# Nobel Prize for Relativity

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Uno Hoo, Mar 20, 2010.

1. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
And since I know you're not going to bother reread what I said in the other threads I'll repeat the equations.

Frame A :
Stationary sphere $\sum_{n=1}^{N}x_{n}^{2} = (cT)^{2}$
Moving sphere $\gamma^{2}(x-vt)^{2} + \sum_{n=2}^{N}x_{n}^{2} = (cT)^{2}$
Photon sphere $\sum_{n=1}^{N}x_{n}^{2} = (ct)^{2}$

Frame B :
Stationary sphere $\sum_{n=1}^{N}(x')_{n}^{2} = (cT)^{2}$
Moving sphere $\gamma^{2}(x'+vt')^{2} + \sum_{n=2}^{N}(x')_{n}^{2} = (cT)^{2}$
Photon sphere $\sum_{n=1}^{N}(x')_{n}^{2} = (ct')^{2}$

Since we are only interested in the locations of the first point where the photon sphere intersects the moving rigid sphere in each frame it follows by symmetry that this happens on the x (or x') axis. Setting all other coordinates to 0 gives :

Frame A :
Moving sphere $\gamma^{2}(x-vt)^{2}= (cT)^{2}$
Photon sphere $x_{1}^{2} = (ct)^{2}$

Frame B :
Moving sphere $\gamma^{2}(x'+vt')^{2} = (cT)^{2}$
Photon sphere $(x_{1}')^{2} = (ct')^{2}$

In Frame A the photon sphere hits the moving rigid sphere at a negative x value which satisfies $x_{1}^{2} = (cT)^{2}$ and thus we take the negative root, $x_{1} = -cT$. Put this into the equation of the moving sphere :

$\gamma^{2}(x-vt)^{2} \to \gamma^{2}(-ct-vt)^{2} = \gamma^{2}t^{2}(v+c)^{2} = (cT)^{2}$
Solving for t gives the intersection event at $(t,x) = \Left( T \sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}} , -cT \sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}}$

In Frame B the photon sphere hits the moving rigid sphere at a positive x' value which satisfies $(x')_{1}^{2} = (cT)^{2}$ and thus we take the positive root, $x'_{1} = cT$. Put this into the equation of the moving sphere :

$\gamma^{2}(x'+vt')^{2} \to \gamma^{2}(ct'+vt')^{2} = \gamma^{2}(t')^{2}(v+c)^{2} = (cT)^{2}$
Solving for t' gives the intersection event at $(t',x') = \Left( T \sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}} , cT \sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}}$.

Different points on different sides of the photon sphere in different frames but which happen to be measured by different observers as occurring after the same amount of time has elapsed.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
What bearing does that have on anything, since the issue is the time and location of the photon sphere hiting the rigid spheres and who views what happens at what time.

Why? That isn't the first time the photon sphere hits the two rigid spheres, in either frame.

I'm wondering if you're now just trolling. You've gone from insulting to patronising and now are trying to give some vacuous reason as to why you're 'right'.

'Just figured out'. Either you are trolling or you're enormously naive. I went through the equations which describe those spheres with you more than a week ago. I told you repeatedly to draw the pictures because its obvious once you do that. I didn't 'just' figure this out, its that I 'just' decided you spell it out for you because I've 'just figured out' how spectacularly thick you are.

There's no need for computer programs with this, its all simple algebra.

This is nonsense. Firstly people have written computer programs which describe special and general relativity and also quantum field thoery (which contains SR). No contradictions, no errors, experimentally validated. Time and again you seem to utterly ignore the possibility you might be wrong, that you're not understanding something you obviously haven't tried to learn. Writing programs to do special and general relativity calculations is, literally, homework at universities. I did a 3rd year computer project which calculated black hole absorption parameters. People have been doing computational work with SR for decades. The problem is at your end.

No, I have experience with C and Mathematica. Enough to have used them to construct results which got published. And it was on models which include special relativity. Seriously, if you think getting a program to plot circles is an achievement then you are very naive about the application of computational methods to physics. I share an office with people who use supercomputers.

'Theorems'? You seem to be deluding yourself more and more as time progresses.

to hide all adverts.
5. I bolded where you are wrong.

You cannot have an intersection of the light sphere on the x-axis with both frames unless the moving frame travels faster than the speed of light.

I already taught you this.

to hide all adverts.
7. You have my point and you have all my proofs.

If you are good, prove a math proof against me and stop talking.

Yes, I use software to consider every possible absolute motion for my theorems.

See, I realize things are moving in some unknown way.

So, I must prove my stuff works for any possible unknown absolute motion.

You mean you and physics do not do this? Wow! That would imply a flat earth science from my POV.

