# Nobel Prize for Relativity

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

1. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
I haven't said otherwise. Are you being deliberately obtuse or is my comment about being clear with notation over your head?

No, you haven't. Provide a link.

Now you're just trolling. If you can't demonstrate to yourself that Lorentz transformations map points on the light cone to points on the light cone then you're below the level of ability of the 1st years I've taught this stuff to. Seriously, just put in the definitions of the different coordinates into the space-time interval definition and you'll find $-c^{2}dt^{2} + dx^{2} = -c^{2}(dt')^{2} + (dx')^{2}$.

If 1st years can manage this as part of a weekly homework hopefully you can manage it too.

Yes, keep telling yourself that. Maybe if you hope really really hard the magical physics fairy will grant your wish and suddenly you're no longer be shit at physics.

I love how whenever I say something which would be obvious to anyone whose got a half decent grasp of geometry and algebra you demand I prove it. If you have taught vector calculus to undergraduates surely you've covered basic coordinate transformations and linear maps?

I've provided an explaination. You are saying "The light cone is unchanged but the centre has changed!" ignoring the fact that you're comparing a vector, which is a Lorentz vector (obviously), with a particular surface which is a Lorentz scalar, by construction.

Its pretty straight forward to start from the initial position of "The space-time interval is $-c^{2}dt^{2} + dx\cdot dx = ds^{2}$" and construct the most general set of transformations which preserve $ds^{2}$. If you do this you'll find you get the transformations found in any SR textbook (or on the Wiki page). You're claiming you have found a Lorentz transformation which alters $ds^{2}$. By definition it is therefore not a Lorentz transformation. The relationship given on Wiki for the 1+1 dimensional case, $x' = \gamma(x-vt)$ and $t' = \gamma(t - vx)$ (c=1) is sufficiently simple to allow you to explicitly put this into $(ds')^{2} = -(dt')^{2} + (dx')^{2}$ and get $ds^{2}$ identically. So the claim you've got a transformation which changes $ds^{2}$ is flat out wrong. If you claim otherwise provide the equations which link the coordinates of the two frames.

You are under the false impression that I am worried you might be right or that I'm 'desperate' to prove you wrong. I've already explained in several threads in several ways with plenty of algebra and diagrams why you're mistaken. Given that it comes down to the fact you don't realise what 'consistent' means in relativity I'd say most people reading this back and fore between you and I will be able to see your mistakes pretty clearly.

Your entire complaint comes down to the fact you don't like that the light cone maps to itself while a vector inside the light cone might not. The centre of the light sphere is not an object, it doesn't matter where it is since you're only interested in the physics of things in the space-time. Your choice of coordinates is immaterial.

You're trying to attack a mathematical result which actually has no bearing on the physics in the system. Objects in the space-time don't care where the centre of the photon sphere is, only where the photons themselves are and where other physical objects are. When you consider how the physical objects transform you find they transform in a consistent manner such that causality is unbroken. You're assigning undue importance to the centre of the photon sphere, as if it has any impact on any dynamics of any object in the space-time, which it doesn't.

Now I'm fully aware that its a bit tricky to get your head around it the first time you come across such results but it becomes clearer as you become more familiar with geometry and vector calculus. Give it a year or two and you might get it.

Still struggling with the appropriate used of 'proof' I see. Is this another thing which I'm going to have to comment on 40 times before you take any notice?

And you didn't retort it, you have demonstrated you have little to no comprehension of Minkowski geometry. In Euclidean geometry this issue doesn't arise as there's no frame invariant speed and you're struggling to let go of that point of view. I can recommend a good book on relativity if you wish.

I shouldn't be having to walk you through all of this stuff if you were as informed on vector calculus as you'd like people to believe.

Your set up of rigid spheres basically comes down to you having a photon sphere in 2 frames and asking each frame "Where is the origin of the photon sphere". This is equivalent to asking what the relative motion of the two frames is, since it is that which determines the answer to that question. Each frame will see it to be their origin but they disagree on the location of their origins as they are in relative motion, which is defined by a vector v. Thus for each choice of this v you get a different answer. By definition different frames will have different origins, they'll all be moving relative to one another and thus even if you start them all such that their origins overlap they will then immediately move apart. Time dependent maps between coordinates is nothing new, it arises in Newtonian mechanics too. The thing which doesn't arise in Newtonian mechanics is the transformation invariance of light.

