Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Higgs boson, LIGO's Gravitational waves, etc., Einstein's relativity invalid

views
     
TSChanRasjid
post Mar 4 2017, 04:56 PM, updated 6y ago

New Member
*
Junior Member
49 posts

Joined: Mar 2017


Dear readers,

Every so often, there would be headline news around the world about great new scientific discoveries. One wonders what changes such "great" discoveries would bring to our everyday life.

In the good old days, great discoveries brought about great changes - good fortune or greater miseries to mankind; great things go global in influence. The Industrial Revolution stated about the time of Newton in the middle of the 1700's. Newton's law gave us better understanding of mechanics; Mendeleev's periodic tables giving us better understanding in creating better materials. So scientific breakthroughs brought with them the Industrial age, the Steam Age, the Electric Age, the Wireless Age. We see "evidence" of the great breakthrough discoveries getting into our mundane everyday life.

Then come the "Relativity Age" brought about when Einstein in 1905 wrote his seminal paper: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" introducing the physics world to his Special Theory of Relativity. It brought "great" changes and many fabulous new physics - particle accelerators, quarks, bosons, muon, strong forces, weak forces, gravitational waves, etc. Many fabulous tales about the mysteries of the universe - and more tales.

What has the Relativity Age brought us? Tales. Not one new gadget comes from this relativity age - not one. This is because physics founded on Einstein's special relativity has nothing to do with the physical world - it is only a mathematical model making only mathematical predictions - like the theorems we learn in school.

I have written a short 5-page paper that explains simply why Einstein's special relativity is not a valid theory in physics. It could be downloaded as a pdf file from my website.

"The Lorentz Transformation Cannot Be Physical"
pages :5
http://www.emc2fails.com

Abstract. "The Lorentz transformation will always remain only as an abstract mathematical transformation that cannot be incorporated into any theory of physics. The reason being there is no natural principle that a mathematical transformation carries over association of physical units with real numbers from the domain space to the image space. Any application of the Lorentz transformation will only result in space and time that have no relation to our physical world. All physical theories founded on the Lorentz transformation are invalid. These include Einstein’s special relativity, particle physics, electromagnetism of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations."

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

SpikeMarlene
post Mar 4 2017, 06:52 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(ChanRasjid @ Mar 4 2017, 04:56 PM)
Dear readers,

Every so often, there would be headline news around the world about great new scientific discoveries. One wonders  what changes such "great" discoveries would bring to our everyday life.

In  the good old days, great discoveries brought about great changes - good fortune or greater miseries to mankind; great things go global in influence. The Industrial Revolution  stated about the time of Newton in the middle of the 1700's. Newton's law gave us better understanding of mechanics; Mendeleev's periodic tables giving us better understanding in creating better materials. So scientific breakthroughs  brought with them the Industrial age, the Steam Age, the Electric Age, the Wireless Age. We see "evidence" of the great breakthrough discoveries getting into our mundane everyday life.

Then come the "Relativity Age" brought about when Einstein in 1905  wrote his seminal paper: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" introducing the physics world to his Special Theory of Relativity. It brought "great" changes and many fabulous new physics - particle accelerators, quarks, bosons, muon, strong forces, weak forces, gravitational waves, etc. Many fabulous tales about the mysteries of the universe - and more tales.

What has the Relativity Age brought us? Tales. Not one new gadget comes from this relativity age - not one. This is because physics founded on Einstein's special relativity has nothing to do with the physical world - it is only a mathematical model making only mathematical predictions - like the theorems we learn in school.

I have written a short 5-page paper that explains simply why Einstein's special relativity is not a valid theory in physics. It could be downloaded as a pdf file from my website.

"The Lorentz Transformation Cannot Be Physical"
pages :5
http://www.emc2fails.com

Abstract. "The Lorentz transformation will always remain only as an abstract mathematical transformation that cannot be incorporated into any theory of physics. The reason being there is no natural principle that a mathematical transformation carries over association of physical units with real numbers from the domain space to the image space. Any application of the Lorentz transformation will only result in space and time that have no relation to our physical world. All physical theories founded on the Lorentz transformation are invalid. These include Einstein’s special relativity, particle physics, electromagnetism of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations."