Oh, put SR to this test. It is amusing.

8. Just so you do not claim I canot write the software for this, I will show you an algorithm to test a theorem based on the constant speed of light in the vacuum of space.

void CabsolutemotionDlg::TestTheorem3()
{
int ia, ib, ic ;
double correctx, correcty, correctz ;
double transx, transy, transz ;
double direction1 ;
double direction2 ;

double maxtime = CUtil::CalcTimex(
OBJECTVELOCITY,
LIGHTSPEEDMPS
) ;

progress::startmodelessprogress( "Progress", (int)360 ) ;

for ( ia = 0; ia < 360; ++ia ) {
for ( ib = 0; ib <= 180; ++ib ) {
for ( ic = 0; ic <= 360; ++ic ) {
CUtil::EulerAngleZYXTranslation( m_objectradius, 0, 0, ia, ib, ic, &correctx, &correcty, &correctz ) ;

double t1 = GetTime( 0, 0, ia, ib, ic ) ;
double t2 = GetTime( 90, 0, ia, ib, ic ) ;
double t3 = GetTime( 180, 0, ia, ib, ic ) ;
double t4 = GetTime( 270, 0, ia, ib, ic ) ;

// Take trials at the positions t1 = 0, t2 = pi/2, t3 = pi, t4 = 3 pi/2.
// If all are equal, then take trials at a transverse rotation of pi/2 and -pi/2 and whichever is maximum, is the direction of travel.
if ( (abs(t1 - t2) < TIMEROUNDTOLERANCE) && (abs(t3 - t2) < TIMEROUNDTOLERANCE) && (abs(t4 - t3) < TIMEROUNDTOLERANCE) ) {
t1 = GetTime( 0, 90, ia, ib, ic ) ;
t2 = GetTime( 0, 270, ia, ib, ic ) ;
if ( t1 > t2 ) {
TranslateCoords( 0, 90, ia, ib, ic, &transx, &transy, &transz ) ;
if ( (abs(transx - 1) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) && (abs(transy) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) && (abs(transz) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) )
;
else {
ASSERT( false ) ;
Fail( ia, ib, ic ) ;
}

} else {
TranslateCoords( 0, 270, ia, ib, ic, &transx, &transy, &transz ) ;
if( (abs(transx - 1) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) && (abs(transy) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) && (abs(transz) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) )
;
else {
ASSERT( false ) ;
Fail( ia, ib, ic ) ;
}
}
} else {

//
// Set up the interval for the search
//
double i1, i2 ;
// t1, t2
if ( ( t1 >= t2) && ( t1 >= t3) && ( t1 >= t4) ) {

if ( t2 > t4) {
i1 = 0 ;
i2 = 90 ;
} else {
i1 = 270 ;
i2 = 360 ;
}
} else if ( ( t2 >= t1) && ( t2 >= t3) && ( t2 >= t4) ) {
if ( t1 > t3) {
i1 = 0 ;
i2 = 90 ;
} else {
i1 = 90 ;
i2 = 180 ;
}

} else if ( ( t3 >= t1) && ( t3 >= t2) && ( t3 >= t4) ) {
if ( t2 > t4) {
i1 = 90 ;
i2 = 180 ;
} else {
i1 = 180 ;
i2 = 270 ;
}

} else {
if ( t3 > t1) {
i1 = 180 ;
i2 = 270 ;
} else {
i1 = 270 ;
i2 = 360 ;
}
}

//
// Search the interval
//

while ( true ) {
// Get the time for the endpoints of the interval
t1 = GetTime( i1, 0, ia, ib, ic ) ;
t2 = GetTime( i2, 0, ia, ib, ic ) ;
if ( abs( t1 - t2 ) < TIMEROUNDTOLERANCE )
break ;
else if ( t1 < t2 )
i1 = (i1+i2)/2 ;
else
i2 = (i1+i2)/2 ;
}

direction1 = (i1+i2)/2 ;

t1 = GetTime( direction1, 0, ia, ib, ic ) ;
t2 = GetTime( direction1, 90, ia, ib, ic ) ;
t3 = GetTime( direction1, 180, ia, ib, ic ) ;
t4 = GetTime( direction1, 270, ia, ib, ic ) ;

if ( true ) {
//
// Set up the interval for the search
//
double i1, i2 ;
// t1, t2
if ( ( t1 >= t2) && ( t1 >= t3) && ( t1 >= t4) ) {
if ( t2 > t4) {
i1 = 0 ;
i2 = 90 ;
} else {
i1 = 270 ;
i2 = 360 ;
}
} else if ( ( t2 >= t1) && ( t2 >= t3) && ( t2 >= t4) ) {
if ( t1 > t3) {
i1 = 0 ;
i2 = 90 ;
} else {
i1 = 90 ;
i2 = 180 ;
}

