http://www.physorg.com/news7143.html
By Einstein his postulate is “free invention” and needs experimental proof, but scientific worth of experiment does not equal financial value this experiment. In our opinion,
a little bit cheaper test could be question: what is four-velocity of light in relativistic mechanics? We have found that four-velocity of light equal infinity – that contradicts to observations of finite speed of light and to the Einstein postulate. We can postulate that relativistic theory does not describe processes with light-speed, including light, but in this case we “exclude” the Einstein’s postulate from theory, and deprive theory its postulate.
QUOTE (Viktor Moroz+Oct 11 2005, 02:31 PM)
http://www.physorg.com/news7143.html
By Einstein his postulate is “free invention” and needs experimental proof, but scientific worth of experiment does not equal financial value this experiment. In our opinion,
a little bit cheaper test could be question: what is four-velocity of light in relativistic mechanics? We have found that four-velocity of light equal infinity – that contradicts to observations of finite speed of light and to the Einstein postulate. We can postulate that relativistic theory does not describe processes with light-speed, including light, but in this case we “exclude” the Einstein’s postulate from theory, and deprive theory its postulate.
Say what??
By Einstein his postulate is “free invention” and needs experimental proof, but scientific worth of experiment does not equal financial value this experiment. In our opinion,
a little bit cheaper test could be question: what is four-velocity of light in relativistic mechanics? We have found that four-velocity of light equal infinity – that contradicts to observations of finite speed of light and to the Einstein postulate. We can postulate that relativistic theory does not describe processes with light-speed, including light, but in this case we “exclude” the Einstein’s postulate from theory, and deprive theory its postulate.
Say what??
For LIGHT, when dt>0,dx>0,dy>0,dz>0, interval ds = cdt root( 1 – v^2/c^2 ) = 0,
because v = c.
Four-velocity for LIGHT dx/ds = dx/0 = infinity, but should = c by postulate;
because v = c.
Four-velocity for LIGHT dx/ds = dx/0 = infinity, but should = c by postulate;
It's possible I've misunderstood what you've said, or that they're the same thing
but the spacetime interval is
ds = (cdt)^2 - (x^2 + y^2 + z^2)
you've chucked a gamma factor in there instead - i dont know if it's equivalent; but it doesn't seem like it.
but the spacetime interval is
ds = (cdt)^2 - (x^2 + y^2 + z^2)
you've chucked a gamma factor in there instead - i dont know if it's equivalent; but it doesn't seem like it.
Spacetime interval is:
ds^2 = (cdt)^2 –(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2), and
ds = root((cdt)^2 –(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)) =
= cdt root( 1 – (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) /(cdt)^2 )
where (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) /dt^2 = v^2
we have ds = cdt root( 1- v^2/c^2 )
ds^2 = (cdt)^2 –(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2), and
ds = root((cdt)^2 –(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)) =
= cdt root( 1 – (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) /(cdt)^2 )
where (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) /dt^2 = v^2
we have ds = cdt root( 1- v^2/c^2 )
Well, let’s summarize so intensive discussion. SR or special relativity has inside contradiction (sea above and specially for Phyzic repeat: FOUR-VELOCITY OF LIGHT equal infinity by definition of interval and that contradicts to Einstein’s postulate ), but theory with inside contradiction cannot be true, it means that Einstein was wrong and hundreds million dollars gone.
Hi Good Elf,
You are absolutely right. “Four velocity is not velocity”, as classical mechanics is not relativistic mechanics: in classical mechanics we have velocity dx/dt but in relativistic mechanics we have four velocity dx/ds. The question is: the Einstein’s postulate is postulate classical mechanics or relativistic one?
If “velocity” into Einstein’s postulate we take in meaning classical mechanics, then we know that classical mechanics does not satisfy this postulate. If we take “velocity” of postulate in meaning four velocity, then we shown above contradiction of postulate and four-velocity of light. So, we have postulate without theory, and we have two theory without the Einstein’s postulate. Even more, if we take advice of the classical field theory to find relation between classical and relativistic mechanics and put to infinity parameter c in formula relativistic mechanics, then we get only one value {1,0,0,0} for infinite number of finite velocity of classical mechanics. It means that relativistic mechanics does not bind with classical mechanics.