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
*
I will consider this more seriously if it is published in physics journal. I am not an expert to evaluate the value of your ideas and I wonder why you do not link this article after the publication or you already had. If so please cite the source.

Here, a simple google gave me these results. Perhaps it answers some of the points you raised?

https://www.quora.com/Can-anyone-help-me-un...-Transformation
https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-intuitive-...-transformation

Odd that none of them was questioning the validity of the transformation. Maybe you thought of something they did not, but that would have been extraordinary. So you should send your idea to an expert to see if your line of reasoning is sound?

This post has been edited by SpikeMarlene: Mar 4 2017, 07:02 PM
TSChanRasjid
post Mar 4 2017, 08:46 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
49 posts

Joined: Mar 2017


QUOTE(SpikeMarlene @ Mar 4 2017, 06:52 PM)
I will consider this more seriously if it is published in physics journal. I am not an expert to evaluate the value of your ideas and I wonder why you do not link this article after the publication or you already had. If so please cite the source.

Here, a simple google gave me these results. Perhaps it answers some of the points you raised?

https://www.quora.com/Can-anyone-help-me-un...-Transformation
https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-intuitive-...-transformation

Odd that none of them was questioning the validity of the transformation. Maybe you thought of something they did not, but that would have been extraordinary. So you should send your idea to an expert to see if your line of reasoning is sound?
*
This article of mine: "The Lorentz Transformation Cannot Be Physical" would never get pass any better known peer-reviewed physics journal. If I am willing to go low, there are many (cut-throat charging type) so called peer-reviewed journals which would publish anything - any crap piece of work.

If you are a little aware of how the present day physics academic world works, you would understand why. It has been a policy for a long time now that any paper that challenges any of the pillars of modern physics would be routinely rejected, especially challenging the relativity theories or the Standard Model of particle physics. Not only about publishing, even the more active and well know online physics forum would not have allowed such a post of mine to pass - it would be deleted immediately or be pushed to a spam bin. It is why I choose to post here - one of the rare places I could publish my work.

When you google "Lorentz transformation" or "special relativity", what you get are what are being taught in the universities. Nowadays, almost all universities in the world teaches Einsteins's special relativity as being a pillar of modern physics. You don't hear professors telling against the relativity theory in class. My paper on the Lorentz transformation (which is almost the very foundation of special relativity) is completely at odds with what is currently accepted by mainstream physics - its very conclusion is that Einstein's special relativity is invalid.

I did try to submit a similar paper to about 4 reputable journals and all told me my paper was "out of scope". The Japanese journal urged me to submit to specialist journals for relativity. The Koreans just say "out-of-scope". My last attempt was just to register myself as an author for submitting manuscripts to the "Jurnal Fizik Malaysia" published by the Malaysian Institute of Physics. They acknowledged my registration application and informed me that approval would come usually within 24 hours. It has been already more than 2 weeks now and I have not heard from them - not even a registration rejection! I think I know the reason; they only accept submission from authors affiliated to universities - my entry for affiliation is : "Not applicable".

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

JayCkat
post Mar 5 2017, 04:01 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,534 posts

Joined: Jun 2013
QUOTE(ChanRasjid @ Mar 4 2017, 04:56 PM)
What has the Relativity Age brought us? Tales. Not one new gadget comes from this relativity age - not one. This is because physics founded on Einstein's special relativity has nothing to do with the physical world - it is only a mathematical model making only mathematical predictions - like the theorems we learn in school.
*
The ability to use satellite for

(1) GPS.
link
link2

Without correction factors that relativity gives, GPS will be inaccurate and useless, drifting by 10km per year.