If you have N different inertial frames and you start them all such that their origins overlap and then produce a growing photon sphere which starts at their common origins then each and every frame will give you a different answer when you ask "Where is the centre of the sphere now". This is not a contradiction, its an artefact of the somewhat counter intuitive nature of Minkowski space-time. Its consistent because the Lorentz transformations preserve causality and are continuous, ie they map neighbourhoods to neighbourhoods (if you've done plenty of vector calc you should be aware of the basic notion of manifolds and their relationship to open sets in R^n). The animations on the Wiki page demonstrates this :

The constant speeding up and slowing down of the object along that worldine causes the stars to move about, getting closer or further way but their schematic configuration is the same. This is why the Lorentz transformations are consistent, they squish and strength regions of space-time but the notion of locality is kept.

You never learn, do you.... Once again you jump to some uninformed strawman and then attempt to take a swipe at me for the strawman you just made. All it does it make you look desperate. If you had ever done any vector calculus or had any experience with special relativity or any coordinate based geometry you'd know a bit more about changes of basis. You're lacking any experience with the relavent maths of SR and thus rather than thinking to yourself "Perhaps its me that's wrong" or "Perhaps I'm not understanding this properly" you jump to "Oh he's said something I don't understand, its because he's wrong".

Your attitude smacks of someone who wasn' very good at maths and physics in school but now is desperate to convince people otherwise, by throwing around buzzwords he doesn't understand and making claims he can't back up. And when someone challenges you we descend into this kind of thread which amounts to several people having to explain to you many many times basic concepts. Seriously, if you sat a short course on special relativity (ignoring the fact you'd need to learn all the prerequisites) you'd find the answers to all your problems. The problem is that if your problem is one of poor conceptual understanding its difficult for someone to give a short snappy reply which answers all your questions. The fact of the matter is some things you have to learn by putting in a bit of effort. You're unwilling to do so and you're trying to convince yourself that's okay because you just invalidated the work anyway, so you'd like to believe.

It's the classic crank behaviour, you can't or won't try to understand something so you proclaim its wrong, thus alleviating you of the requirement to understand it. That's the motivation of most of the cranks here.

3. ### Jack_BannedBanned

Messages:
1,383
You are a crank.

If you are a PHD, there is no way you would allow me to attack and disprove SR the way I did.

Something is wrong.

You would have come right back at me on my disproof. You would have run me into a contradiction. You would not post all this junk.

Otherwise, you would have agreed to the proof.

Anyway, I provided the disproof all over the place and provided another in the twins thread.

5. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
So a lengthy explaination into the nature of relativity, including equations, pictures, links and descriptions makes me a crank? After you've looked up 'proof' in a dictionary look up 'crank'.

Ah the "I'm undeniably right therefore anyone who disagrees with me has a secret agenda" argument. The fact is I haven't 'allowed' you to disprove SR. I can't allow or disallow anything you do, I have no control over your points. If you actually provided a disproof of SR then nothing I can say would change that. I've already explained this to you because of your constant misuse of the word 'proof'. If you provide a 'proof' of a claim which is then itself disproven it means what you provided was never a proof in the first place. 'Proof' means that its proven, that it is an undeniable logical implication. If I demonstrate something you said is actually wrong then what you said wasn't 'a maths proof', it was an 'argument' or 'a justification'.

Its little things like this, about how you seem to misuse basic terminology, which suggests time and again that you have never studied mathematics, despite your attempts to convince people you're up to speed on logic and set theory. Analysis and logic are the areas of mathematics where proof is king and if you don't even know how to use the word 'proof' in the correct context then it would seem you never studied those areas. All your 'decidability' and 'transfinite' buzzword dropping was just for show.