You are absolutely right. “Four velocity is not velocity”, as classical mechanics is not relativistic mechanics: in classical mechanics we have velocity dx/dt but in relativistic mechanics we have four velocity dx/ds. The question is: the Einstein’s postulate is postulate classical mechanics or relativistic one?
If “velocity” into Einstein’s postulate we take in meaning classical mechanics, then we know that classical mechanics does not satisfy this postulate. If we take “velocity” of postulate in meaning four velocity, then we shown above contradiction of postulate and four-velocity of light. So, we have postulate without theory, and we have two theory without the Einstein’s postulate. Even more, if we take advice of the classical field theory to find relation between classical and relativistic mechanics and put to infinity parameter c in formula relativistic mechanics, then we get only one value {1,0,0,0} for infinite number of finite velocity of classical mechanics. It means that relativistic mechanics does not bind with classical mechanics.
What I feel Einstein was about, was a workman, theoretician, for the astronomers work, that were established before him.
Albert Einstein made the quantum leap of logic, in reference to deep cosmological plates, dealing with the passage of stringed contigual space, that light as realized as the expression C, had to move through the nature of space itself.
What was dumbfounding theoreticians of that time, were some characteristics of light, which stated that some interpretive data, gathered from timed astronomical photo plates, seemed to have differing time views.
This is because the universe, is always in movement, both laterally and vertically.
So a definite prose of how man could realize space, when these distances were so gargantuan vast, plus moving, was the a-que for the early trieste as a mathematical view of the universe.
In otherwords, people began to realize, that the data alone from these processed plates, was so vast in numerical proportions, they began to loose their own self references as to what it was they were looking at.This is as to most humans, these views, do not seem to be a normal process.
Einstein simply wrote that the velocity of light, which mankind had realize it, was part of an assigned frequency of realization.
Light was relative in depth.
From these simple deductions, he began to develop more complex methodologies, in man's reference to the universe.
What is not known, realized now, is that the 1908 trieste on relativity, was also an immense step forward in man's thinking, within his own evolution.
Albert Einstein made the quantum leap of logic, in reference to deep cosmological plates, dealing with the passage of stringed contigual space, that light as realized as the expression C, had to move through the nature of space itself.
What was dumbfounding theoreticians of that time, were some characteristics of light, which stated that some interpretive data, gathered from timed astronomical photo plates, seemed to have differing time views.
This is because the universe, is always in movement, both laterally and vertically.
So a definite prose of how man could realize space, when these distances were so gargantuan vast, plus moving, was the a-que for the early trieste as a mathematical view of the universe.
In otherwords, people began to realize, that the data alone from these processed plates, was so vast in numerical proportions, they began to loose their own self references as to what it was they were looking at.This is as to most humans, these views, do not seem to be a normal process.
Einstein simply wrote that the velocity of light, which mankind had realize it, was part of an assigned frequency of realization.
Light was relative in depth.
From these simple deductions, he began to develop more complex methodologies, in man's reference to the universe.
What is not known, realized now, is that the 1908 trieste on relativity, was also an immense step forward in man's thinking, within his own evolution.
Hi philip347,
I prefer discuss physical arguments, and avoid philosophical one. From point of view evolution of physics, I have to say that Maxwell was wrong too with the electromagnetic hypothesis of light, and these connect to relativistic theory.
If you interest detail see link:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...6421eeec7caa35a
To get word file with good formulas put missed char mrz to address and send to me request.
I prefer discuss physical arguments, and avoid philosophical one. From point of view evolution of physics, I have to say that Maxwell was wrong too with the electromagnetic hypothesis of light, and these connect to relativistic theory.
If you interest detail see link:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...6421eeec7caa35a
To get word file with good formulas put missed char mrz to address and send to me request.
