/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15019040]

How accurate is pic related to modern physics researchers?

[Anonymous No.15019048]

This meme is stupid.

You measure something to be X, you find the theory says it should be Y, you double check your equipment and measure X again, of course you need to change your theory.

[Anonymous No.15019055]

>>15019048
So what you're saying is that relativity is wrong?

[Anonymous No.15019061]

>>15019040
How accurate is pic related to /sci/ posters, verified to have the lowest IQ of any board on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.15019064]

>>15019061
>being this triggered and buttmad about this thread
>being this triggered and buttmad that Einstein was wrong about relativity

[Anonymous No.15019072]

>>15019064
>I'm still mad about being filtered by Lorentz transforms

[Anonymous No.15019079]

>>15019072
>muh Lorentz transforms
Bro, nobody said that Lorentz transforms are invalid. All anyone is saying is that Einsteinian relativity is wrong. Lorentz transforms predate EInsteinian relativity. You realize that, right?
>I'm still mad that the entire physics community including myself is filtered by Lorentz transforms hence why no one has actually understood their implications yet

[Anonymous No.15019089]

>>15019040
Things for which this approach worked, multiple times:
>Discovery of new planets
>Discovery of new stars
>Discovery of new particles

Given a long history of this working, physicists decide to use it for dark matter too.

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Sterilize your low IQ self.

[Anonymous No.15019097]

>>15019089
>muh new planets
They didn't take this much of a grasping at straws approach
>muh new stars
They didn't take this much of a grasping at straws approach
>muh new particles
Prove they exist

[Anonymous No.15019128]

>>15019097
>Uranus doesn't move like it should, there must be some other planet we can't quite see yet.
>Turns out there is, we call it Neptune.

>sounds of (you) screeching in the background.

Boy you're gonna hate to learn about the periodic table of elements.

[Anonymous No.15019139]

>>15019128
>>Uranus doesn't move like it should, there must be some other planet we can't quite see yet.
>>Turns out there is, we call it Neptune.
Okay, and? There is a big as fuck difference between
>this planet's orbit suggests there is some other planet, so there likely is some other big planet
and
>the predicted results of these equations in accordance with this theory some jew thought up in his head are not even remotely in alignment with observed reality, so let's just pretend a bunch of matter and energy that don't actually exist exist, because otherwise it's antisemitic!

[Anonymous No.15019152]

>>15019139
You do understand that relativity is used on a daily basis on a number of systems, right? Including GPS and shit you probably use too.
It's the same as the Uranus example. We have some math that works well, but it's not explaining this. Gravitational lensing from certain galaxies bends the light more than it should from the emmited spectrum, so either there is more mass there than we can see (this is why they came up with 'dark' matter), or something else is wrong. Given how good relativity is at the other shit, dark matter is popular.

[Anonymous No.15019154]

>>15019152
>muh GPS
You don't need relative simultaneity or non-absolute time. You just need information delay.
>muh gravitational lensing
The general idea of space and/or light's path warping around massive objects does not require SR to work. Sure it's the basis of GR but it's up to you if you even want to still call it GR after you throw out the SR nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15019158]

>>15019154
Explain why we can measure mesons from the upper atmosphere on the surface of mountains when their lifetime is way too short for them to make that trip without SR.
Is it "DA JOOZ" messing with the duration of time again?

[Anonymous No.15019163]

>>15019158
>whoa guys, at high speed something behaves differently, its process go slower
>that must mean time is relative!!!
Bro, never go full retard again, alright?

[Anonymous No.15019170]

>>15019163
>its process go slower
Can you try typing again in human speak please?
Let me try to explain in a way that even a baboon like you would understand.
The measured mesons behave exactly like SR would predict if it were correct, which is why most non-baboons think SR is correct.
If you can derive a theory from your baboon speak, you're always free to present it.

[Anonymous No.15019171]

>>15019170
>something gets farther than you would expect
>sane person attributes this to processes (aging, decay, etc) going slower at higher velocity
>insane person attributes this to jewish timefuckery
Clear enough for you, supertard? I hope so because you're the insane one.