You make the assumption that any problem you have in your understanding can be countered with a short response. A one line 'silver bullet'. Your problem with special relativity is not algebraic manipulation, its understanding the underlying principles of non-Euclidean geometry and coordinates. This isn't a matter of correcting a sign mistake in an equation, its a matter of having to get you to re-evaluate your entire understanding of non-Euclidean geometry.

You're saying that because I can't explain your mistake in 1 line then I'm wrong. It assumes that you don't have some enormous hole in your understanding. Once again you employ faulty logic to 'proof' your claim.

I've given you plenty of lengthy responses explaining to you why your qualitative understanding of coordinate geometry and special relativity is not correct. All you do is just mass quote my posts and fail to respond to anything I've said. As I've said plenty of time, if you think I'm too primitive or I'm lying about being a physics PhD then ggo over my head and submit your work to a journal. I want you to submit your work, that's how little fear I have about it. I'll help in the submission. If you type up your work and send the text file to me I'll put it into the correct LaTeX typesetting for a given reputable journal, which you and I can agree on, then send it back to you (so you can see I haven't inserted any deliberate mistakes) which you can then submit. If you don't want the fame a disprove of SR would bring to the author then do it anonymously or via a fake name and a Gmail email address.

I've offered plenty of cranks this offer, that I'll aid them in submitting their work to peer review and none of them take me up on it. Maybe you'll be different.

7. ### Jack_BannedBanned

Messages:
1,383
You writings are indeed amusing and I do not mean that in a nasty way.

Thanks for your offer and I believe you are sincere.

I am still thinking it through.

Also, trust me, I really do not care about taking down SR.

It is just in my way.

8. ### Uno HooRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
383
The results of my OP and creation of this thread are the typical commentary for this site.

One or more egomaniacs have abused, with no apparent resistance, the resources of this site to try to defend personal agendas and biases rather than to provide useful intel to me.

Ironically, the individual most prominent in my feeling a need to making this inquiry is the one least likely to ever be concerned about getting a Nobel.

You know who that is.

Thank you all.

9. ### tsmidRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
368
Oh yes, the cranks. What would the scientific community do without them? They always come in handy to discredit anything that approaches things from a different angle (conveniently reassuring your own views at the same time). Your argument exactly shows that scientific work is often not judged on the basis of its own merit but because it is too uncomfortable in some way for the reviewer. This then naturally tends to result in rejection.

But as I said, this is nowadays not so much of an issue anymore. Even only twenty years ago, you depended on journal publications in order to communicate your work to potentially interested people, but today you can publish anything yourself on the web, with anybody being able to review it. So a) you reach many more people with it, and b) you get a lot more feedback to critically review your own work. The important point is that it is not being prevented from publication in the first place due to possible errors of judgment of the referees.

Thomas

10. ### tsmidRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
368
Why would you bother at all? You can't nominate yourself for the Nobel Prize. You just accept or reject it (and I know what I would do as a dissenter against Relativity in case the Nobel committee would take the farcical decision to award me the prize).

Thomas

11. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
Sounds like you've a case of sour grapes still. I don't deny that occasionally such instances will occur, even to be best and the brightest. However, if you're consistently rejected from a variety of journals then that's highly suggestive that its your work which isn't meeting basic standards rather than a conspiracy of silence against new ideas.

And the vast majority of the 'new people' who can access your work are not sufficiently familiar with your area of research to be able to understand it and give informed comments. The internet allows you to reach people who aren't interested or versed in your research, it doesn't allow many more people who are sufficiently familiar with your research. 30 years ago those people for whom your work is of interest would read about it in journals or at conferences or face to face. All those who would be interested in your work could get it.

Getting your work to the attention of the general public isn't particularly important or worthwhile. Most people change TV channel whenever something science based comes on or buy crappy gossip magazines rather than 'Nature' or 'Scientific American'. Yes, in principle your work can now be accessed by billions online rather than a few thousand reading a journal but that's entirely different from anyone new actually wanting to read your work or being able to critically examine it. I don't post my work here for comment because very few people could provide me with anything other than comments on spelling or layout. The few people who could, ie BenTheMan, Prometheus, Guest etc, I have spoken to via PM or email or even face to face. How is a layperson going to be able to provide informed critiques of your research when they don't know the first thing about it. Trying to attract the support of laypeople who don't understand the science in question is attempting to circumvent the scientific method and peer review and trying to turn science into a popularity contest. If science were little more than a popularity contest then religion would be science and no new science could develop because people who only accept what the majority already believes.

12. ### tsmidRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
368
I don't know what your 'sour grapes' argument is all about. I could as well say that you forgot to take off your pink glasses which delude you in seeing an all over rosy world in science. The point is that if you don't publish anything that could be perceived as a dissident view, you are unlikely to run into any problems with your publication. I personally don't see the point however of publishing the 100th variant of a given theme just to improve my publication record. For me it is personally more satisfying to work on something that has the potential of upsetting present scientific views. In most of the cases where I submitted such papers I didn't even expect to get published, simply because it would have been farcical if such dissident views would have been accepted and published in an established mainstream journal. I primarily submitted the papers to test my arguments in communications with some experts in the field (and that test was in most cases successful as far as I am concerned, even if the papers were lastly rejected). Today with the internet I don't need to do this anymore. I just post corresponding articles on my website, usenet groups or forums like this, and I get a lot more responses than I would get from a couple of referees of a journal (and you would be surprised how similar the comments are that you tend to get in some cases).

So the fact that reviewers disagree with me doesn't discourage me at all. I try to take any criticism into account (if I think it is justified) and revise my arguments accordingly.

Thomas

13. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,728
The parenthetical remark is telling.....

14. ### Uno HooRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
383
Get serious. None of you are concentrating on the original question.

Yahoo(s) have upbraided me by demanding that I quit bothering decent denizens of this site and go win the Nobel by disproving Relativity. I responded by asking "how do I get nominated for it?".

A critical factor in my honest question was: who can nominate me? What are the acceptable qualifications for a person to submit a nomination to the Nobel Committee?

Several pages of BS later, nobody has answered the bedrock basic simple question. Very probably because all of the egomaniacs who criticize me don't know beans about the Nobel anyway.

Crap about submitting a paper, blah, blah, is beside the point. At some time, some individual is going to have to send a nomination to The Committee.

WHAT ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS THAT THE NOMINATER MUST HAVE SO THE NOMINATION IS NOT ROUND-FILED?

15. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
So you admit the answer was given and you didn't like it. Its my understanding that there's a semi-informal polling of the relevant research community of whose done big things and then a list is compiled. There is not 'go to guy' or "He'll definitely be able to nominate people" person. A science related Nobel Prize is the entire community saying "This person (or persons) has made a significant contribution to our understanding of [area of science]". A single person putting forth your name, even if he's head of department for Harvard or MIT or Cambridge is not going to make a jot of difference if you haven't had your work seen by the majority of the research community and it has stood up to peer review.

16. ### Uno HooRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
383
Thank you for one of the first fairly factual posts I have seen you write. For a math-head, you are one of the most emotional and illogical persons I have ever had the pain of encountering.

You were the instigator of my short series of my posts in this related field. You abusively decried that I should leave you (all) good and real scientists alone and go and write a paper and win the Nobel. Knowing immediately that you were pimping bum advice, I asked you to explain (and thereby show your intentions and your advice to be as base and worthless as I already knew.). You have finally done so. If you had not done so, I would have lent you a hand.

Your advice was crap as you have finally proved in your own post. You nor any one of your co-conspirators on this Forum have an acceptable qualification to be accepted as a Nominator of a Nobel candidate. You nor any one of your co-conspirators have an acceptable qualification to be nominated as a Nobel candidate.

Yet you (all) behave as a pompous ass and tell me to get away from you and go and win the Nobel.

I tell you a secret. Not a one of you (all) pompous asses have a chance in Hell of winning or even being nominated for a Nobel. You are not even able to nominate anyone for the Nobel. All any one of you pompous asses can do is fantasize about how you are superior beings (who realize that you cannot possibly win or nominate the Nobel).

Winning the Nobel is chump change. 1.4 million US. Why would anyone bother to worry about chump change.

