To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Constant Behind Relativity

proamator
The theory of special relativity is a well built construction. Everybody knows these famous formulas:
m'= m /(sqr) , s'= s * (sqr) and t'= t / (sqr).

See the schema in the row, it appears a strange constant: m*s = m'*s'.
This constant was hidden until today, because we were unable to calculate its value, since there was no common unit of mass and space. Using Dr. Lajtner's theory now we get the common unit.
So we can calculate this constant for example in kg or even in yards.

What does it mean?

It means, that relativity is based on a secret constant.

A constant which is absolutely not relative

Don't misunderstand, relativity is right. I would say: Relativity is like the Sun and now we are able to see the Solar System.

Somebody asked me where to find more details about Lajtner's theory. In his book, and on his site Physics of Thought --> main menu -- > physics sub menu --> papers sub sub menu

If Dr. Lajtner's right, he has found a new physics constant. Congratulation!
(I do think, he is right. Using this kind of physics he is able to explain how thought and consciousness work (see his book))
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 01:08 PM)
The theory of special relativity is a well built construction. Everybody knows these famous formulas:
m'= m /(sqr) , s'= s * (sqr) and t'= t / (sqr).

Those are special cases. The proper general ones here are considerably less pleasant and do not satisfy the equation you're putting forth, that m'.s' = m.s.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 01:08 PM)
This constant was hidden until today, because we were unable to calculate its value, since there was no common unit of mass and space.
This is nonsense. Firstly the fact that mass and time are dilated in schematically reciprocal manners is obvious and something anyone who has done relativity will have come across. Secondly even if your equations were always true they would not imply what you think they do.

If your equations hold then the statement m'.s' = m.s means that for a given physical set up the quantity mass*time is frame independent so you can pick any set of inertial coordinates and you'll still get the same quantity. This is entirely different from your claim which is that m.s is truly constant for all set up. Obviously that is not the case.

You have failed to understand what a Lorentz transformation actually does. It allows you to go from one set of coordinates to describe a system to another set of equally valid coordinates. It's the same system viewed in two different ways. What you're claiming is that Lorentz transforms relate physically different set ups. This is nonsense.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 01:08 PM)
Using Dr. Lajtner's theory now we get the common unit.
Let me guess, his doctorate isn't in physics.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 01:08 PM)
What does it mean?

It means, that relativity is based on a secret constant.
No, it means you and Dr. Lajtner don't know any special relativity.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 01:08 PM)
Somebody asked me where to find more details about Lajtner's theory. In his book, and on his site Physics of Thought --> main menu -- > physics sub menu --> papers sub sub menu
Hack.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 01:08 PM)
If Dr. Lajtner's right, he has found a new physics constant. Congratulation!
He isn't and he hasn't.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 01:08 PM)
(I do think, he is right. Using this kind of physics he is able to explain how thought and consciousness work (see his book))
He isn't and he hasn't.

For someone who has written a book called 'Though Actually' its irony he hasn't actually thought. Let me guess, you're Lajtner. Because only the author of that laughable nonsense would be stupid enough to advertise it.
proamator
You have too many 'no' answers. Too many nos mean you are angry. Why are you angry? Relax, your time is coming. In the near future you will be able to find out a great thing. Maybe you will be the inventor of the hot water
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 04:07 PM)
You have too many 'no' answers.

When presented with too many false claims I tend to say 'no' a lot.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 04:07 PM)
Too many nos mean you are angry
Actually it means you're wrong a lot.

You haven't even grasped what Lorentz transformations do in special relativity. Simply ignoring me because I'd said things you don't want to hear doesn't make you magically right. You started with the wrong equations, you used incorrect methods and you reached a false conclusion. And in doing so you demonstrate how little you know about special relativity.

Can you retort anything I said or are you going to simply evade questions because you don't want to admit you're wrong?
Bloy
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 17 2010, 10:15 AM)
When presented with too many false claims I tend to say 'no' a lot.

Actually it means you're wrong a lot.