[Anonymous No.15019180]

>>15019171
You're not arguing with me, anon. You're arguing with detectors and stopwatches. I can't think of anything more retarded than that. Imagine arguing against measurements.

[Anonymous No.15019186]

>>15019180
>muh process goes slower at velocity
>that means muh time is not absolute!
no you absolute fucktard. If radioactive decay and other processes go slower at higher velocity then the numbers will be the same as if you cry "muh special relativity!!!"
you are an actual retard and you believe in jew science

[Anonymous No.15019200]

>>15019186
>NOOOOO PARTICLES ARE AWARE OF THEIR SPEED DONT ASK ME HOOOOW
>SOMEONE IN AN INERTIAL FRAME KNOWS THEY'RE GOING FAST BY SOME MAGIC DON'T ASK ME HOW THEY KNOW IT
Ok, baboon.

[Anonymous No.15019203]

>>15019200
>processes require awareness
>someone in a non-inertial frame knows they are accelerating but someone in an intertial frame doesn't know they're traveling, don't ask me how they know one and not the other
okay roody-poo

[Anonymous No.15019208]

>>15019200
>thinking that a process happening slower when at a higher velocity is more unreasonable than time being arbitrary
Never go full retard EVER AGAIN, okay?

[Anonymous No.15019211]

>>15019203
You got filtered by Galilean relativity, anon.
>If I move towards a stationary muon it suddenly knows that it's moving relative to me and suddenly knows it has to decay at a different rate. If someone else is moving towards it at a different speed it has to decay a different rate for them too, simultaneously
>This makes more sense to a baboon than imagining the muon always has the same decay rate regardless of frame reference.

[Anonymous No.15019215]

>>15019211
You are assuming that Einstein was correct about constant c relative to observer. Try again and this time without circular argument.

[Anonymous No.15019223]

>>15019215
No, moron. I'm not assuming that. Don't move the goalposts now that it's obvious you're a retard.
You said a muon somehow knows at what rate to decay by which speed its moving, but the problem is the muon is never moving on its own frame of reference. A muon in uniform movement across vacuum has no way of knowing that it is in movement. If your affirmation is that it has a way of knowing this, this goes far beyond special relativity, and breaks the entirety of everything we know about physics from even before newton.
You're just too retarded to understand how retarded you are.

[Anonymous No.15019229]

>>15019223
Yes, you are assuming it, retard.

[Anonymous No.15019232]

>>15019229
How does your muon know it is moving, anon?

[Anonymous No.15019243]

>>15019232
Do you even understand how stupid of a question this is? It shows you don't understand even basic physics.

[Anonymous No.15019245]

>>15019243
Oh ok, so this is either a bot or you're just conceding. Thanks anon, it was fun to play around for a while. Got me to refresh my memory on those first 2 years of the physics course.

[Anonymous No.15019246]

>>15019245
The last reply (>>15019243) is not me but he is right.
The muon doesn't 'know' it is moving because it is not conscious and as such cannot 'know' anything. The universe acts on it differently depending on its velocity through the universe.

[Anonymous No.15019303]

>>15019186
Look at how mad this retard troll is getting
He started this thread just to piss people off and now is getting triggered that his IQ is 105 max

[Anonymous No.15019323]

>>15019303
>muh IQ

[Anonymous No.15019339]

>>15019303
>loses argument
>"wow he's so mad haha ignore that i messed up and revealed my ignorance"
Yeah that's about the state of /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15020070]

>>15019072
>he doesn't understand the Prandtl-Glauert-Lorentz transformation
>he conflates it with Einstein's relativity
lmao

[Anonymous No.15020073]

>>15019061
except einstein invented (read: made up) relativity to disprove M-M :)

[Anonymous No.15020117]

>>15019040
>>15019061
>>15020073

[Anonymous No.15020129]

>>15019089
You can observe all of those with the right equipment. Dark matter by definition doesn't interact with the universe except through gravity, and only at large distances. You can't observe dark matter in your living room.