Why would anyone bother to worry about chumps like you (all) understanding that Special Relativity is wrong. It is not my job.

You are unable to nominate anyone for the Nobel.

You are unable to be nominated for the Nobel.

You have no chance in Hell of winning the Nobel.

So you tell me to go away. You are really smart guys :bugeye:.

17. ### przyksquishyValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,203
So? Even if we could we wouldn't. We all think you're wrong, remember? You're being challenged to submit a paper, and if it's really revolutionary it's basically inevitable that it'll get noticed, and eventually you nominated and awarded despite what we think of it, showing us for the lowly, small-thinking, narrow-minded, uninspired, and uncreative forum residents we really are.

18. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
You're scraping the barrel for insults I see. Anyone who reads my posts in pseudo or the main physics forum will see I post plenty of lengthy factually accurate posts. Just ask Jack, he's ignored loads of them. Try venturing out of your bubble of ignorant.

So because I know mathematics I'm supposed to be devoid of emotions? Is this another one of your generalisations based on that chip on your shoulder, like how you said what I do or would do in a job would be little more than a glorified calculator? Just to let you know all that maths knowledge landed me with a job doing maths research with a company who take highly technical contract work from companies who don't have the skills or knowledge in house. They only accept applications from PhDs. It would seem the real world doesn't agree with your naive point of view.

And how precisely am I illogical? Yes, I can have a pretty pushy attitude and be condescending but I'm not illogical for thinking it might be a good idea to know something about maths and physics before making claims about it, unlike cranks here. Look a little closer to home before you throw stones from your greenhouse.

You haven't negated anything I said. If you write up your work, submit to a journal, pass peer review and then its accepted by the mainstream community as ground breaking work you'd be on the path for a Nobel Prize if your work involves killing relativity. I never said it was quick or there's a specific person you should submit your work to. If you weren't so naive about the scientific method you'd not have made such an assumption and now you're trying to blame me for you being naive.

The person who kills SR by experiment will have a massive impact on physics, awards and prizes would follow quickly. I know you want a quick route but part of the scientific method and requirement for a Nobel Prize would be for your work to stand up to scrutiny.

I see you suffer from the same problem as Jack, you think that I don't know something because you are ignorant and didn't understand or like what I said.

Where did I claim that? I said you should submit to a journal, I say that to every crank who believes they're right. I never claimed I or anyone else here could nominate someone for the Nobel Prize, officially or unofficially. I never said I or anyone else here have done work which might be Nobel Prize worthy. You've now gone from not understanding what I said to simply lying to me about things I have supposedly said. What is it with cranks and doing that? Do you hope if you lie somehow I'll magically forget things I've said to you?

If you knock over special relativity it will have ramifications for both quantum research and relativity research, as QFT and GR both incorporate special relativity. It'll be huge. The entire community would know about you and your work.

So I've been pompous for telling you that if you're right you'd win a Nobel Prize? Anyone claiming to have killed SR is claiming the entirety of gravitational and particle physics for the last century has been flawed and some might consider that claim pompous if the claimer has no knowledge or ability in beyond high school maths or physics. Once again, stop throwing stones from your glass house. My comment wasn't pompous, it was to illustrate how huge the result would be. If someone really has got irrefutable evidence SR is wrong they wouldn't spend their time arguing about it on a forum, the mainstream community would love to hear about it. Hence if someone keeps refusing to submit their work and yet continues trying to convince people on a forum they are right then they are demonstrating a level of dishonesty. Why try to convince people on a forum when convincing a journal review makes the entire community aware of your work and from that loads of people on forums will find out about your work and you'd not need to put in any more effort.

Hence someone claiming to have killed SR on a forum is being pompous and self contradictory if they won't submit to a journal.

Where did I say my work was that good? You've now gone from complaining you have to submit work to even be in with a chance of a Nobel Prize to simply attacking me for supposedly not having a change. This is nothing more than an ad hom, to turn the discussion around and put me on the defensive. I freely admit my work is not Nobel Prize winning. But the same can be said for 99.99% of the research community. The whole point of a Nobel Prize is to recognise extraordinary work, compared to the community average (which is a pretty high bar already!). Very very few people get Nobel Prizes for their PhDs. Its less than half a dozen I think, with Josephson and 't Hooft being two recent examples (still decades ago).