You haven't even grasped what Lorentz transformations do in special relativity. Simply ignoring me because I'd said things you don't want to hear doesn't make you magically right. You started with the wrong equations, you used incorrect methods and you reached a false conclusion. And in doing so you demonstrate how little you know about special relativity.

Can you retort anything I said or are you going to simply evade questions because you don't want to admit you're wrong?

Hmmm. Alphnumeric (hi, by the way), let's not be too harsh on the guy. I see you are awaiting some reply from proamator. I hope he is cognizing with his relative position regarding responding to the questions.

What makes me disturbed is the relatively short measurement of time it took for proamator's envisionment to incorporate a "theory" that lacks a comprehensive inclusion of a mutitude of celebrious theologians, not to mention that the "physics" of what Dr. Lajtner's theory relies on does not meet the expectations of the universal language.
proamator, you appear to have unwitingly embraced another "jump on the religous bandwagon" and asked then "Could this be true?".

Of course it could be true. ...and that would require melding opposing forces.
I myself still evision a magnitude of various versions of what relativities and special relativities encompass when creating various models of our perceived reality.
I feel you, AlphaNumeric, are disturbed because of the spin Dr. Lajtner's theory throws into the accepted satisfying mathematical model. At least I perceived this from your response.... and yes I give you every right to be disturbed.....
You always say so well..."Let's get the facts straight, guy."

proamator
The Lorentz transformations are mathematical devices, I am speaking about physical phenomenon. There must be something somewhere (a constant), without this constant Lorentz transformation wouldn't work. The transformation works in physics because only the form changes and not the point.
The new thing is not the constant exists (m*s = m'*s' it is trivial), but the calculable value of this constant. Until now nobody was able to tell this value. The thing is that this value exists and Dr. Lajtner's got it (and he was able to write it in one single constant).
About thought. What kind of thoughts do you have? Do your thoughts have energy? (The answer is yes, but what do you think about? )And how can be described your thought energy? Do you have any ideas? Dr. Lajtner does. Why so angry?

'"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The
literature was full of examples that said you can't do this." -- Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads'

NoCleverName
The speed of light is constant.

Other than that, consider the (mathematical) meaning of the word "transformation".
proamator
QUOTE (NoCleverName+Mar 18 2010, 11:28 AM)
The speed of light is constant.

Other than that, consider the (mathematical) meaning of the word "transformation".

The speed of light is sometimes ~300.000 km/sec, sometimes 61 km/hour (near (and of course about:)) 0 Kelvin), sometimes 450.000 km/sec (fast light). Why? Who decides what is the correct velocity for a given photon. I think, the photon itself. How can decide a photon? Please think, there must be a constant behind the light.
How does a photon know that he has to have a spin if the other photon is 1000 Ly far from him. Please think, there must be something faster than light.

Other than that, consider the pure meaning of the word "transformers". The biggest question is how will be a car out of a spaceship.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 09:21 PM)
There must be something somewhere (a constant), without this constant Lorentz transformation wouldn't work.

This is simply false, anyone who has studied Lorentz transformations knows what you've just said is wrong.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 09:21 PM)
The thing is that this value exists and Dr. Lajtner's got it (and he was able to write it in one single constant).
About thought. What kind of thoughts do you have? Do your thoughts have energy? (The answer is yes, but what do you think about? )And how can be described your thought energy? Do you have any ideas?
Utterly irrelevant to your claims and in no way retort what I said. You are making claims about special relativity which you aren't back up (because they are false) and now you're trying to deflect.

If Lajtner has got such results why aren't they published in a journal? When someone posts their work on a forum rather than in a journal it heavily suggests they are lying and are hacks because anyone with valid work would submit it to a journal for publication.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 09:21 PM)
Why so angry?
Don't try to deflect. If you have the results you claim you wouldn't be dancing around avoiding direct questions. Lajtner is a hack. Reading his website makes that much very very clear. What precisely is he a doctor of? For some odd reason his CV doesn't mention it, which seems a little strange as its usually very important on a CV to state what your qualifications are in.