} else if ( ( t3 >= t1) && ( t3 >= t2) && ( t3 >= t4) ) {
if ( t2 > t4) {
i1 = 90 ;
i2 = 180 ;
} else {
i1 = 180 ;
i2 = 270 ;
}

} else {
if ( t3 > t1) {
i1 = 180 ;
i2 = 270 ;
} else {
i1 = 270 ;
i2 = 360 ;
}
}

//
// Search the interval
//

while ( true ) {
// Get the time for the endpoints of the interval
t1 = GetTime( direction1, i1, ia, ib, ic ) ;
t2 = GetTime( direction1, i2, ia, ib, ic ) ;
if ( abs( t1 - t2 ) < TIMEROUNDTOLERANCE )
break ;
else if ( t1 < t2 )
i1 = (i1+i2)/2 ;
else
i2 = (i1+i2)/2 ;
}

direction2 = (i1+i2)/2 ;

TranslateCoords( direction1, direction2, ia, ib, ic, &transx, &transy, &transz ) ;

if ( (abs(transx-1) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) && (abs(transy) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) && (abs(transz) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) )
;
else {
ASSERT( false ) ;
Fail( ia, ib, ic ) ;
}

direction1 *= PICOVERSION ;
direction2 += 90 ;
direction2 *= PICOVERSION ;

transx = m_objectradius * cos( direction1 ) * sin( direction2 ) ;
transy = m_objectradius * sin( direction1 ) * sin( direction2 ) ;
transz = m_objectradius * cos( direction2 ) ;

if ( (abs(transx - correctx) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) && (abs(transy - correcty) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) && (abs(transz - correctz) < COORDROUNDTOLERANCE) )
;
else {
ASSERT( false ) ;
Fail( ia, ib, ic ) ;
}

}
}
}
}
progress::updatemodelessprogress( 1 ) ;

}
progress::endmodelessprogress() ;

}

9. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
I gave the definition of a sphere whose radius is expanding at speed c. That's nothing to argue about, its a definition.

And its obvious from the diagrams I posted that the photon sphere first hits the moving sphere on the x axis. This is because it gets squashed along that axis and is moving in that direction. What precisely about this don't you get?

No, you told me something which was incorrect. Unless you consider being wrong and telling people 'teaching' you did nothing of the sort.

You've got a computer program, work out the motion. Or better yet actually do the algebra. Or is this a little too tough for you?

What exactly have you proven? The light sphere hits the moving rigid sphere on the x axis. It then hits the stationary sphere everywhere at once. Boosting to the other frame gives the same results, but with the relabelling (x,t) -> (-x',t'). I've provided you with the algebra. You haven't done anything other than say "That's wrong", you haven't justified it.

I already have. Several times. In more than one thread. With diagrams. And equations. Nothing is contradictory in what I've said. You keep claiming there is one but you haven't explicitly shown any, just claimed there are.

This is obviously giving you a false sense of security. Why aren't you doing it algebraicly? If you don't know the algebra then you're not going to put the right equations into a computer program. Garbage in, garbage out. And doing a couple of test simulations doesn't make a 'theorem'. If you actually knew any logic and set theory you'd know that.

Yet more delusions of grandeur.

Which is done using algebra, not "I'll try as many situations I can think of on a computer". Haven't you ever read a maths book? You have no clue what a proof actually involves.

You haven't managed to yet. Still ignoring my challenge of putting money on the table. What's the matter, all talk with nothing to say?

Right, I'll going through this 1 last time before I got to get some sleep.

Frame A :
Photon sphere hits moving sphere at $(x,t) = \Big( -cT\sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}} , T\sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}} \Big)$
Photon sphere hits stationary sphere everywhere on the sphere at t = T
Intersection of moving and stationary spheres in x>0, y>0 quadrant is $\Big(\frac{v\gamma t}{1+\gamma} , t\Big)$
All three intersect at common point at $\Big(\frac{v\gamma T}{1+\gamma} , T\Big)$

Frame B :
Photon sphere hits moving sphere at $(x',t') = \Big( +cT\sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}} , T\sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}} \Big)$
Photon sphere hits stationary sphere everywhere on the sphere at t' = T
Intersection of moving and stationary spheres in x<0, y>0 quadrant is $\Big(-\frac{v\gamma t'}{1+\gamma} , t'\Big)$
All three intersect at common point at $\Big(-\frac{v\gamma T}{1+\gamma} , T\Big)$

If this is to be consistent these two results for the 3 spheres intersecting must be related by the Lorentz transformations :

