New article shows a fatal math error in SR

chinglu

Valued Senior Member
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

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

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 . . ."

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

Any idiot that is willing to pay 100\$ can publish in this crap "journal". Look at the editorial "team". LOL.

Any idiot that is willing to pay 100\$ can publish in this crap "journal". Look at the editorial "team". LOL.

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.

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

http://annals.math.princeton.edu/2010/172-1/p05

chinglu the relativity denier.

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

Give it a rest chinglu, you lose and relativity wins every freaking time you slink back to this forum with a new "revelation".

Give it a rest chinglu, you lose and relativity wins every freaking time you slink back to this forum with a new "revelation".

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.

Give it a rest chinglu, you lose and relativity wins every freaking time you slink back to this forum with a new "revelation".

Speaking of denial of relativity, Chinglu needs to answer this question from a few minutes ago.

The journal's editor has published in the Annals of mathematics and you have not.

So.

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

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

In any event, the math in the article stands and there is nothing you can do about that.

I can laugh...

Speaking of denial of relativity, Chinglu needs to answer this question from a few minutes ago.

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.

So.

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

I can laugh...

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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 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.

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?

chinglu the relativity denier.

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

That paper reminds me of the bullshit frame dancing stupidity chinglu regularly posts.

That paper reminds me of the bullshit frame dancing stupidity chinglu regularly posts.

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?

Let's try to remain on task. The article was given in the OP.
I found nothing to corroborate your claim that a college professor endorsed Banks. Get that for me if you would.

Now, since you can't refute the math,
What math?

then you will have to agree, SR can be put into a contradiction.
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.