Three Experiments Challenging SRT

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Masterov, Jun 12, 2012.

  1. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    The guy worked in the laboratory at Einstein in 1917 and published a paper that refutes SRT.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    Experiments Bertozzi is very inaccurate and have been made ​​fifty years ago.
    Bertozzi experiments were to be repeatedly delivered as a scientific experiment.
    Measurements were to be executed with the utmost precision.
    Each year, the measurement accuracy should be increased.

    But none of that.

    At the foundation of science shoved questionable results that were obtained in a student lab half a century ago.

    To build on this foundation of science is impossible.

    Necessary to repeat the experiments Liangzao FAN with maximum precision today.

    Why not publish today?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    I do not think so.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    This text is difficult for me.
    I could not figure it out.

    Please write by short sentences.
    Please write your ideas separately.
     
  8. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,177
    Source for this?


    The results collected over the last several decades in high energy physics are not classified. Why don't you take that into consideration?


    Not realistically. Particle accelerators accelerate charged particles using a series of alternating voltages which are precisely timed to the theoretically expected acceleration. They only work well if the particles move as fast as they are theoretically expected to.


    No. You don't get to dismiss anything that's not by Liangzao Fan as "controversial" just because you don't want to deal with it.


    You are not going to be able to explain the difference between 255 MeV and 45 GeV as "calibration error".

    Incidentally, I happen to know that calibration of detectors is at least partially done with already studied events. For example, I was told that the detectors on the LHC were calibrated on the Z boson production peak. So the people at CERN can easily see how much more powerful the LHC is compared with previous accelerators.


    Same pattern again. You don't want to deal with it, so you call it "controversial". The reality is that work in high energy physics routinely appears to confirm STR, and you're going to have to deal with that in some way other than ignoring it.


    How do you know these hundreds of experiments were actually performed? How do you know they weren't published? After all, you didn't seem to know about Bertozzi's experiment. Neither did Liangzao Fan.


    What paper?


     
  9. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,177
    Source for this?


    The results collected over the last several decades in high energy physics are not classified. Why don't you take that into consideration?


    Not realistically. Particle accelerators accelerate charged particles using a series of alternating voltages which are precisely timed to the theoretically expected acceleration. Accelerators only work well if the particles move as fast as they are theoretically expected to.


    No. You don't get to dismiss anything that's not by Liangzao Fan as "controversial" just because you don't want to deal with it.


    You are not going to be able to explain the difference between 255 MeV and 45 GeV as "calibration error".

    Incidentally, I happen to know that calibration of detectors is at least partially done with already studied events. For example, I was told (by someone involved in the CMS experiment a few years ago) that the detectors on the LHC were calibrated on the Z boson production peak. So the people at CERN can easily see how much more powerful the LHC is compared with previous accelerators.


    Same pattern again. You don't want to deal with it, so you call it "controversial". The reality is that work in high energy physics routinely appears to confirm STR, and you're going to have to deal with that in some way other than ignoring it.


    How do you know these hundreds of experiments were actually performed? How do you know they weren't published? After all, you didn't seem to know about Bertozzi's experiment. Neither did Liangzao Fan.


    What paper?


    We put men on the moon forty years ago. We blew up two cities with atomic bombs nearly seventy years ago. Don't dismiss the capabilities of past science so quickly.

    Bertozzi's experiment claims an accuracy of about 10% in the experimental results. That might not seem very accurate, but it is more than enough for the test in question. The difference between STR and classical physics is much more than 10% at the velocities investigated, so you don't get to shrug that off so quickly.

    Incidentally, the paper by Liangzao Fan didn't perform any statistical error analysis as far as I could see.


    No. The foundation of science is the collection of all the results we've been obtaining over the last several decades. Relativity is not founded on one single experiment. The best evidence for STR nowadays probably comes from accelerator physics. Any criticism of STR that seeks to ignore that is automatically suspicious.
     
  10. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    Source of this information cannot be opened.
     
  11. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    I am looking for a few years the results of experiments similar Liangzao FAN's experiments.
    Except highly questionable data Bertozzi, other - do not exist.
     