Frame A to Frame B : $x' = \gamma(x-vt)$ and $t' = \gamma(t-vx/c^{2})$
Frame B to Frame A : $x = \gamma(x'+vt')$ and $t = \gamma(t'+vx'/c^{2})$

Frame A to Frame B :
$x' = \gamma(\frac{v\gamma T}{1+\gamma}-vT) = \frac{v \gamma T}{1+\gamma}(\gamma - (1+\gamma)) = \frac{v \gamma T}{1+\gamma}(\gamma - (1+\gamma)) = -\frac{v \gamma T}{1+\gamma}$
$t' = \gamma(t-\frac{vx}{c^{2}}) = \gamma ( T - \frac{v}{c^{2}}\frac{v\gamma T}{1+\gamma}) = \frac{T\gamma}{1+\gamma}\Big( 1 + \gamma - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}\gamma\Big) = \frac{T\gamma}{1+\gamma}\Big( 1 + \gamma(1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}})Big) = \frac{T\gamma}{1+\gamma}\Big( 1 +\frac{1}{\gamma}Big) = T$

Frame B to Frame A :

$x = \gamma(x'+vt') = \gamma(-\frac{v\gamma T}{1+\gamma}+vT) = \frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}(-v\gamma T+vT(1+\gamma)) = \frac{\gamma vT}{1+\gamma}$
$t = \gamma(T-\frac{v}{c^{2}}\frac{v\gamma T}{1+\gamma}) = \frac{\gamma T}{1+\gamma}((1+\gamma)-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}\gamma ) = \frac{\gamma T}{1+\gamma}((1+\frac{1}{\gamma}) = T$

Thus the two events Lorentz transform into one another, the two frames agree on when and where the three spheres intersect each other fully, up to their coordinate redefinitions. No contradiction, no problem.

You spent more time writing that code than it took me to do that algebra and type it up. Would have saved yourself a lot of wasted effort.

10. OK, you now have it.

The point is at the intersection of all 4.

Where is the origin of the moving light sphere?

11. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
:roflmao:

AN: Jack, it's like this.
Jack: No, let me teach you.
AN: No, dickhead, you couldn't teach a dead dog to stay. It's like I said the first time, see?
Jack: OK, you now have it.​

What "moving light sphere", Jack?
In both (all) reference frames, the centre of the light sphere is stationary.

Last edited: Mar 27, 2010
12. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
You seem to be under the false impression I'm 'only just' figuring this stuff out. I'm not typing it out as a kind of "Look, I've done what you asked" but as a "Look you moron this algebra is easy and non-contradictory" because I firmly believe you don't understand it. I am not thinking out loud here, I'm having to walk you through yet more tedious algebra because you seem to have an inability to comprehend it.

And its odd how you claimed I was wrong about the photon sphere and when I point out I'm giving a definition of a sphere you let it pass. What's the matter, realised you put your foot in it and made it clear you don't even understand expressions for spheres? Why don't you explain how it must be going faster than light. Its easily to see from the diagrams or the equations I've given that the triple intersection point is well defined for all velocities. If v=0 then the three spheres intersect at everywhere but its convenient to consider (t,x,y) = (T,0,cT), . If v=c then they intersect at (t,x,y) = (T,cT,0), which Lorentz transforms into (t',x',y') = (T,-cT,0). The continuum of v values then smoothly varies the intersection point from (T,0,cT) through to (T,cT,0). Once again its all consistent and nice. And yet you struggle with it so. Perhaps you should spend less time writing code and more time learning what it is you're supposed to be coding about.

Oh for fuck sake, we've been through this before. In the other thread. The perceived location of the centre of the photon sphere is frame dependent, people will disagree. I've already explained to you several times that this is not a problem, as causality is preserved. All frames agree on what is in, on and outside of any given light cone and thus there is no contradiction. You don't like the fact its somewhat counter intuitive but that's hardly the fault of special relativity.

I've explained again and again why there's no contradiction. I've given equations and pictures and lengthy posts. I get the feeling you don't even bother to read them as all you do is mass quote them and then reply with something irrelevant or unrelated. If you've got a point to make, make it. Dancing around the issue just makes it seem like you've got nothing to actually say. Just like your refusal to put your money where your mouth is and/or submit your 'work' to a journal. Whenever it comes to you actually producing something concrete you fail to provide. You make claim after claim about having concrete proof or solid logic but it never appears, it always comes down to you going "And I claim this is a contradiction". And on the rare occasional you do make some clear point it invariably turns out to be an argument from personal incredulity.