TESTS FATAL FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Recently a relativist explained the triumph of special relativity over all tests
Tom Roberts: "Experimental Tests of Special Relativity"
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/L...berts/vf001.htm
but failed to refer to the principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light brilliantly discussed by him on the forum sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev asked on sci.physics.relativity: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? Tom Roberts answered: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)." Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
The variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field and, equivalently, for an accelerated observer, was introduced by Albert Einstein and then tested and confirmed by his disciples, although in a somewhat subdued manner:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm : "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c'=c0(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
The question is: The variable speed of light that the accelerated observer measures obeys an equation equivalent to c'=c(1+V/c^2) and this equivalent equation is......??? Relativists know the equivalent equation is c'=c+v where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. They also know Einstein's prophecy: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Relativists used to rely on the fact that the observer is referred to as ACCELERATED; this gave them the opportunity to raise arguments of the sort: Since the observer is accelerated, this has nothing to do with special relativity. Now relativists know those arguments were totally irrelevant. It is time to remember another prophecy of Einstein's: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Recently a relativist explained the triumph of special relativity over all tests
Tom Roberts: "Experimental Tests of Special Relativity"
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/L...berts/vf001.htm
but failed to refer to the principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light brilliantly discussed by him on the forum sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev asked on sci.physics.relativity: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? Tom Roberts answered: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)." Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
The variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field and, equivalently, for an accelerated observer, was introduced by Albert Einstein and then tested and confirmed by his disciples, although in a somewhat subdued manner:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm : "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c'=c0(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
The question is: The variable speed of light that the accelerated observer measures obeys an equation equivalent to c'=c(1+V/c^2) and this equivalent equation is......??? Relativists know the equivalent equation is c'=c+v where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. They also know Einstein's prophecy: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Relativists used to rely on the fact that the observer is referred to as ACCELERATED; this gave them the opportunity to raise arguments of the sort: Since the observer is accelerated, this has nothing to do with special relativity. Now relativists know those arguments were totally irrelevant. It is time to remember another prophecy of Einstein's: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
I think Albert Einstein is a complete lunatic.
He comes along trying to challenge two important laws of physics with some fancy formula (E=mc2). I belive that matter cannot be turned into energy, and energy cannot be turned into matter.
And why does Einstein particularly chose the speed of light? It's because he's making sure nobody can challenge him. It's known that no matter can reach the speed of light, LIGHT'S TOO *** FAST!
I'm a freshman (grade nine for those too old to remember
)
He comes along trying to challenge two important laws of physics with some fancy formula (E=mc2). I belive that matter cannot be turned into energy, and energy cannot be turned into matter.
And why does Einstein particularly chose the speed of light? It's because he's making sure nobody can challenge him. It's known that no matter can reach the speed of light, LIGHT'S TOO *** FAST!
I'm a freshman (grade nine for those too old to remember
)
BTW, I chose to post on this site because it was on Google. Einstein is an idiot. I'm saying it over and over again because I believe it.
My Physics teacher told us about his whack formula. I wanted other people to know what I think about him.
P.S: This is my opinion and I mean no offense to those who worship Einstein.
My Physics teacher told us about his whack formula. I wanted other people to know what I think about him.
P.S: This is my opinion and I mean no offense to those who worship Einstein.
EINSTEIN AND THE ONLY POSSIBLE WORLD
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...3/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But A FAMOUS EXPERIMENT, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, SHOWED THAT LIGHT ALWAYS TRAVELLED AT A SPEED OF ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND MILES A SECOND, no matter where it came from."
In the end the relativity cult announced that the Michelson-Morley experiment CONFIRMS the light postulate and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE".
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential."
In the end the relativity cult announced that that the variable frequency in the presence of a gravitational field is due to whatever you like but BY NO MEANS TO THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE THE VARIABLE FREQUENCY IS DUE TO THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT.
http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf "In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their decay."
In the end the relativity cult announced that, as muons undergo a terrible crash during which their speed changes from about 300000km/s to zero, they are AT REST, and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE THE EXTREMELY SHORT LIFETIME IS DUE TO THE TERRIBLE CRASH.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...3/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But A FAMOUS EXPERIMENT, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, SHOWED THAT LIGHT ALWAYS TRAVELLED AT A SPEED OF ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND MILES A SECOND, no matter where it came from."
In the end the relativity cult announced that the Michelson-Morley experiment CONFIRMS the light postulate and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE".
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential."
In the end the relativity cult announced that that the variable frequency in the presence of a gravitational field is due to whatever you like but BY NO MEANS TO THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE THE VARIABLE FREQUENCY IS DUE TO THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT.
http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf "In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their decay."