Are you Lajtner? If you are at least that explains why you peddle his work. Otherwise it means you're an idiot who believes Lajtner, who is obviously also an idiot.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 17 2010, 09:21 PM)
The speed of light is sometimes ~300.000 km/sec, sometimes 61 km/hour (near (and of course about:)) 0 Kelvin), sometimes 450.000 km/sec (fast light). Why? Who decides what is the correct velocity for a given photon. I think, the photon itself. How can decide a photon? Please think, there must be a constant behind the light.
How does a photon know that he has to have a spin if the other photon is 1000 Ly far from him. Please think, there must be something faster than light.
Proof you don't know any special relativity. c is the speed of light IN A VACUUM. Its a constant. Light moving through a material like water or glass does move slower but that has nothing to do with special relativity.

Learn basic physics before you go advertising the work of hacks.
proamator
I AM sorry but you don't understand the most important thing.
Photon has more than one velocity, it depends on his environment. So photon uses different speeds in different 'matters', he 'knows' how fast he can go in the different environments.
So environments regulate the speed of light. The question: they run the speed of photon, or they run the input of photon's algorithm which regulates its speed?

The fact you only understand (and you understand nothing more right now but you will, i do hope) is the number 300.000. You're right. 300.000 is a constant in vacuum.

The constant getting from m*s is constant in vacuum and water, in hot and in cold.
And one more important thing: photon is BIG (please see earlier what does BIG and SMALL mean. m*s is a constant which has SMALL part and BIG part.

AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (proamator+Mar 18 2010, 11:46 PM)
I AM sorry but you don't understand the most important thing

Ironic, coming from the guy who doesn't know SR talks only about c, as defined in a vacuum.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 18 2010, 11:46 PM)
The question: they run the speed of photon, or they run the input of photon's algorithm which regulates its speed?
Algorithm?

I think you're getting ahead of yourself. You haven't provided any model which talks about this algorithm you speak of. Plucking unjustified nonsense out of thin air doesn't a theory make.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 18 2010, 11:46 PM)
The constant getting from m*s is constant in vacuum and water, in hot and in cold.
And one more important thing: photon is BIG (please see earlier what does BIG and SMALL mean. m*s is a constant which has SMALL part and BIG part.
You tell me I don't know anything then you come out with that bull. You clearly have no grasp of relativity because you are wrong in your claims about it and if you knew even enough to pass a 1st year course in it you'd know just how far from correct you are.

You don't understand frame dependence. If m*s is constant under Lorentz transformations it means that two inertial observers in relative motion measure the same value for the same object. A different object would have a different value. You have failed to grasp the fundamental concept of what a Lorentz transformation is. Thus proving you are below the understanding of the average 1st year physics undergraduate.

And you obviously know you're full of crap because you avoid my questions. If you have nothing to hide you'll tell me why this work isn't published in a journal. You'll tell me what 'Dr' Lajtner is actually a doctor of because I doubt its physics. If your work isn't *** why aren't you submitting it to journals?
Bloy
I went to Lajtner's site again today....
..noticed that all references to Jesus were removed!
Lajtner, on his web site, had excerpts contributing his "discovery" as an explanation
for how jesus performed his "miracles" according to the bible.

Also, although not unaccepted, he wants to sell a book.

But you know, he HAS been able to use his thoughts to turn a disc, as depicted on his site in the movie section. Others apparently can move the curser on a computer monitor simply by "cupping" their hands over the mouse and using thought....as seen in the movie clips.
I'm surprised there wasn't anything on the site referencing indentical twins and how they appear to be entangled.
Guest
That last post did not follow through in explaining my HIGH reservations for Dr. Lajtner's attachement to Capitolism. i.e. the need he demonstrates to withhold full information until a certain financial trade is accomplished. Exchanging "goods" so to speak. What with a discovery as groundbreaking as Tamas claims, he concentrates more on printed paperwork. Although, I have to give credit for his investment into the economy and further the printing industry's employment. I suppose his "book" on a coffee table here and there would only enhance his objective of stimulating thought.