You're simply making strawmen now. I never said I could nominate anyone. I was stating that such a huge result would garner huge recognition in the physics community. Your naivety and wish to have a go at me because you have a chip on your shoulder about people who can do physics has done the rest.

You can't even write up a coherent justified review of your work, never mind pass peer review and get published by a reputable journal and because of this you're cheesed. Now you're trying to make yourself feel better by deriding other people's work. Yes, my work isn't Nobel worthy but the fact is I have work, I have passed peer review, I have obtained recognition from the academic community and I have obtained a job because of that work. And that chip on your shoulder doesn't like that you can't do any of that. Boo hoo.

Many times I have said on this forum, on others and in real life that I fully acknowledge I'm nowhere near the top of the academic community for my research area. Having actually met, worked with, read the work of said community I know what the community is capable of. On the other hand your naivety is shining through. If you could actually justify your claims and refute special relativity you'd have done so and not be trying to deride other people's work. Criticising my work doesn't make your work or claims more valid or is that bit of logic not something you grasp?

Wow and you called me pompous. You're now doing the usual crank or lazy person thing of "I could do it but why bother?". If you won't bother for $1.4 million then why are you bothering posting your claims on this forum for nothing? You'll bother for nothing but you won't bother for$1.4 million? Yet another contradiction which demonstrates you know you're a fraud.

Besides, if you don't need the money donate it the charity. The person who solved the Poincare conjecture and won \$1 million didn't accept it and said to donate it to charity. So if you're not in it for the money perhaps being a philanthropist is good enough motivation?

As I told Jack, if you think I and others are too 'primitive' (which was Jack's phrase) and that we're not worth the effort then why are you still here? Why aren't you getting your work to the attention of people who have won Nobel Prizes? Weinberg and 't Hooft edit journals, submit your work to them. I just commented on this. If someone posts their claims on a forum they obviously want it to get to the attention of other people. If they claim they are correct then they believe it'd pass impartial peer review. To then claim the people on the forum are not worth the effort or are too stupid etc but to also refuse to submit to a journal and then continue posting on said forum then they are being contradictory. You're obviously willing to spend time telling people your claims so why are you telling people you don't think are worth the effort yet avoiding people who surely you'd ultimately wish to read your work (ie academics)?

Strawman. Besides, I'm able to contribute to the possible nomination if I worked in the same area of research and then used your work in my own and thus cited you. Nobel Prize winning work will be cited a great deal, the more citations the more it stands out and the more people have heard of it and examined it.

Strawman. Particularly since the amount I've contributed to the physics community is much more than you. My work isn't Nobel winning but its passed peer review. You haven't even writing your work.

And how in any way does this negate any of my criticisms? If you want people to know your work, write it up. Submission to a journal then allows more people to read it. The impact of my work is entirely unrelated to the impact of your work. Even if I were not a physics/maths researcher my points would still be valid. "Follow the scientific method or shut up".

Do you have any reasoning skills? If your work is good and valid and justified it'll pass peer review, a necessary but not sufficient condition to get a Nobel Prize. I told you to do that, its the first step. What I do or don't do is irrelevant. Your claims, you back them up.

The fact you have chosen to attack me rather than do as I suggested demonstrates you know you have nothing. I regularly tell cranks the fastest, best way to shut me up is not to say "Well your work is crap" or "You just don't understand" but to post your work in its entirety, providing an irrefutable demonstration you're correct and I'm wrong. I have yet to have a crank do that.

Now run along and take the chip on your shoulder with you, you'll just have to live with the fact you can't even met the most basic of standards expected in science.

19. ### Guest254Valued Senior Member

Messages:
1,056
I don't get all this. If these people have found an inconsistency in special relativity, why don't they just get the ball rolling and send it off to a prestigious journal? If their work is sound, then a career in academia awaits them, in which they could take down other pillars of modern physics from the inside!