Admit it, you lied about having taught vector calculus. No one who goes sufficiently far through the academic system and was considered good enough to lecture a course would then be as poor as you are at vector calculus. You're entire argument boils down to doing coordinate transformations. Have you ever even studied vector calculus or special relativity? And I don't mean read a pop science book or watched a TV documentary. Your lack of familiarity with basic concepts and methods would suggest the answer is no.

13. See, this is why I don't bother with him anymore.

As an aside, what tex editor are you guys using?

14. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
Yeah, he doesn't seem to be learning or understanding anything. Its quite funny how he'll be "I'm undeniably right" or "You can't do this, you're too primitive!" blustering about and then when someone lays down the mathematics as I did in this thread or as Pete and Guest did here or about 5 people in this thread he suddenly flicks his attitude to being nice, trying to come across as the kind teacher who has helped us get to the result despite it being us who corrected him. The question is whether he knows he's doing it, in that he realises he's been corrected yet again and thus tries to play nice to avoid embarrassment or whether he is drinking his own koolaid and thinks he really did help anyone to work out things they'd just explained to him.

If he thinks the mathematics in this thread is difficult and that he's giving everyone a guiding hand then he is seriously naive about the kind of knowledge people here have.

Much to annoyance of my office colleagues I just use plain old gedit. Vim, emacs etc I can't be arsed with. I'm sure if I put in the effort I'd find them much better than gedit eventually but I've managed to the last week of my PhD with just gedit and damn it I'm not changing now!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

15. ### tsmidRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
368
Is that all you have to reply? I take it then you accept my statement that scientists and scientific institutions should be accountable for their works and decisions and that in certain cases errors of judgment should result in appropriate consequences. In case no consequences are taken you have to ask yourself why. As I indicated already there are two possibilities: a) you are dealing with relatively unimportant issues, b) the necessary awareness of accountability is simply not there in the first place (your examples are rather inappropriate anyway: classical physics has never been proven wrong; it is still the scientific pillar in certain areas of science it used to be; and on the other hand 'Einstein's biggest blunder' is a relatively unimportant issue which has even not been completely settled yet).

Well, if you decide to give the arxiv publications as references on your department's web page (in a rather non-standard form as well), then I take this as the official reference. Don't expect me to follow this up to find out whether this has been additionally published elsewhere. If you prefer to look unprofessional on your web page then it is your choice (this also holds for none of the links in your Tutorial "Material" working and spelling mistakes like "Qualative Description" in your "My 1st Year Research Area").

And the same applies to me as well.

I don't want to sound patronizing, but from your details I see that you are now about at an age where I had just finished my Physics Masters thesis. After that I had almost 30 years time to do further work (Ph.D., a post-doc period + independent research) and also to reflect on the things I have done before. And when I try to remember the things that I knew 30 years ago, it is like looking into an abyss. So take it from me, in 30 years time, your present views will not mean much anymore to you.

I learned Relativity and other subjects like you did. The difference is that I had much time in the meanwhile to deeper reflect on certain issues, as well as having had the opportunity to do some independent original research (the referenced web page deals actually only with plasma physics related issues; other areas like Relativity are addressed on my physicsmyths site).

You seem to assume that I measure the quality of my work according to whether it is accepted in a peer-reviewed journal or not. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I think that rejections have only led to further improvements and refinements of my works (whether they were finally accepted or not).
And today I simply don't bother anymore about peer review. I have enough experience and knowledge to judge my own works and just publish them on the web without the interference of referees who can't appreciate original scientific thinking.

I am not ignorant. On the contrary, note that laughing is very much a sign of ignorance. You just don't understand.

Thomas

16. They are both stationary? I am sure learning.

Wait, is the moving frame moving? And the light sphere is stationary to the moving frame?

So, the light sphere is moving with the moving frame with its origin at the light emission point of the moving frame which is moving.

Last edited: Mar 27, 2010
17. I've given that the triple intersection point is well defined for all velocities.

So what. I already figured all this out.

That is the reason we are talking about the point I discovererd. You are now trying to lecture me on a point and discovery I showed you. THAT IS QUITE AMUSING.

You will remember when I showed you this point you claimed t' ≠ t for that point.

Then I taught you that was false. Hey, at least you learn.

This intersection also exists for all t > 0.

When light strikes that point, the two frames are diverged by v(r/c).

Therefore, the center of one light sphere is located at (0,0,0) in the coords of the O frame and the center of the O' light sphere is located at v(r/c) also in the coords of O.

Now, let's listen to Einstein.
Transforming this equation with the aid of our equations of transformation we obtain after a simple calculationξ² + η² + ζ² = c² τ²
The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible.5

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

OK, I am convinced, the light wave is spherical in the moving frame while viewed as stationary.

OK, let's see, it is spherical. Therefore, it must be located at a distance r on the positive x-axis when this magic point is struck since the distance to this point is r in the O' frame.