In the end the relativity cult announced that, as muons undergo a terrible crash during which their speed changes from about 300000km/s to zero, they are AT REST, and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE THE EXTREMELY SHORT LIFETIME IS DUE TO THE TERRIBLE CRASH.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
we are utilising the spins of the quantic mechanics to explain the bridge between the gravitations as electromagnetism effects,generated by the spins rotations with
its distict chirality.then occur the left-right asymmetry to the quanta,that permiting the spacetime metric through of the differences between the left-right handness
spins.then this appear in the eight- sphere ( derived by the biquaternion algebra
connected to the elliptic non-euclidean geometry,with asymmetry of left-handed and right-handed;being that transformations for rotations from left-handed spins
to right-handed spins and viceversa,shows a difference between the ordenations of
points geometrics,that are oriented and non-oriented through of vectors.then could to think in a geometric fields,quantified?
then could to think given by a non-commutative differential geometry,originated
through of biquaternions and octonions
the could calcule the variable isotopic spins obtained by geometric formalism,
constructed by an algebra of oriented and non-oriented tensors,through of differentiable variations from geometric objects.then the time orient the space,curving it by two disctict twist(associated to the opposite direction rotations,that are the superstrings that connect two vortices that rotates inoposed directions-as a wormholes)
but the geometrization to the unitary theory between gravitation,electromagnetism
and quantas. but how explain the forces between particles at subtaomic level,in the
continuum spacetime,generated by discontinuos fields,that does C9speed of light)
be VARIABLE?
its distict chirality.then occur the left-right asymmetry to the quanta,that permiting the spacetime metric through of the differences between the left-right handness
spins.then this appear in the eight- sphere ( derived by the biquaternion algebra
connected to the elliptic non-euclidean geometry,with asymmetry of left-handed and right-handed;being that transformations for rotations from left-handed spins
to right-handed spins and viceversa,shows a difference between the ordenations of
points geometrics,that are oriented and non-oriented through of vectors.then could to think in a geometric fields,quantified?
then could to think given by a non-commutative differential geometry,originated
through of biquaternions and octonions
the could calcule the variable isotopic spins obtained by geometric formalism,
constructed by an algebra of oriented and non-oriented tensors,through of differentiable variations from geometric objects.then the time orient the space,curving it by two disctict twist(associated to the opposite direction rotations,that are the superstrings that connect two vortices that rotates inoposed directions-as a wormholes)
but the geometrization to the unitary theory between gravitation,electromagnetism
and quantas. but how explain the forces between particles at subtaomic level,in the
continuum spacetime,generated by discontinuos fields,that does C9speed of light)
be VARIABLE?
@mott.carl
That is what you get if you combine a contradiction ridden theory as relativity with an ad-hoc theory as quantummechanics. A load of fairytale bullshit. Hawking is fitting this picture. The man should have been a fantasy writer. I hardly call this guy a physicist.
I am studying physics at university and I am almost certain special relativity is wrong. Actually I am 100 pc certain that the interpretation given to the model is erraneous. No wonder you get big problems if you start giving mechanical interpretations (Langragian model) to an electrodynamical field concept (Eulerian coordinats). At least Poincaré was never satisfied with the physical interpretation. Even Einstein started to doubt it at the end of his life. Lorentz who made most of the mathematics, didnot give any interpretation, with reason.
I gotta agree with Khaled Shahin, he is one of the most overhyped physicists. Okay he was a great physicist in some areas. But not the most outstanding. Newton, Gauss, Ampère, Weber, ... these guys do it for me.
That is what you get if you combine a contradiction ridden theory as relativity with an ad-hoc theory as quantummechanics. A load of fairytale bullshit. Hawking is fitting this picture. The man should have been a fantasy writer. I hardly call this guy a physicist.
I am studying physics at university and I am almost certain special relativity is wrong. Actually I am 100 pc certain that the interpretation given to the model is erraneous. No wonder you get big problems if you start giving mechanical interpretations (Langragian model) to an electrodynamical field concept (Eulerian coordinats). At least Poincaré was never satisfied with the physical interpretation. Even Einstein started to doubt it at the end of his life. Lorentz who made most of the mathematics, didnot give any interpretation, with reason.
I gotta agree with Khaled Shahin, he is one of the most overhyped physicists. Okay he was a great physicist in some areas. But not the most outstanding. Newton, Gauss, Ampère, Weber, ... these guys do it for me.
The elliptical glimpses in L1.00028 at einstein. standford.edu clearly indicate that general ralativity is false. Let us count down to some day of December in this year!!!!!!!!
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.