Tamas Lajtner's focus should rather be toward expanding the self-important website to include explaining the Phenomena he presents on his site. By revealing more information regarding his knowledge of "thought transfer", he would be opening up his inner physipsych characteristics to the whole of mankind(or at least to those who visit his site).

He really is, at this point, and considering his technical theories are not meeting the standards of the universal language, "blowing his own horn". And quite selfishly, if I might add.

proamator
To tell the true I haven't got a clue what are you speaking about. (I understand your words and I feel your envy. ) Please tell me your thoughts, if you have any.
proamator
QUOTE (Bloy+Mar 19 2010, 04:42 AM)
I went to Lajtner's site again today....
..noticed that all references to Jesus were removed!
Lajtner, on his web site, had excerpts contributing his "discovery" as an explanation
for how jesus performed his "miracles" according to the bible.

Also, although not unaccepted, he wants to sell a book.

But you know, he HAS been able to use his thoughts to turn a disc, as depicted on his site in the movie section.  Others apparently can move the curser on a computer monitor simply by "cupping" their hands over the mouse and using thought....as seen in the movie clips.
I'm surprised there wasn't anything on the site referencing indentical twins and how they appear to be entangled.

Not true, Jesus is there.
A Writer wants to sell his book. Didn't you know?
The third part is full of nonsense, it's stupid and evil. In short: no value.
Bloy
QUOTE (proamator+Mar 19 2010, 05:04 PM)
Not true, Jesus is there.

I'm sorry, I couldn't find the reference upon returning to the site....my navigational abilities were interrupted by my thoughts.
proamator
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 19 2010, 01:21 AM)
You don't understand frame dependence. If m*s is constant under Lorentz transformations it means that two inertial observers in relative motion measure the same value for the same object. A different object would have a different value. You have failed to grasp the fundamental concept of what a Lorentz transformation is.

You don't understand the absolute behind relativity. You are speaking about Lorentz transformation, I speak about physics phenomena. Time unit are getting longer, not seem to get longer. It comes out of the characteristics of the meeting of space and matter.

Different values? 1 meter is 1 meter, 1 kg is 1 kg and 1 sec is 1 sec.
I speaking about these.

Of course 5 sec are 5 sec and 100 meters are 100 meters.

By the way you don't have to understand this kind of physics and I see you won't. You will understand only that case if you understand: the values you get from Lorentz transformation are mathematical values but there is an existing (living) value -- that is space and mass work together like this.
proamator
Thank you for your thoughts, every remarks were important for me. It could be very useful for Dr. Lajtner reading this all. (Maybe he will.)
Stupid remark are very important, they show what parts must be rewrite in a clearer form.
This is of course not my job.
I was happy to be here, thanks for your answers, but from morning I am sailing a couple of weeks, I will have limited Internet connection.
I think I will enjoy the water instead of using Internet. :roll eyes:
proamator
QUOTE (Bloy+Mar 19 2010, 11:16 PM)
I'm sorry, I couldn't find the reference upon returning to the site....my navigational abilities were interrupted by my thoughts.

Your navigational abilities were interrupted by your thoughts???
If you say...
Granouille
Dolt.

QUOTE (proamator+)
Time unit are getting longer, not seem to get longer.

Amrit? Jar-jar Binks? Bozo?
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (proamator+Mar 19 2010, 11:19 PM)
To tell the true I haven't got a clue what are you speaking about. (I understand your words and I feel your envy. ) Please tell me your thoughts, if you have any.