We need to keep in mind Einstein said it is spherical in the O' frame.

Now, where is this r in the coords of O? That is located at v(r/c) + r / γ

But, that means in O therefore, the one light sphere is located at origin (0,0,0) and a radius r, while at the same time, it is origined at ( v(r/c), 0, 0) with the positive x-axis point located at (v(r/c) + r / γ , 0, 0).

So, there are two different light spheres.

One remains stationary to the O frame and one rides along with O' in the O' frame.

I already provided a picture for you to help.

[/QUOTE]

18. At least you are funny.

19. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
You act as if there is no accountability when there is. Its quite hard to be fired from a lectureship (short of committing a crime etc), people who are terrible lecturers aren't fired and people who produce bland and unimaginative research aren't fired. But one way you'll have your ass kicked out the door is plagiarism. Its something the community simple will not stand for. Another such thing would be faking results. If you're doing experiments and you make up the results either because you are lazy or because you've got ulterior motives (getting funding etc) then when caught you'll be out.

You said that the community wouldn't accept a new theory which replaces GR because it would mean admitting they were wrong. This I very much disagree with and you didn't retort anything I said. Physicist know that pretty much anything they do will one day be surpassed by a better result. Getting published isn't the scientific community saying "We declare this to be exactly how the universe works", it is the scientific community saying "This is new, interesting and adds to our understanding of [topic]". That's quite different from "It's exactly true". Electromagnetism isn't exactly right, it doesn't include quantum effects yet when Maxwell published it it was new, original, interesting and most importantly explained all the relevant phenomena which we could measure and examine at the time. Yes, in hindsight after a century of particle accelerators we know that it wasn't quite right but that doesn't mean Maxwell wasn't doing physics or that the fact it was published some kind of stain on the peer review process. It was another step forward in our understanding and if it hadn't been done we'd not have developed special relativity or electrodynamics or quantum electrodynamics or field theory at all. Some one can be completely wrong and yet still provide interesting points or results or methods which others might build on. When GR is finally knocked over by a quantum gravity theory it will not mean GR wasn't science. It meets all the criteria to be science, makes clear and testable predictions which have been tested and vindicated to the limit of our abilities. We can only work with the evidence we have to hand.

Pick any major area of physics and look into its background history and you'll find the current model is one of a slew of proposed ideas which were suggested and which were culled by experimental results. When we first started constructing models for the strong force someone proposed the notion that the quarks in mesons are joined by a string of some kind. It turned out the model couldn't easily lead to the known experimental results and it was surplanted by what we now call QCD. That initial work on 'strings' in mesons gave people the idea to look at what we now call string theory. A wrong idea was still useful and thus its publication was justified.

Your claim that any proposed model which knocks over an established area in science will be rejected in order to 'save face' or it would mean killing peer review is simply wrong. Yes, there undoubtedly are some people who turn down papers because it encroaches on their work. In fact during my viva the examiner commented to me that in the early 1980s Witten tried to get a paper published which amounted to a disproof of a large area of field theory and it got turned down so yes, it happens but it is by no means the norm and despite Witten eventually getting it published peer review continues on.

Individuals are responsible for their work, if they cheat or lie then they'll be fired. However, I do not believe that peer review should name the reviewers because this utterly removes the ability for them to say no when they need to. Journal editors select who gets what papers and if they find that certain people will reject any paper which trends on the toes of the reviewer's own work then they will stop asking that person to do reviews. It is in the editors best interest to maintain as professional a journal as possible. In fact, it is in the editors best interest to find papers which do knock over paradigms because it'll mean more interest in the journal. The journal Einstein published his 1905 papers in is quoted and cited countless times, it is famous. The journal makes financial gains if they publish ground breaking work.

My point was that you complained I didn't check into your academic claims and then you go and do precisely that for me.

The website isn't meant to be 'professional', the fact I admit on the front page its just something I threw together by editing the Google homepage's HTML should give you a clue. Unlike you I don't need to spend time making a good website to present my work to people, if someone wants my work they'll go to ArXiv or SPIRES. Or the relevant journals.

If the best you can come back with is that I misspelt something I typed several years ago on a clearly amateurish website then you're clutching at straws.

Clearly you learnt little from undergoing the process then given you have a very skewed view of it.

Wow, thanks Captain Obvious. Now how does that retort in any way the fact my experience with peer review (and the experience of all the people I work with) differs from yours. Yes, in 30 years I'll look back on the time I spend at university and might feel differently about some things but the fact remains I, and all the people I work with, have had radically different experiences with peer review than you. You're going on your experiences and I'm going on mine. The fact you're older and have changed some views as you've gotten older doesn't magically invalidate my views. You can't simultaneously declare your opinion worth listening to while dismissing other people's. Particularly when your opinion is not shared by the majority.

