown-nonsense for so long?"
Not complex FAN's experiment and simples my questions clearly show the failure SRT.
This could not be done before?
Why not?

I will call this disease of Science "PRrhoea"
Science get the disease from "PRasts".
================================

Самый сложный вопрос, на который предстоит ответить учёным в ближайшем будущем: Почему так много умных людей восхищались и возносили до небес откровенную чушь так долго?
Не сложный эксперимент FAN и простые мои вопросы однозначно доказывают несостоятельность SRT.
Это нельзя было сделать раньше?
Почему?


Я буду называть эту болезнь науки "Пиарея".
В науку её занесли пиарасты.

 

[Lakon]

scab? mustiness?
It I did?
But I do not use it words.

You did - in post #818 you said ..

Mustiness and scab destroyed in you a scientist

Anyway, no big deal - probably a translator issue as you said. But you do need to keep it clean, and give others no reason to assume personal abuse and attack you accordingly.

I admire your persistance.

I brought my small scientific discovery to make the process of waiting is not so tedious.

Modern physics says that sunspots are the result of internal activity of the Sun.
I am sure, this is a fallacy.
Sunspots result from falling on Sun comets and meteorites.

Is not that interesting?

Jupiter devour small planet and (like huge stomach) to digesting this food millions of years.
No?

Yes, quite fascinating. Worthy of another thread. Note the title of this thread ..

"Three Experiments Challenging SRT"

See if you can get that resolved first. It's the most fascinating thread I've seen in any science forum in years.

 

[Lakon]

The most difficult for scientists question to be answered in the near future: "Why do so many smart people admired and raised up to heaven evendown-nonsense for so long?"Not complex FAN's experiment and simples my questions clearly show the failure SRT.
This could not be done before?
Why not?

I will call this disease of Science "PRrhoea"
Science get the disease from "PRasts".

That which I've underlined above Masterov, is confusing and I can't understand it.

And as I said in my above post, it would be good to keep it clean and see how it goes.

One doesn’t discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.

 

[Masterov]

You did - in post #818 you said ..

Mustiness and scab destroyed in you a scientist

Anyway, no big deal - probably a translator issue as you said. But you do need to keep it clean, and give others no reason to assume personal abuse and attack you accordingly.

I admire your persistance.



Yes, quite fascinating. Worthy of another thread. Note the title of this thread ..

"Three Experiments Challenging SRT"

See if you can get that resolved first. It's the most fascinating thread I've seen in any science forum in years.

That which I've underlined above Masterov, is confusing and I can't understand it.

And as I said in my above post, it would be good to keep it clean and see how it goes.

One doesn’t discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.

I thank you for flattering to evaluate my work.

I uchtu your wishes to stick to the topic.

But I think my opponents have no arguments, and they will have no it.
So the answer to my questions, we can wait until the end of time.

 

[Masterov]

Lakon, seems to me that SRT beaten, give a thorough rating and destroyed, both theoretically and experimentally.
This remarkable fact need convey to the scientific community.
Are you agree with me?

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

Сдаётся мне, что SRT разбита и уничтожена как теоретически, так и экспериментально.
Сей знаменательный факт следует донести до широкой научно общественности.
Вы со мной соглавны?

 

[origin]

Modern physics says that sunspots are the result of internal activity of the Sun.
I am sure, this is a fallacy.
Sunspots result from falling on Sun comets and meteorites.

That is silly.

Do you know how big sunspots are?

Are you aware of the role of magnetic fields in sunspots?

Do you know that we have photographed comets hitting the sun? (no sunspots develop)

Why would the rate of comet and meteroite impacts vary on an 11 year cycle?


I recommend that you try to concentrate on misunderstanding one theory at a time.

 

[Masterov]

Modern physics says that sunspots are the result of internal activity of the Sun.
I am sure, this is a fallacy.
Sunspots result from falling on Sun comets and meteorites.

Why would the rate of comet and meteroite impacts vary on an 11 year cycle?