[Anonymous No.15020183]

>>15019055
We dont have any model that explains everything, instead we have a group of different models that explain different parts of nature which will eventually be replaced with one giant theory of everything. So yeah I guess you could say they're wrong in the sense that they aren't 100% correct but to dismiss the entire theory because of some unknown variables is retarded

[Anonymous No.15020188]

>>15020183
>they're wrong in the sense that they aren't 100% correct but to dismiss the entire theory because of some unknown variables is retarded
That's what happened when Einstein developed relativity. He only added linguistic confusion to mathematical models that were already there, and dismissed all mechanical models because of some unknown variable (the mechanical cause of Lorentz contraction).
Is relativity retarded?

[Anonymous No.15020201]

>>15020188
Do you have a better theory?

[Anonymous No.15020207]

>>15020201
Are you changing the subject because you don't like the answer to my question?

[Anonymous No.15020210]

>>15020207
No I'm saying that no theory is perfect and our current models have glaring issues in them but they're the best we got. You can believe that dark matter is a crutch to make the math work which may be true but the foundation of the rest of the theory is very solid.

[Anonymous No.15020218]

>>15020210
That wasn't the question.
Einstein dismissed the entire theory of classical mechanics because of some unknown variable. Is he retarded?

[Anonymous No.15020313]

>>15020117
based
>>15020210
For GR? Maybe. But SR in its entirety is absolute trash.
>>15020218
In a way yes in a way no, Einstein is fairly smart but not as smart as people give him credit for, and he got relativity wrong. He did make some contributions to physics though

[Anonymous No.15020356]

>>15019040
This is how Mendleev invented the modern periodic table, upon which the whole schema of chemistry stands.

[Anonymous No.15020397]

>>15020188
>That's what happened when Einstein developed relativity. He only added linguistic confusion to mathematical models that were already there, and dismissed all mechanical models because of some unknown variable (the mechanical cause of Lorentz contraction).
All of the linguistic confusion comes from low IQ faggots who can't understand that words like "observer" are used as a euphemism for coordinate systems and transformations, or who constantly try to oversimplify relativity and lose all of its complexity and meaning in the process.

>>15020218
>Einstein dismissed the entire theory of classical mechanics because of some unknown variable. Is he retarded?
The problem with mechanics wasn't some unknown variable, the problem with mechanics is that it wasn't compatible in its classical form with electrodynamics, and requires a more complete understanding of how interactions translate across different coordinate systems in order to remove all those inconsistencies between the models. Lorentz and Poincare's derivations, Einstein's derivations, Minkowski's derivations - they're all just different facets of the same underlying physics. General Relativity, in turn, follows from the application of these principles to accelerating reference frames and the realization of the inherent indistinguishability between acceleration and gravitation.

What has followed - dark matter, dark energy, etc. - is an attempt to explain a handful of inconsistencies with an otherwise working model before resorting to throwing SR and GR (and everything that they've successfully predicted) and starting from fucking scratch. Replacing SR/GR means coming up with new explanations for everything SR predicts about atomic and nuclear physics and electroweak theory, everything GR predicts about orbital mechanics, etc. For the time being it is easier to develop and test hypotheses under the presumption that there's some type of matter or interaction that we've overlooked or been unable to observe

[Anonymous No.15020504]

>>15020397
>All of the linguistic confusion comes from low IQ faggots who can't understand that words like "observer" are used...
... irrelevantly, because what "observers" (an euphemism for "coordinate systems" and "transformations") see does not affect reality. Observation (an euphemism for mathematical description) is not a physical cause.

>The problem with mechanics wasn't some unknown variable, the problem with mechanics is that it wasn't compatible in its classical form with electrodynamics...
... because you arbitrarily reject potentials as anything but a mathematical convenience. But they fit perfectly the role they were created for by Maxwell.

>Lorentz and Poincare's derivations, Einstein's derivations, Minkowski's derivations - they're all just different facets of the same underlying physics...
... which was discarded in favor of Einstein's immaterial, non-mechanical, uncaused spacetime.