puchongite
post Mar 5 2017, 07:31 AM

20k VIP Club
*********
All Stars
23,166 posts

Joined: May 2008

8 Ways You Can See Einstein's Theory of Relativity in Real Life

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.livescience....-real-life.html

1. Global Positioning System
2. Electromagnets
3. Gold's Yellow Color
4. Gold Doesn't Corrode Easily
5. Mercury Is a Liquid
6. Your Old TV
7. Light
8. Nuclear Plants and Supernovas

SpikeMarlene
post Mar 5 2017, 09:19 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(ChanRasjid @ Mar 4 2017, 08:46 PM)
This article of mine: "The Lorentz Transformation Cannot Be Physical" would never get pass any better known peer-reviewed physics journal. If I am willing to go low, there are many (cut-throat charging type) so called peer-reviewed journals which would publish anything - any crap piece of work.

If you are a little aware of how the present day physics academic world works, you would understand why. It has been a policy for a long time now that any paper that challenges any of the pillars of modern physics would be routinely rejected, especially challenging the relativity theories or the Standard Model of particle physics. Not only about publishing, even the more active and well know online physics forum would not have allowed such a post of mine to pass - it would be deleted immediately or be pushed to a spam bin. It is why I choose to post here - one of the rare places I could publish my work.

When you google "Lorentz transformation" or "special relativity", what you get are what are being taught in the universities. Nowadays, almost all universities in the world teaches Einsteins's special relativity as being a pillar of modern physics. You don't hear professors telling against the relativity theory in class. My paper on the Lorentz transformation (which is almost the very foundation of special relativity) is completely at odds with what is currently accepted by mainstream physics - its very conclusion is that Einstein's special relativity is invalid.   

I did try to submit a similar paper to about 4 reputable journals and all told me my paper was "out of scope". The Japanese journal urged me to submit to specialist journals for relativity. The Koreans just say "out-of-scope". My last attempt was just to register myself as an author for submitting manuscripts to the "Jurnal Fizik Malaysia" published by the Malaysian Institute of Physics. They acknowledged my registration application and informed me that approval would come usually within 24 hours. It has been already more than 2 weeks now and I have not heard from them - not even a registration rejection! I think I know the reason; they only accept submission from authors affiliated to universities - my entry for affiliation is : "Not applicable".

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
*
I am going to address your argument generally here. Detail will require time and it's best you seek experts to see if your idea works and makes sense.

Why the world accepts Einstein's GR or SR is because it works. There are piles of evidence which support the theory. The 2 posts above gave some of the evidence which many technologies today are based upon, the validity of the transformation as an accurate model of reality. It can never be wrong. The "wrong" in the theory is incomplete or limited in describing a small piece of a bigger picture. A special case just like SR is a special case of GR. Or a different model of a bigger picture which can supplant it. This I expect to see in your argument, how you can incorporate current understanding and evidence in your hypothesis and how you expand the limitations of the theory. You will need to address the evidence eventually, at least on a theoretical level.

If your idea is worth it's salt I am sure you will not be rejected for the truth it can bring to the academia ...

TSChanRasjid
post Mar 5 2017, 11:46 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
49 posts

Joined: Mar 2017


QUOTE(SpikeMarlene @ Mar 5 2017, 09:19 AM)
I am going to address your argument generally here. Detail will require time and it's best you seek experts to see if your idea works and makes sense.

Why the world accepts Einstein's GR or SR is because it works. There are piles of evidence which support the theory. The 2 posts above gave some of the evidence which many technologies today are based upon, the validity of the transformation as an accurate  model of reality. It can never be wrong. The "wrong" in the theory is incomplete or limited in describing a small piece of a bigger picture. A special case just like SR is a special case of GR. Or a different model of a bigger picture which can supplant it.  This I expect to see in your argument, how you can incorporate current understanding and evidence in your hypothesis and how you expand the limitations of the theory. You will need to address the evidence eventually, at least on a theoretical level.