Are you trolling or are you really that stupid? What reason does anyone have to be jealous of you? You've accomplished nothing and you repeatedly demonstrate you don't now any relativity. I am not jealous of your ignorance and unjustified arrogance, I'm closer to to finding it contemptuous.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 19 2010, 11:19 PM)
You don't understand the absolute behind relativity..
I'm 100% sure I know a hell of a lot more about relativity than you do. The fact I understand what Lorentz transforms are puts me ahead of you immediately.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 19 2010, 11:19 PM)
You are speaking about Lorentz transformation, I speak about physics phenomena. Time unit are getting longer, not seem to get longer. It comes out of the characteristics of the meeting of space and matter.
The relationships of the coordinates of different initial frames has nothing to do with matter in special relativity, they are the result of space-time symmetries.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 19 2010, 11:19 PM)
Different values? 1 meter is 1 meter, 1 kg is 1 kg and 1 sec is 1 sec.
I speaking about these.
Didn't you ever learn about units when you were 13? Or did they pass you by as well?

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 19 2010, 11:19 PM)
By the way you don't have to understand this kind of physics and I see you won't.
I understand a great deal about relativity. I am not an 'expert' but I have working quantitative understanding in relativity. You say I won't but I already have. The case in point are the Lorentz transformations and how they alter the coordinates. You get t = t'.gamma and L = L'.gamma by applying Lorentz transformations to the coordinates of one inertial frame to get the coordinates of another. You have failed to grasp what they actually mean.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 19 2010, 11:19 PM)
the values you get from Lorentz transformation are mathematical values but there is an existing (living) value -- that is space and mass work together like this.
The formulas you quote do not require matter, they are simply properties of space-time.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 19 2010, 11:19 PM)
It could be very useful for Dr. Lajtner reading this all. (Maybe he will.)
I heavily suspect you are him. No one would support such vacuous crap if they didn't have some involvement with it.

What precisely is 'Dr' Latjner a doctor of? Its not physics or mathematics that's for sure. And what about you? Are you formally educated in special relativity? I doubt it as you can't even understand coordinates.

QUOTE (proamator+Mar 19 2010, 11:19 PM)
This is of course not my job.
If you claim something you should be able to explain it and back it up. Its my job to do mathematical physics, including special relativity. Hence why I know you're talking nonsense, its my business to know
Guest
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 20 2010, 01:04 AM)

If you claim something you should be able to explain it and back it up. Its my job to do mathematical physics, including special relativity. Hence why I know you're talking nonsense, its my business to know

I hope you are old. This is your law from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following "law" of prediction:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Example:

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be
obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at
will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 20 2010, 12:23 PM)
I hope you are old.

I'm 26.

QUOTE (Guest+Mar 20 2010, 12:23 PM)
Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following "law" of prediction:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Irrelevant. You are not claiming some new physical model to replace the old one, you're claiming something exists within special relativity which no one has seen before. You make a claim about special relativity. I have already explained how special relativity is not as you imagine and your result does not exist. This isn't a matter of me denying some new view of nature, its about pointing out that your logic is wrong.

2+2=5 isn't true regardless of who says it and saying "2+2 is not equal to 5" is entirely valid, you couldn't trot out your quote for that because you're making a claim about something which is easily falsifiable. If your claim can be proven wrong then its wrong. The quote you speak of is about people denouncing new ideas but being unable to prove them wrong. Anyone who knows how to do special relativity coordinate transformations will know that your claims are wrong.
Guest
Only God knows what is wrong or not. You aren't God, are you?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 20 2010, 09:31 AM)
Only God knows what is wrong or not. You aren't God, are you?

God seems to get confused sometimes, which is more than I can say about you.
Guest
You aren't God! This statement is absolute or relative?
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 20 2010, 02:31 PM)
Only God knows what is wrong or not. You aren't God, are you?

So how can you claim to have found something right then? Applying your logic to your own work means that you have absolutely no right to claim you've done anything worth looking at.

But obviously your logic is wrong. We can know whether plenty of things are right or wrong. 2+2=10 is wrong. The Sun revolves around the Earth is wrong. Ice is hot is wrong. You should be a little less black and white and realise that just because you can't know everything doesn't mean you can't know something.

Besides, I don't beleive God exists.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.