>General Relativity, in turn...
... adds nothing that the classical theory of refraction didn't already tell us, but does so with tensor calculus for the pleasure of mathematicians.

>What has followed - dark matter, dark energy, etc. - is an attempt to explain...
... why the post-Einstein paradigm, having exhausted all its tricks, fails to give as coherent a view of physics as the classical mechanical, that could be codified in a "theory of everything" or "grand unified theory", equivalent to the classical theory of aether that pre-Einstein physicists sought.
After all, if the "failure" of classical physicists in detecting an aether was enough evidence against the idea to force us to discard it altogether, what does the modern failure of achieving a GUT or a TOE tell us about modern physics?

[Anonymous No.15020526]

>>15020218
Einstein dismissed the entire model because he found something better. Do you have a better theory?

[Anonymous No.15020541]

>>15019040
*of modern high energy theorists who specialize in quantum gravity
of that small subset?
perhaps
however there is a shit ton more to physics than that tiny specialized region

[Anonymous No.15020545]

>>15020526
>Einstein dismissed the entire model because he found something better.
But he didn't. He added interpretations he liked to things that already existed, in particular the Lorentz transformation.

[Anonymous No.15020606]

>>15020541
And, you know, everyone that believes in ERT (Einsteinian Relativity Theory).
>inb4 b-but Einstein didn't invent relativity!
Exactly. Galilean relativity is fine. SR is absolute trash, and the timefuckery that underlies SR IS Einstein's idea (inb4 m-muh Poincare etc, yes they had ideas that had similarities to SR but they didn't go full retard with timefuckery), and GR while it may have some truth and does have some good ideas is ultimately wrong in that it tries to incorporate and build on SR

[Anonymous No.15020612]

>>15020545
there's loads of tangible evidence that only works under relativity, like the fact that we have atomic clocks in satellites that regularly go out of sync if you don't account for time dilation.

[Anonymous No.15020623]

>>15020612
>this retard again
Bro, get out. It has already been explained to you that information delay and slowed processes at high velocities do not mean time dilation. Time dilation is just ONE way of describing/explaining what is going on, and it is the most farfetched of all the explanations that have been provided. But dumbfucks latch onto it because
>muh Einstein

[Anonymous No.15020628]

>>15020623
I just entered the thread faggot i have no idea who you're complaining about. Maybe there's more than one person that argues for SR because it's the most accepted argument for time inconsistencies you autist?

[Anonymous No.15020630]

>>15020628
>the most accepted argument
Whoa, something must be right or valid just because some retards accept it. You must have a triple digit IQ anon, your mommy must be so proud of you!

[Anonymous No.15020631]

>>15020630
that's not all what i'm saying, you have the social intelligence of a sloth

[Anonymous No.15020644]

>>15020631
Sloths are based as fuck so thank you anon. :) Also, SR is wrong.

[Anonymous No.15020733]

>>15020504
>because you arbitrarily reject potentials as anything but a mathematical convenience. But they fit perfectly the role they were created for by Maxwell
Maxwell's Laws are not invariant under classical Gallilean laws for mechanics and coordinate transform. The changes to coordinate transform (Lorentz/Poincare/Einstein/Minkowski) that make Maxwell's Laws workable require changes to Mechanics, but still produce equations consistent with basic Newtonian empiricism - just a modified form of it. Momentum and energy are still conserved, they just require an adjustment to their form. If you want to throw out SR, you need to throw out Maxwell's Laws along with it - since SR falls out naturally as a consequence of them.

This is the inherent problem with the people who poo poo relativity. You think if you can pluck our relativity and throw it in the bin without affecting anything that resulted from it or lead to it.

[Anonymous No.15020906]

>>15020733
>Maxwell's Laws are not invariant under classical Gallilean laws for mechanics and coordinate transform.
That's what you'd expect if there was a medium, genius. The wave equation is Lorentz-invariant, not Galiliean-invariant for any medium, even air.

[Anonymous No.15022441]

>>15019040
About as little as it's possible to be. Mathematics isn't science, but a tool of it. I imagine Plato would have hated being photographed with a passion that borders on madness, but still more, enjoy the thought of Epicurus on a spree with one.