If your idea is worth it's salt I am sure you will not be rejected for the truth it can bring to the academia ...
*
Commonly, people assume that the physical sciences is about getting to the "truth" as it is founded on applying the scientific method based on verifiable experimental evidence. Unfortunately, it is not so. In most affairs of man, it is almost always a matter of opinions - the opinions of those who have the greatest say in saying what is "correct" - not about absolute truth. Nonetheless, most people would say the best option is still to stick to the opinions of the "experts".

History is full of examples of failure in the expert opinions of the "experts":
1) Aristotle's view that the Earth is the center of the universe - It held sway for a thousand years; the experts were right for a thousand years.
2) Aristotle's view that heavier objects falls faster than lighter once. It was right for a full 15 centuries. It was unbelievable anyone would want to differ on something that was almost happening daily right before our eyes.
3) Heavier than air flight is impossible. When the Wrights brothers were actually already flying, there was a newspaper report about the view of a professor who theoretically proved the impossibility for heavier than air flight.
4) Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases. His theory was initially ignored. It was accepted only after his death.

The greatest breakthrough comes usually when a long accepted theory is finally overturned. The operation of the peer review system naturally prevents alternative views to be expressed and debated. It is only when the "stone that was rejected" proves to be the most significant that we find a real breakthrough in science.

SpikeMarlene: "Why the world accepts Einstein's GR or SR is because it works. There are piles of evidence which support the theory."
It is true that the whole world accepts Einstein's GR or SR - but I do not. My opinion is that none of the those cited proofs and evidence are scientifically valid. Of course, it is a person's choice to choose who to believe and who not to believe. There are some - but in a minority - of qualified physicists who I can quote who have the same views as mine. In fact my opinion should have more weight then the majority of those who say and "believe" Einstein's SR is correct. I have written a few physics papers ("professional") investigating the issues myself concerning physics I disagree with; most others have not investigated the physics on their own, only believing what they read from the media.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

danokchonger
post Mar 5 2017, 01:32 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,041 posts

Joined: Feb 2008


QUOTE(ChanRasjid @ Mar 4 2017, 11:46 PM)
Commonly, people assume that the physical sciences is about getting to the "truth" as it is founded on applying the scientific method based on verifiable experimental evidence. Unfortunately, it is not so. In most affairs of man, it is almost always a matter of opinions - the opinions of those who have the greatest say in saying what is "correct" - not about absolute truth. Nonetheless, most people would say the best option is still to stick to the opinions of the "experts".

History is full of examples of failure in the expert opinions of the "experts":
1) Aristotle's view that the Earth is the center of the universe - It held sway for a thousand years; the experts were right for a thousand years.
2) Aristotle's view that heavier objects falls faster than lighter once. It was right for a full 15 centuries. It was unbelievable anyone would want to differ on something that was almost happening daily right before our eyes.   
3) Heavier than air flight is impossible. When the Wrights brothers were actually already flying, there was a newspaper report about the view of a professor who theoretically proved the impossibility for heavier than air flight.
4) Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases. His theory was initially ignored. It was accepted only after his death.

The greatest breakthrough comes usually when a long accepted theory is finally overturned. The operation of the peer review system naturally prevents alternative views to be expressed and debated. It is only when the "stone that was rejected" proves to be the most significant that we find a real breakthrough in science.

SpikeMarlene: "Why the world accepts Einstein's GR or SR is because it works. There are piles of evidence which support the theory."
It is true that the whole world accepts Einstein's GR or SR - but I do not. My opinion is that none of the those cited proofs and evidence  are scientifically valid. Of course, it is a person's choice to choose who to believe and who not to believe. There are some - but in a minority - of qualified physicists who I can quote who have the same views as mine. In fact my opinion should have more weight then the majority of those who say and "believe" Einstein's SR is correct. I have written a few physics papers ("professional") investigating the issues myself concerning physics I disagree with; most others have not investigated the physics on their own, only believing what they read from the media.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
*
I empathise your situation nor can I offer anything useful for you. Your case is similar to mond or the recent works of erik verlinde who is relooking at std accepted view of theory of gravity. the hostilities for challenging DM and our accepted view of theory of gravity were just amazing. as such, the difficulty to even hv a voice or small considerations for reviews is an uphill battle and struggle, more so even some dare to label it as 'heretical'. but i guess there were no short egs of the past as you put it. even einstein's gravitational wave paper did not get a good review at first and as a result he even changed publisher (well i think it is the only paper was peer reviewed despite his 300+ papers in his name).

