New article shows a fatal math error in SR

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by chinglu, Aug 9, 2013.

  1. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    This published article demonstrates using only high school math that there are conditions under which SR predicts one light pulse reflects off a mirror and that same light pulse does not reflect off the mirror.

    Asian Journal of Mathematics and Physics
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,651
    I think I can predict where the author might run into problems. It's indicated in the above statement (and is a problem that our very own Motor Daddy seems to have) -

    "using only high school math . . ."
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Any idiot that is willing to pay 100$ can publish in this crap "journal". Look at the editorial "team". LOL.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Try again, the team is on this page.
    http://www.scienceasia.asia/index.php?journal=amp&page=index

    The managing editor in chief is Hui-Wen Lin.

    She is a professor of mathematics at National Taiwan University, Taipei. She has published in the most prestigious mathematics journal in the world, the Annals of Mathematics at Princeton University.

    See her bio below.

    http://www.tims.ntu.edu.tw/download/tims_people/CV/cv_334.pdf

    You can find her article at the Annals of Mathematics below.

    http://annals.math.princeton.edu/2010/172-1/p05
     
  8. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,585
    chinglu the relativity denier.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That is one hell of a team they got at the journal.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,585
    Give it a rest chinglu, you lose and relativity wins every freaking time you slink back to this forum with a new "revelation".
     
  10. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The journal's editor has published in the Annals of mathematics and you have not.

    Exactly what gives you the right to criticize an editor with credentials you do not have?



    In any event, the math in the article stands and there is nothing you can do about that.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Speaking of denial of relativity, Chinglu needs to answer this question from a few minutes ago.
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,585
    So.

    The only criticism of her is that she would be associated with with a 'journal' that would publish such silliness.

    I can laugh...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I notice yet again that there is no debate with the article of the OP which is what this thread is about.

    In any event, I do not know what that thread is doing and do not care. However, if think I disagree with GPS you are wrong.
     
  14. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    The editor approves the articles.

    So, that means you disagree with the editor's decision who has published in the Annals of Mathematics and you have not.

    In any event, I notice you have complied with the conclusions of the article which of course is the point of this thread.

    Otherwise, you can produce math that demonstrates an error in the math of the article, which you can't.

    So, your posts are a waste of time.
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    You can't disagree with GPS unless it's locating you in Timbuktu when you're really at the Bugtussle Association of Anti-Relativists. The question is whether you are claiming time and space are not relative, and whether that pertains to the article, or whether you're just here to promote Banks. I mean, are you Banks? And where is there any information about the staff who reviewed his paper? I mean, you have already played that appeal to authority card, but what's to back it up?
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    That attempt at science is a travesty. I think you might be right about chinglu being the author. He likes to think up experiments with irrelevant 'make believe' data and say relativity theory is down for the count. He should be banned for linking crank material in the science and math section.
     
  17. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Let's try to remain on task.

    The article was given in the OP.

    Now, since you can't refute the math, then you will have to agree, SR can be put into a contradiction.

    That is what this thread is about.
     
  18. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    It is amazing what cranks will say.

    The math is proven in the article.

    So, that means you are wrong and SR can be put into a contradiction.

    Now, can you prove the article is crackpottery yes or no.

    It is that simple.

    If you cannot, that proves your statements are false and are to be disregarded.

    Here is a hint, you cannot disprove the conclusions of the article.

    That is why the editor of the journal who has published in the Annals of mathematics (and you have not) decided to go with the article because the conclusions are proven.

    Now, let's get this straight, are you claiming the editor, who has published in the Annals of Mathematics, is a crank?
     
  19. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    That paper reminds me of the bullshit frame dancing stupidity chinglu regularly posts.
     
  20. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Now, let's get this straight, are you claiming the editor, who has published in the Annals of Mathematics, (and you have not) is a crank?
     
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I found nothing to corroborate your claim that a college professor endorsed Banks. Get that for me if you would.

    What math?

    No, as it turns out nothing anyone tries to scare up by playing pseudo-math shell games will ever put you in Timbuktu when you're not. Therefore SR stands and Banks goes down in flames. Banks is a fool who couldn't find his calculator in the dark if it was moving toward him at an absolute velocity of c, with light spheres strobing him to its absolute position.

    This thread is about getting Chingalooed, which is almost about as bad as getting Pinchoed, but more in the flavor of a hit-and-run by Motor Daddy.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,651
    The math is correct; the assumptions are wrong. He makes the classic error that the PATH that photons take is the same in all frames. It's not.
     
  23. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    You're just saying that because (a) you're jealous you didn't uncover the Relativity Conspiracy yourself, probably by lack of due diligence to apply your demonstrated skills and/or (b) you're just jealous that Banks has found Absolute Velocity and is going to be a zillionaire while you live in relative poverty. Damn! I said relative. Sorry. In any case, chinglu definitely has an envy thing going, if you know what I mean.
     

Share This Page