  12. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    The decay of the target substance can not be generate a particles whose velocity is greater than the speed of light.
    Always generate particles, the speed does not exceed the speed of light.
    But if these particles are unstable, their decay can lead to the production of particles that move faster than light.
    That is, particles whose velocity exceeds the speed of light are produced as a result of cascade decays.

    Muon could be born not in the target, but at some distance from it.
     
  13. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    Liangzao Fan's experiments simple and obvious.
    These experiments have minimum of uncertainty.
    Analysis of GPS and muons are too difficult to make definite conclusions.
    There is a lot of uncertainties.
     
  14. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    Error may be of any value.

    There have no answer to the question: target's temperature increases in proportion to the potential difference of the accelerating field, or ceases to grow at a rate of electrons?
     
  15. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    I do not have this info.
     
  16. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    A strange argument.
     
  17. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Of course it can't, thats because it does not exist because you are a troll.
     
  18. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    I have no intention to comment on similar to these posts.
     
  19. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I did find an error.

    Your equations are not LT.

    LT does not presume to know the measurements in the other frame.

    That is why you are in error.
     
  20. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    LT? Abbreviation?

    What is "LT"?
     
  21. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Lorentz Transfromation
     
  22. Masterov Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    728
    Lorentz's error

    Lorentz's relativism is based on the formula:\(x^2-(ct)^2=(x')^2-(ct')^2\)
    But this formula is lying.
    The correct formula is as follows:\(x^2-(ct)^2=(x'-vt')^2-(ct')^2\)

    Why not?

    I'll give the answer below:

    I remind to you of a school-task about the two foot-passengers and the dog:

    1. Two travelers go on the road with the same velocity (\(v\)) at a distance (\(L\)) from each other (one behind the other).

    2. A dog runs between travelers (at velocity \(c\)).

    QUESTION: how long time the dog ran ahead, and how long - ago.

    Every schoolboy knows the answer to this ask: ldog's time will be different because:

    1. When the dog runs back (to meet to lagging-traveler) - the dog's time will be the lesser: \(T_1=L/(c+v)\).

    2. When the dog runs forward (to rush to the advance-traveler) - the dog's time will be the greater: \(T_2=L/(c-v)\).

    Let the two mirrors will be in place of travelers.
    Let the photon will be in place of dog.
    So as it shown in this picture:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please note: photon's time are different.

    \(t_1=L/(c+v)\)
    \(t_2=L/(c-v)\)
    These two values are the roots of the equation:
    \((x-vt)^2-(ct)^2=0\)
    for \(x=\pm L\)

    Einstein, Lorentz, Minkowski argued that dog's times (on both sides) is the same:
    \(x^2-(ct)^2=0\)
    \(t_1=L/c\)
    \(t_2=L/c\)

    _______________________

    In the problem of the two travelers and the dog: L '= L.
    This little problem only shows that dog's times (in different directions) will be different:
    \(t'_1=L/(c+v)\)
    \(t'_2=L/(c-v)\)

    In the problem (with two mirrors, with a photon and with a moving observer) times will be different too, but to this added to the visual relativistic effect: the distance between the mirrors will become smaller (visual). Therefore:

    \(L'=L(1-v^2/c^2)\)
    \(t'_1=L'/(c+v)=L(1+v/c)/c\)
    \(t'_2=L'/(c-v)=L(1-v/c)/c\)

    TEST:

    \(t'_1+t'_2=L(1+v/c)/c+L(1-v/c)/c=2L/c=t_1+t_2\) - is true!
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2012
  23. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Look you said, \(x^2-(ct)^2=(x'-vt')^2-(ct')^2\)

    Therefore, since you agree c, \(x^2-(x'-vt')^2=(ct)^2-(ct')^2\)

    So, \(x^2-(x'-vt')^2/(t^2-t'^2)=c^2\)

    So, \(c = sqrt{x^2-(x'-vt')^2/(t^2-t'^2)}\)

    So, can you prove this freak formula?

    That is your task otherwise, you are a crackpot.
     

Share This Page