a story about special relativity,who can explain it?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by TonyYuan, Mar 17, 2020.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,023
    And in effect, that's the same as I said here in the following two posts........
    In other words, light/photons have a longer path to travel in curved spacetime, caused by the presence of mass/energy, and so from the PoV of an outside FoR, it "appears" to be travelling slower.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2020
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,023
    A photon has no rest mass: It does though have momentum.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,525
    I think we're all wasting our time on Tony, he's only interested in peddling his anti-relativity crank notions. He just keeps repeating himself while ignoring the facts.
     
    Janus58 and paddoboy like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,525
    I'll say this once and then leave you to your nonsense.

    Both GR and SR have been working theories for a long time, proving to predict with accuracy a range of experiments from cosmology to particle accelerators to even our own GPS systems. For there to be considered a variable light speed, a host of successful physics concepts and theories would have to re-written as pointed out by G. Ellis: "(1) must redefine distance measurements (2) must provide an alternative expression for the metric tensor in general relativity (3) might contradict Lorentz invariance (4) must modify Maxwell's equations (5) must be done consistently with respect to all other physical theories."

    So, for you, Tony, to just come along and claim that the speed of light is not a constant (and SR and GR are wrong) based on your quackery only makes you look the total fool, but if that's your goal here, then you're succeeding. To then say that you're a teacher who feels his students are getting bamboozled by current theories would demonstrate you're either not a teacher at all or at least a very bad one.
     
    paddoboy and exchemist like this.
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,779
    ^This.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,023
    well said!
     
  10. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    440
    (3) might contradict Lorentz invariance (4) must modify Maxwell's equations
    If you know history, you won't say that.
    The Lorenz transformation is only a mathematical derivation based on the premise that the speed of light is constant, and then there is a special relativity. Maxwell's equation was recognized before the theory of relativity came out. Do you mean that it is also derived based on relativity?


    only makes you look the total fool, but if that's your goal here, then you're succeeding. To then say that you're a teacher who feels his students are getting bamboozled by current theories would demonstrate you're either not a teacher at all or at least a very bad one.
    What you said is only because my theory is inconsistent with the mainstream theory. I hope you can find problems or learn knowledge from my physical model.
    However, I admire your straightforward character. Without a theory, it is smooth sailing.

    #post 242, 244
    The last quote is the English translation of what Einstein said in German in 1916: “die Ausbreitungsge-schwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert”. That translates to “the propagation speed of light with the place varies”. Einstein never did abandon his variable speed of light. The people who tell you that grew up before the Einstein digital papers were online. The general relativity they were taught wasn’t the same as Einstein’s.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2020
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,023

    And history tells us that over the last 100 years or so, if there was any fault with SR/GR, it would be already discussed and sorted. There isn't.

    Your theory is inconsistent yes, and it is wrong, also yes, and it fails to account for what is observed and modeled with SR/GR.
     
  12. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    440
    GR I think it is correct, and it is also widely used. You can look at GR and SR, you will find that GR does not recognize that the speed of light is constant.

    Einstein said the speed of light is constant in 1905 when he was doing special relativity, but by 1907 he was broadening his horizons and looking into what would become general relativity. That’s when he wrote a paper on the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it. He used Φ (phi) to denote gravitational potential, and he said this: “These equations too have the same form as the corresponding equations of the nonaccelerated or gravitation-free space; however, c is here replaced by the value c[1 + γξ/c²] = c[1 + Φ/c²]. From this it follows that those light rays that do not propagate along the ξ-axis are bent by the gravitational field”. Only two years after his special relativity postulate, there’s Einstein talking about a speed of light that varies with gravitational potential. This wasn’t some one-off. He said the same thing in 1911. That’s when he wrote a paper on the influence of gravity on the propagation of light. He said this: “If c₀ denotes the velocity of light at the coordinate origin, then the velocity of light c at a point with a gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c₀(1 + Φ/c²). The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light does not hold in this theory in the formulation in which it is normally used as the basis of the ordinary theory of relativity”. He said the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light does not hold.

    The assumption that the speed of light is constant is no longer accepted. Then the biggest loss will be Hollywood, there will be no time and space shuttle, no wormhole. The people of the future no longer come to the present earth. In fact, we have never found humans from the future.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2020
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,023
    SR is a subset, or special case of GR. Both are outstandingly successful theories that have many practical uses and benefits.
    You are not going to invalidate it on any science forum open to all and sundry.
     
  14. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    440
    Please take a closer look at what Einstein said.
    In addition, I want to emphasize that classical physics theories can also explain various scientific problems well.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2020
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,023
    I don't need to. We have had plenty of people coming here, misquoting or misinterpreting Einstein. You apparently are just one more.
    take it easy.
     
  16. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    440
    It should include Einstein himself.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Where is Janus? We really need an astronomer and a physicist to give us some advice. Where are you?
     
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,525
    Seriously Tony, how much bullshit can you spew in one thread?

    The speed of light (c), is a fundamental key built into the geometry of our four dimensional spacetime, which is made up of null vectors that determines the structural geometry of our universe such that traveling on paths at c through spacetime run tangent to those null vectors. If the speed of light were not constant, predictions for experiments and their findings would be wrong, but they are right and not only right, but they are accurate.
     
  18. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    440
    Please read carefully what Einstein said.
    You may be the most objectionable to my opinion of this thread. I have written my theory and illustrated it with graphics. You can find out the problem and write the reason for your objection. We better focus on a specific thing. The universe is too big for us, and it is not clear what we have discussed for 100 years.
    Where is Janus?
     
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,525
    You're a complete and total smeghead.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,023
    It doesn't...It's just those with delusions of grandeur, that misquote or misinterpret or take out of context what he has said.
    Janus is not one to be sucked in repeatedly answering the same questions over and over. He's said his piece, and that is you are wrong...live with it.
     
  21. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    440
    It is believed that the eyes of the masses are clear, theories that can stand the debate and reasoning are correct, and theories based on those hypotheses are questionable.

    You are all my friends, and we are together in search of truth. I learned a lot here, thank you very much.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,023
    That's nice...and just to show I appreciate it....
     
  23. TonyYuan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    440
    This is a song by Teresa Teng, a singer in Hong Kong, China.
    Human beings have created many great nations, such as China, Britain, France, Russia, Finland, the United States, Canada, and so on, but we have only one home, the earth.
    Europe and the United States have created brilliant scientific achievements in the past few hundred years. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and so on. They have contributed all and even life to science. We need to thank them for their efforts. But the road of scientific exploration will never stop. He needs us to innovate, question and think.
     

Share This Page