but keep the spirit up. sometimes you just may hv to go with the flow of the working world - ie get the necessary 'authority' (ie degree/phd) to even get a chance of a lending ear. i know its not perfect, nor can i offer you anything else.


TSChanRasjid
post Mar 5 2017, 01:37 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
49 posts

Joined: Mar 2017


QUOTE(puchongite @ Mar 5 2017, 07:31 AM)
8 Ways You Can See Einstein's Theory of Relativity in Real Life

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.livescience....-real-life.html

1. Global Positioning System
2. Electromagnets
3. Gold's Yellow Color
4. Gold Doesn't Corrode Easily
5. Mercury Is a Liquid
6. Your Old TV
7. Light
8. Nuclear Plants and Supernovas
*
If you google "early physicists who rejected Einstein's relativity", you would not be lead to a real list of names. They never tell. From :
http://www.anti-relativity.com/

Louis Essen: Inventor of the atomic clock and the man responsible for the modern precise measurement of the speed of light.

Ernest Rutherford. When asked what he thought about relativity he exclaimed "Oh, that stuff! We never bother with that in our work."
Wilhelm Wein: "No Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity!"
Ernest Rutherford: "No! they've got too much sense!"

Nikolai Tesla. Very likely the greatest inventor of all time and certainly the greatest elecrical engineer of all time. He rejected relativity outright.
July 10, 1937. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane"

Herbert Dingle. They call him a crackpot.

Herbert Ives. He is also well known for his part in the Ives-Stillwell experiment, which is regularly listed as one of the proofs of relativity. "The 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely 'ununderstandable', it is not supported by 'objective matters of fact'; it is untenable, and, as we shall see, unnecessary. . . . Also of philosophical import is that with the abandonment of the 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light, the geometries which have been based on it, with their fusion of space and time, must be denied their claim to be a true description of the physical world." - Herbert E. Ives, "Revisions of the Lorentz Transformations", October 27, 1950

1) Just one of many alternative views that GPS needs relativity.
GPS, Relativity, and pop-Science Mythology:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm

It has to be noted that global positioning system technology has great military implications. No one would tell you about the details. Russia, Europe, India and China have their systems.

2) Electromagnets - too general. Most present day technology comes from hard brute force experimentation based on ancient physics, nothing about special relativity.

7) Light. Nothing much is known about light except that it lights things up.

8) Nuclear Plants. I think you mean nuclear power, E=mc², the atomic bomb equations,etc. We also don't know much with certainty what's going on deep within the nucleus of atoms, but we sure know how to build a thermonuclear device to lay flat peninsular Malaysia. The basic technology is available over the internet.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

SpikeMarlene
post Mar 5 2017, 03:01 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(ChanRasjid @ Mar 5 2017, 11:46 AM)
Commonly, people assume that the physical sciences is about getting to the "truth" as it is founded on applying the scientific method based on verifiable experimental evidence. Unfortunately, it is not so. In most affairs of man, it is almost always a matter of opinions - the opinions of those who have the greatest say in saying what is "correct" - not about absolute truth. Nonetheless, most people would say the best option is still to stick to the opinions of the "experts".

History is full of examples of failure in the expert opinions of the "experts":
1) Aristotle's view that the Earth is the center of the universe - It held sway for a thousand years; the experts were right for a thousand years.
2) Aristotle's view that heavier objects falls faster than lighter once. It was right for a full 15 centuries. It was unbelievable anyone would want to differ on something that was almost happening daily right before our eyes.   
3) Heavier than air flight is impossible. When the Wrights brothers were actually already flying, there was a newspaper report about the view of a professor who theoretically proved the impossibility for heavier than air flight.
4) Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases. His theory was initially ignored. It was accepted only after his death.