Again you are trying to use the argument that because you're older you're in a better position to understand the state of science. Age does not automatically infer wisdom or understanding. Many people can't remember the specifics of courses they took at university even a few years later. My dad did a maths degree and outside of the areas which he went on to research in he doesn't remember much of the specifics. For instance, he knows he did a bit of group theory but couldn't do a homework sheet if you put it in front of him out of the blue.

Then there's the added issue of people tend to 'rose tint' their opinion of their abilities as they get older. Hence why so many hacks on the internet think they are amazing at physics or mathematics 20 years after their last maths course which they didn't pass at the time. Without testing their knowledge regularly its easy for someone to convince themselves they understand more than they do. Look at all the people in Pseudoscience threads pushing their pet theories.

You're doing the logical falacy of 'special pleading'. You're trying to say that you're older than me thus your extra time means more thinking about physics and hence better understanding. By the same logic if I find someone whose older than you, whose done a physics degree/PhD and who disagrees with you then you're wrong. Given what you say about relativity on your website I'd say you're over estimating your level of knowledge and understanding. Even if you did do GR you've clearly forgotten it over time. Conversely I've been doing stuff related to curved space-time every day for about the last 5 years.

No, I don't believe that's how you measure the quality of your work else you'd not put it all online for people to read. But the overwhelming majority of the scientific community consider the ability of a paper to pass peer review as almost always a necessary condition for a paper to be worth looking at.

For instance, I don't know much solid state physics. Did 1 course on it 5 years ago and the lecturer wasn't too great and the material not very inspiring. Now if I wanted to find out about a specific thing in SSP I'd go to a journal on it because then I can be sure that at least one person in the SSP community deems the paper of sufficient quality to be worth showing to other people. It saves me the effort of having to learn much much more than required.

That's the point of peer review, you correct mistakes. You admit that you benefit from peer review and yet you think its a very flawed system which will be killed if any one admits current models might be wrong somewhere?!

You do realise that every single crank on the internet thinks precisely that, right? You seem to be deluding yourself somewhat. Its a typical crank thing to say "I keep getting turned down so obviously its their fault, not mine. I'll put my work on a blog/forum/website so that I'm not hampered by those people who can't understand the original genius of my work!". If you'd only had 1 paper turned down then such thinking isn't too bad but when you're consistently turned down for different work with different journals it suggests the problem isn't everyone else, its you, you're the common denominator.

And there you go, you say precisely what I said cranks do all the time! Its the "People can't understand my original work!" way of convincing yourself you're not the problem.

20. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
You didn't 'show' me, you described the physical setup. The derivations and algebra I can do myself thanks. And you haven't 'discovered' anything, you just worked out where two or three objects intersect. This isn't a 'discovery', its a menial bit of algebra.

You seem to want to keep taking credit for supposedly explaining things to people which they can or did do themselves.

I must have explained this to you about 10 times now. It is a symmetric system, you don't even have to do any algebra to know that the location of that point in time is measured to be the same value in each frame. I didn't ever say otherwise. Instead I kept telling you that you're not supposed to equate coordinates, you're supposed to say that for that event the each frame measures the same amount of time to pass. There's a subtle different between t=t' compared to $t=t_{0}$ and $t'=t_{0}$. You fail to realise that I'm not saying the event is measured to occur after different amounts of time in the two frames, I'm just explaining the aforementioned subtle difference .

Got off your high horse, you haven't taught me anything which wasn't already known to me or obvious. Just because you explicitly state something which is obvious doesn't mean you're teaching anyone anything. For instance :

No shit its valid for a range of times. It would take all of no time at all to see that by drawing a picture.

And we're back to something I've already covered with you. In fact previously I didn't even consider the intersection of the two rigid spheres because it was irrelevant. It boils down to precisely what I talked about in the other thread, the two frames will disagree on where the origin of the light sphere is, it is not a frame independent point. I never claimed otherwise.

However, I did tell you several times that this is not a contradiction since all frames agree on which space-time points are in, on or outside of the light cone, infact any light cone. The causal structure is unchanged, which is precisely what you'd expect from Lorentz transformations since they are constructed to do precisely that!

It doesn't matter if you take the events of the photon sphere hitting the moving sphere only (which is what I talked about in the previous thread and what my diagrams in this thread show) or you take the events where all three spheres intersect, the system is symmetric and thus both frames will consider the same quantitative amount of time to have passed from the light flash to that event. You picked the triple intersection of the three spheres, I was talking about the initial intersection of the photon sphere and the moving one. Both lead to the same thing, that the two frames will disagree on the point where the light flash occurred. This is not a contradiction.