Cyclicality may be associated with cyclical cometary streams.
===========================

Цикличность может быть связана с цикличностью кометных потоков.

 

[OnlyMe]

Cyclicality may be associated with cyclical cometary streams.
===========================

Цикличность может быть связана с цикличностью кометных потоков.

While this could be true, it has nothing to do with sun spots.

 

[Masterov]

While this could be true, it has nothing to do with sun spots.

You will be able to prove it?
=======================

Вы сможете это доказать?

 

[origin]

You will be able to prove it?
=======================

Вы сможете это доказать?

You are the one that is proposing a new idea! What evidence do you have that supports your idea?

Perhaps you could explain how big a comet or meteorite would have to be to make a sunspot that has a diameter of about 13,000 km (average sunspot size)? Don't forget that the comet/meteorite would lose quite a bit of it's mass due to the heating of the sun.

Better yet why don't just drop this whole goofy idea, before you embarrass yourself even more.

 

[Masterov]

You are the one that is proposing a new idea! What evidence do you have that supports your idea?

1. comet falls in Sun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPuXsxHs7_E

2. The diameter of the crater is difficult to judge about the diameter of a bomb.

3. Sun-spot diameter of the allows us to estimate the depth at which this spot ends.
At a depth of 10,000 km no processes other than convection.
Nuclear fusion in occurs in Sun nucleus, at a much greater depth.
So spot on the sun can not be the result of internal processes of the Sun.

4. comet falls in Jupiter

It's like.

Better yet why don't just drop this whole goofy idea, before you embarrass yourself even more.

I decided to have a little show of my small discoveries.
To the wait for the response of my opponents were not so tedious.

 

[Mazulu]

Actually, only electrically charged fundamental particles annihilate in gamma rays. Einstein died in 1955 before the chromodynamic force was discovered or the electro-weak forces was well understood, so his attempts at a Unified Field Theory would be wrong-headed no matter how smart he was. And if (as I suspect) you are advocating a single luminiferous aether, Fizeau's 1859 measurements of the refractive index of moving water combined with the frequency-dependent nature of the refractive index of water implies a vast number of different luminiferous aethers. With evidence from other lines of investigation, this nineteenth century idea is fundamentally unworkable.

An infinite set of luminiferous aethers, one for each possible velocity, would just become a new set of lumiferous aether with the property of one subset for each availabe property. In other words, it's not a problem.

In my view, the only reason that velocity exists at all is because of the aether. The aether provides two features: a. a range of wavelengths and b. a range of frequencies. Wavelengths and frequencies are related to each other as $$c= \lambda f$$. All particles are actually made of aether waves; the fact that the aether wave might not look like a wave (perhaps it looks like a hydrogen atom wave-function) is not a problem. The fact that aether exists is the reason why particles exist. A particle is just a clump of aether with some energy stored in it.

 

[origin]

1. comet falls in Sun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPuXsxHs7_E

This is not evidence that a comet has anything to do with sunspots.

2. The diameter of the crater is difficult to judge about the diameter of a bomb.

I don't even know what you are talking about.

3. Sun-spot diameter of the allows us to estimate the depth at which this spot ends.
At a depth of 10,000 km no processes other than convection.
Nuclear fusion in occurs in Sun nucleus, at a much greater depth.
So spot on the sun can not be the result of internal processes of the Sun.

This is evidence that you do not know anything about sunspots

4. comet falls in Jupiter
It's like.I decided to have a little show of my small discoveries.
To the wait for the response of my opponents were not so tedious.

Comet Shoemaker-Levy impact.
This is weak 'looks like' evidence, on a planet and not a star.

 

[rpenner]

Two dark spots are inequivalent:
Shoemaker-Levy impact was HOTTER than surrounding planet. Sunspots are colder than surrounding star.

Greybody emissivity law in action:
Put a black mark on a cold white crucible and the mark is darker than surroundings. Heat up the crucible until it glows and the black mark is brighter than the surroundings.