The greatest breakthrough comes usually when a long accepted theory is finally overturned. The operation of the peer review system naturally prevents alternative views to be expressed and debated. It is only when the "stone that was rejected" proves to be the most significant that we find a real breakthrough in science.

SpikeMarlene: "Why the world accepts Einstein's GR or SR is because it works. There are piles of evidence which support the theory."
It is true that the whole world accepts Einstein's GR or SR - but I do not. My opinion is that none of the those cited proofs and evidence  are scientifically valid. Of course, it is a person's choice to choose who to believe and who not to believe. There are some - but in a minority - of qualified physicists who I can quote who have the same views as mine. In fact my opinion should have more weight then the majority of those who say and "believe" Einstein's SR is correct. I have written a few physics papers ("professional") investigating the issues myself concerning physics I disagree with; most others have not investigated the physics on their own, only believing what they read from the media.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
*
You said so yourself, science allows breakthrough although that may be a long and hard journey. Why? If for example a newcomer were to come and suddenly announce Einstein is wrong and GR is false, and he has a better theory, not published yet nor proven but there were a few experts who looked at it and agreed somewhat, would he be accepted immediately or there is a lot of resistance? There are already piles of evidence and years of research supporting GR, to replace that 100 years of work will take time and lots of convincing, particularly if the claim is extraordinary. Maybe you should be expecting something like 10 years, instead of overnight?

Please cite the few physics papers you have published so I can get a feel too.
TSChanRasjid
post Mar 5 2017, 10:56 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
49 posts

Joined: Mar 2017


QUOTE(SpikeMarlene @ Mar 5 2017, 03:01 PM)
You said so yourself, science allows breakthrough although that may be a long and hard journey. Why? If for example a newcomer were to come and suddenly announce Einstein is wrong and GR is false, and he has a better theory, not published yet nor proven but there were a few experts who looked at it and agreed somewhat, would he be accepted immediately or there is a lot of resistance? There are already piles of evidence and years of research supporting GR, to replace that 100 years of work will take time and lots of convincing, particularly if the claim is extraordinary. Maybe you should be expecting something like 10 years, instead of overnight?

Please cite the few physics papers you have published so I can get a feel too.
*
"Please cite the few physics papers you have published so I can get a feel too."

I have written about 6 short papers uploaded to my own website - they are very easy physics which any physics undergrad could easily understand. None have been published as I explained earlier - 4 journals rejected my manuscript on the ground "out-of-scope".
http://www.emc2fails.com
It is like self-publishing. Some publish their work in book form. This is the only option for people to publish their work that would never get pass peer review.

Some qualified physicists - just a very few - read my work and gave positive comments. As an example, there was one associate professor in physics from a Brazilian university (his specialization is in GR) who replied to me :

"Thank you for your message. After reading your papers very carefully I find some inconsistency. Please, tell me how the new Coulomb's law does not change the Maxwell equations?"

Notice he mentioned "After reading your papers very carefully" - if my papers were plain nonsense, he would not have asked my opinion on any matter.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

SpikeMarlene
post Mar 6 2017, 07:56 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(ChanRasjid @ Mar 5 2017, 10:56 PM)
"Please cite the few physics papers you have published so I can get a feel too."

I have written about 6 short papers uploaded to my own website - they are very easy physics which any physics undergrad could easily understand. None have been published as I explained  earlier - 4 journals rejected my manuscript on the ground "out-of-scope".
http://www.emc2fails.com
It is like self-publishing. Some publish their work in book form. This is the only option for people to publish their work that would never get pass peer review.

Some qualified physicists - just a very few - read my work and gave positive comments. As an example, there was one associate professor in physics from a Brazilian university (his specialization is in GR) who replied to me :

"Thank you for your message. After reading your papers very carefully I find some inconsistency. Please, tell me how the new Coulomb's law does not change the Maxwell equations?"