I'm happy to admit that I wasn't thinking of the same events as you, hence why you said it has a non-zero y value. I have no problems admitting there were some crossed wires in that regard. But it is irrelevant. Precisely the same logic as I've been giving for the intersections in my diagrams applies to your triple intersection, causal structure is unchanged.

21. I guess I am going to have to correct you for the 10th time.

This is your statement.

If you haven't copied and pasted it from somewhere then you have done an extremely poor job explaining yourself because you use expressions you don't define. If you can't explain yourself properly you haven't supported your case. And as my bit of algebra shows the claim t'=t is not true.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2485450&postcount=32

I just got through showing you the stationary frame disagrees on the points in the light cone. I proved a point is both in and not in the light cone.

Go back and review what I just proved.

This stuff is not hard.

If there is anything wrong with my proof, just show the invalid step.

All you are doing is spouting invalid opinions. Let's operate with the math.

You see my proof, either refute it or accept it.

Like you say, it is a simple math issue. Then, you should be able to show the invalid step(s) and have a laugh with everyone here.

How long will this take?

22. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
Wow, did you even bother to read what I said. My entire point is that there's something subtly different about t=t' compared to t=T, t'=T.

I'm not denying that each frame measures the same amount of time passing before the intersections. I'm explaining to you that your way of denoting it is slap dash.

No, you didn't. If you've Lorentz transformed a point from being on the light cone to not being on the light cone then you've got your algebra wrong.

You're projecting again.

Yes, lets. Why don't you actually demonstrate a contradiction, rather than having to make the leap of assumed logic that because you don't understand something it's wrong?

You struggle to understand the appropriate use of the word 'proof'.

About -5 days, given you've been corrected previously.

The reason you have 2 answers to the same question is that you're assuming you can reconstruct the configuration of the space-time within the light cone by the transformation properties of the light cone. This isn't the case if you go about it as you have.

If you drew points on the photon sphere you'd see that they move around when you apply a Lorentz transformation, the configuration is different, but they still form the same overall shape. When you apply a Lorentz transformation to a time-like vector it'll change, because the Lorentz transformation moves the points inside the light cone around. Hence you find both the points on and in the light cone are transformed. You're complaining that because overall the photon sphere hasn't changed shape yet a vector within the light cone has then there's some contradiction. There isn't. You have simply come up against the fact light cones are invariant under Lorentz transformations.

Given a point in space-time there is one and only one light cone associated to that point. But there's infinitely many time-like vectors (ie possible trajectories for the object which initially is at the centre of the photon sphere when it is created) and the Lorentz transformations allow you to map between any two given time-like vectors. This is the issue you don't like, that there's all these different vectors yet only one light cone. The points on the light cone always form a cone, no matter what Lorentz transformation you apply but for each time-like vector emanating from the apex of the light cone there's a different configuration of points on the light cone.

Seriously, this boils down to the fact at any given point in space-time you can define infinitely many different vectors $v = v^{a}\partial_{a}$ such that $v^{a}v_{a} < 0$. Each vector is associated to a frame who sees the photon sphere such that its centre is moving along that vector. This isn't some new and amazing insight you've had, its a fundamental and basic concept in geometry.

Since the centre of the light sphere is not a physical object, it doesn't interact or alter anything, it can be anywhere you like because the important thing is that causality is preserved and all physical objects transform as you'd expect. The photon sphere centre's worldline is not a null trajectory but it is defined by null trajectories. You are complaining that it doesn't behave as actual objects with time-like trajectories do under Lorentz transformations but that's to be expected. You have assumed that it is a valid time-like 'object' when it has no physical meaning or properties and all objects, particles or photons, transform such that all frames agree on all their locations. Your defining something which you might naively expect to be time-like but you've defined it by a null object, the light cone.

When you strip away all the unnecessary physical set ups and see that your argument amounts to not liking the fact there's more than 1 time-like vector through any given point in space-time its clear that you have no argument. Unfortunately I suspect you won't accept this explaination because its requires a familiarity with space-time diagrams, coordinate transformations and geometry. None of which you possess.

23. :xctd:
Are you for real?

The two frames elapsed the same time for the event.
Get used to it.

I supplied proof.

You do the same. Prove it is wrong otherwise you are admitting my math skills are superior to yours.

I did, several times. You just do not understand.

Prove it and stop all this nonsense. Then everyone will laugh at me.

You would love to do that, I know.

I addressed this in the other thread with another proof. That won't do any good with you though.

So, this means one light sphere can have any origin?

Define one light sphere then with the multiple origin option included.
Perhaps I can use this definition to have the sun in any place I want.