Then detailed observation of sunspots shows that they have a signature structure unlike the Shoemaker-Levy impact.

Multiple lines of evidence support the finding that Masterov is wrong. Again.

 

[Mazulu]

Actually, only electrically charged fundamental particles annihilate in gamma rays. Einstein died in 1955 before the chromodynamic force was discovered or the electro-weak forces was well understood, so his attempts at a Unified Field Theory would be wrong-headed no matter how smart he was. And if (as I suspect) you are advocating a single luminiferous aether, Fizeau's 1859 measurements of the refractive index of moving water combined with the frequency-dependent nature of the refractive index of water implies a vast number of different luminiferous aethers. With evidence from other lines of investigation, this nineteenth century idea is fundamentally unworkable.

If neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are experimentally determined not to annihilate one another (into gama rays), I have haven't heard about it. It would certainly make the laws of physics more interesting. Never-the-less, I think an aether makes sense.

You mentioned the Fizeau experiment. The experiment demonstrated that there was an aether drag (although only a very slight). It does make sense. As the light travels through the water medium, the water is made of H20 molecules in a vacuum. The light is continually absorbed and reradiated by the water molecules. In effect, the light spends part of its time being absorbed/reradiated by the medium, and another part of its time traveling throught the vacuum (through the distance between molecules).

In my view, the luminiferous aether is made of waves that obey, as a characteristic,
$$c=\lambda f = \frac{1}{sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}$$. In my view, light power is dependent upon how many photons (are being detected per second) at each frequency. In quantum mechanics, the propability of detecting a particle, like a photon, is $$\psi^* \psi$$. If there is more than one photon (perhaps there are billions of them), then you get light power; which is sort of related to power.

So what is $$psi$$, the wave amplitude? Sorry this is a really quick and dirty description, but $$\psi$$ should be the electromagnetic field. Gotta go. But I need to find the equation that relates light power as the square of the electromagnetic field.

 

[Mazulu]

OK, the Poynting vector represents the directional energy flux in Watts/m^2. For plane waves, the time averaged Poynting vector is $$<S>=\frac{\epsilon_0 c}{2}E_0^2$$ where E_0 is the peak electric field.

I thought of the idea while looking at the stars. How far away from a particular star would I have to be for there to be a 50% per second, per square meter, of detecting one of it's photons. This got me thinking about $$\psi^* \psi$$ and quantum mechanics. From a Poynting vector point of view, $$<S> <--> \psi^*\psi$$ and $$E_0 <--> \psi$$.

My point is this: I think that the aether medium is made of waves that are basically electric/magnetic field waves (without energy). When there is energy, these EM waves are energized and they are measureable as photons and/or electromagnetic waves. Without energy, they are just aether waves. Aether waves are the essential fibers of the weave of space-time. Empty space is made of aether waves.

 

[Masterov]

This is not evidence that a comet has anything to do with sunspots.

I don't even know what you are talking about.

This is evidence that you do not know anything about sunspots

Comet Shoemaker-Levy impact.
This is weak 'looks like' evidence, on a planet and not a star.

Because your words no arguments, then you can speak very briefly.
Propose a list of words that you can use in a variety of sequences:

fie!, pah!, tut!, pshaw!

 

[Lakon]

Hi Masterov. You said;

I thank you for flattering to evaluate my work.

I am not capable of evaluating your work, or the technical / scientific responses others have made to it here.

You said;

Lakon, seems to me that SRT beaten, give a thorough rating and destroyed, both theoretically and experimentally. This remarkable fact need convey to the scientific community. Are you agree with me?

I can't say whether SRT is beaten or not. I can say that you have reduced certain issues to basic questions and I don't think I've seen a cogent response to them. This in itself is rather disquieting. Your correspondents might say that these things can't be reduced to simplicity, but I find that hard to accept. Note, from Einstein himself ..

All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Finally, it's not my position to say, but I'll say it anyway .. I can't see why you continue to divert this thread into one of astronomical anomalies.