Notice he mentioned "After reading your papers very carefully" - if my papers were plain nonsense, he would not have asked my opinion on any matter.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
*
I have posted your claims here,

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/einst...invalid.906493/

You are invited to defend your claims yourself in that forum where there are people knowledgeable who are able to make expert comment. Please also address the point raised in the reply. Look forward to lively argument if your claims are worth consideration.
TSChanRasjid
post Mar 6 2017, 02:06 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
49 posts

Joined: Mar 2017


QUOTE(SpikeMarlene @ Mar 6 2017, 07:56 AM)
I have posted your claims here,

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/einst...invalid.906493/

You are invited to defend your claims yourself in that forum where there are people knowledgeable who are able to make expert comment. Please also address the point raised in the reply. Look forward to lively argument if your claims are worth consideration.
*
There are two replies to your post to physicsforums:

1) PeterDonis: "It doesn't. His basic claim is that mathematically transforming the components of a vector from one frame to another doesn't take the units along, so to speak. But if that were true, it would apply just as well to the Galilean transformations used in Newtonian physics. So if relativity is invalid by his argument, so is Newtonian physics. Yet he accepts Newtonian physics as valid. It's not really possible to go further than that unless this person comes here himself to defend his position (if he can do so without violating PF rules)."

2) Drakkith: "I'm sorry but we don't debunk pseudoscience or crackpots here at PF. Anyone claiming that relativity is invalid is simply incorrect. It's been validated an uncountable number of times (such as every time you use GPS). Thread locked"

So the moderator locked the thread; there is to be no debate on my paper.

I will answer to PeterDonis here. In Newtonian mechanics, the two frames implements the same standard units of measurements, such as the SI units. So in the transformed space under Galilean transformation, the length also have the same physical units.

In fact, special relativity cannot be valid at all as it cannot make use of the SI units of measure. If you say "meter", you then cannot have its experimental meaning (metric, size) changed - contracted - for another moving observer.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.


SpikeMarlene
post Mar 6 2017, 02:26 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(ChanRasjid @ Mar 6 2017, 02:06 PM)
There are two replies to your post to physicsforums:

1) PeterDonis: "It doesn't. His basic claim is that mathematically transforming the components of a vector from one frame to another doesn't take the units along, so to speak. But if that were true, it would apply just as well to the Galilean transformations used in Newtonian physics. So if relativity is invalid by his argument, so is Newtonian physics. Yet he accepts Newtonian physics as valid. It's not really possible to go further than that unless this person comes here himself to defend his position (if he can do so without violating PF rules)."

2) Drakkith: "I'm sorry but we don't debunk pseudoscience or crackpots here at PF. Anyone claiming that relativity is invalid is simply incorrect. It's been validated an uncountable number of times (such as every time you use GPS). Thread locked"

So the moderator locked the thread; there is to be no debate on my paper.

I will answer to PeterDonis here. In Newtonian mechanics, the two frames implements the same standard units of measurements, such as the SI units. So in the transformed space under Galilean transformation, the length also have the same physical units.

In fact, special relativity cannot be valid at all as it cannot make use of the SI units of measure. If you say "meter", you then cannot have its experimental meaning (metric, size) changed - contracted - for another moving observer.   

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
*
You can start a thread there and ask your question, not here. Funny that you seek approval from people with little knowledge. Not that I want to be blunt, but I see signs of a crackpot. My rational is who would you see if you have a medical problem, a well established certified medical doctor who has experience and known to have treated scores of cases successfully, or a yet to be known or certified person who claimed he can. It may be harsh reality but it is the only way to filter crackpot from genuine breakthrough. In a way you have to wade through the ridicule to get to the shore. My 2 cents, but you are welcome to continue here but it is not going to get you anywhere far...
TSChanRasjid
post Mar 15 2017, 05:21 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
49 posts

Joined: Mar 2017


Youhei Tsubono,
The Institute of Science,
The University of Tokyo,

The web page of the professor examines modern physics, disagreeing with many of the mainstream's views.

Special relativity is wrong:
http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/relativ.html

Black hole is useless, because it's just fiction:
http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/ccritic.html

And many other topics.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

SpikeMarlene
post Mar 15 2017, 09:09 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,237 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
QUOTE(ChanRasjid @ Mar 15 2017, 05:21 AM)
Youhei Tsubono,
The Institute of Science,
The University of Tokyo,

The web page of the professor examines modern physics, disagreeing with many of the mainstream's views.   

Special relativity is wrong:
http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/relativ.html

Black hole is useless,  because it's just fiction:
http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/ccritic.html

And many other topics.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
*
Here is a response to the Youhei Tsubono claims,

https://nige.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/youhe...sion-principle/

Quote,
Richard P. Feynman reviews nonsensical “mathematical” (aka philosophical) attacks on objective critics of quantum dogma in the Feynman Lectures on Physics, volume 3, chapter 2, section 2-6:

“Let us consider briefly some philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. … making observations affects a phenomenon … The problem has been raised: if a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise? A real tree falling in a real forest makes a sound, of course, even if nobody is there. Even if no one is present to hear it, there are other traces left. The sound will shake some leaves … Another thing that people have emphasized since quantum mechanics was developed is the idea that we should not speak about those things which we cannot measure. (Actually relativity theory also said this.) … The question is whether the ideas of the exact position of a particle and the exact momentum of a particle are valid or not. The classical theory admits the ideas; the quantum theory does not. This does not in itself mean that classical physics is wrong.

So my guess is there is a lot of resistance to unorthodox physics, while yet to be demonstrated true or provide a better model to describe observation, some extraordinary claims are obviously false too.
TSChanRasjid
post Mar 15 2017, 01:27 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
49 posts

Joined: Mar 2017


QUOTE(SpikeMarlene @ Mar 15 2017, 09:09 AM)
Here is a response to the Youhei Tsubono claims,

https://nige.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/youhe...sion-principle/

Quote,
Richard P. Feynman reviews nonsensical “mathematical” (aka philosophical) attacks on objective critics of quantum dogma in the Feynman Lectures on Physics, volume 3, chapter 2, section 2-6:

“Let us consider briefly some philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. … making observations affects a phenomenon … The problem has been raised: if a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise? A real tree falling in a real forest makes a sound, of course, even if nobody is there. Even if no one is present to hear it, there are other traces left. The sound will shake some leaves … Another thing that people have emphasized since quantum mechanics was developed is the idea that we should not speak about those things which we cannot measure. (Actually relativity theory also said this.) … The question is whether the ideas of the exact position of a particle and the exact momentum of a particle are valid or not. The classical theory admits the ideas; the quantum theory does not. This does not in itself mean that classical physics is wrong.

So my guess is there is a lot of resistance to unorthodox physics, while yet to be demonstrated true or provide a better model to describe observation, some extraordinary claims are obviously false too.
*
Of course there will always be people who disagree with the views of Youhei Tsubono - nothing unusual. What I wanted to show is that the media in general does not highlight those dissenting views. Some are from qualified physicists.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.


SUSempatTan
post Mar 16 2017, 05:33 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,678 posts

Joined: Mar 2016


Hoi mangkuk! D earth is flat. Oh yessir it is!
puchongite
post Mar 16 2017, 09:31 AM

20k VIP Club
*********
All Stars
23,166 posts

Joined: May 2008
QUOTE(empatTan @ Mar 16 2017, 05:33 AM)
Hoi mangkuk! D earth is flat. Oh yessir it is!
*
What is your point ? Who is the mangkuk ?
SUSempatTan
post Mar 16 2017, 02:52 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,678 posts

Joined: Mar 2016


I wish d mangkok best of luck in trying to disprove Einstein!

2 Pages  1 2 >Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0264sec    0.65    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 27th June 2022 - 07:09 PM