[Anonymous No.15022466]

>>15019215
A constant speed of light (Einstein) implies EM field invariance (Lorentz/Poincare) and flat local spacetime (Minkowski)
EM field invariance (Lorentz/Poincare) implies a constant speed of light (Einstein) and flat local spacetime (Minkowski)
Flat local spacetime (Minkowski) implies EM field invariance (Lorentz/Poincare), and a constant speed of light (Einstein)
Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein, and Minkowski's work all follows directly from Maxwell's Laws and the laws of optics.

If Einstein is wrong, Lorentz, Poincare, and Minkowski must also be wrong, and likewise Maxwell's Laws must be wrong and you've now broken 200 years of electrodynamics.

[Anonymous No.15022467]

>>15019064
>>15020073
>>15020117
Wow look at how mad this got people
>>15020117 This post in particular is revealing since the orbit of mercury couldn't be predicted by Newtonian mechanics, and certainly not by electrodynamics (which you realize Einstein also made great contributions to?)

[Anonymous No.15022472]

>>15020733
>>15022466
You're not going to get through to these NPCs with actual arguments about physics when they're too stupid to understand them in the first place
>Verification not required

[Anonymous No.15022475]

>>15020906
Alright, so where's the medium? Naysayers have had 135 years since the MM experiment to try something else to find conclusive experimental evidence of an aether.

>inb4 the Reptilian Shadow Council and Deep Science is covering it up

[Anonymous No.15022476]

>>15022466
Can't break a system that never worked to begin with

[Anonymous No.15022482]

>>15022476
>"Electrodynamics has never worked to begin with." he typed furiously on his computer keyboard.

[Anonymous No.15022747]

>>15022475
>Alright, so where's the medium? Naysayers have had 135 years since the MM experiment to try something else to find conclusive experimental evidence of an aether.
Unless you have a simpler, more self-consistent and more predictive explanation as to why Maxwell's equations comes up in fluid dynamics, or why a transformation strikingly similar to the Lorentz transformation comes up in subsonic aerodynamics (to transform a compressible flow into an incompressible flow, the same simplifying assumption that Lorentz used for his aether, by the way), or why the Schroedinger's equation can be derived from Brownian motion in an ideal fluid, all while explaining the Aharonov-Bohm effect, among other things, I'll argue with these as evidence.

From the perspective of a material, fluid aether, these are facts so obvious that it's barely worth calling them predictions, that would be centuries old by now.
From the perspective of spacetime, there is no a priori reason why these connections to fluid dynamics should exist.

I'm just betting on the simpler and more comprehensive theory to win out in the end. Science is done by trial and error, and no theory is above scrutiny.
We know a great deal more about the dynamics of fluids than we did back then, so it is not surprising that the old aether hypothesis may be worth revisiting.
After all, you never know when you have a caloric in your hands, where the correct mechanical theory of heat, once widely accepted, had been replaced by caloric theory due to lack of development, before winning out in the end.

>>inb4 the Reptilian Shadow Council and Deep Science is covering it up
Why say this? Are you not confident enough to argue in good faith?

[Anonymous No.15022936]

>>15022467
>couldn't be predicted by Newtonian mechanics
False, but regardless, Einsteinian relativity is not the only alternate means
>which you realize Einstein also made great contributions to
Okay? Most of us are not denying that Albert was a smart guy and made contributions to physics. The problem is not with him. The problem is with his version of Relativity theory. Are you retarded? Honest question.
>>15022466
>If Einstein is wrong, Lorentz, Poincare, and Minkowski must also be wrong, and likewise Maxwell's Laws must be wrong and you've now broken 200 years of electrodynamics.
Except all of those things came before SR, retard.
>>15020733
>since SR falls out naturally as a consequence of them.
No. SR is one interpretation of something that arises from them.
>You think if you can pluck our relativity and throw it in the bin without affecting anything that resulted from it or lead to it.
I understand why someone may mistakenly believe that throwing out SR requires throwing out the things it led to, but I won't even bother explaining why that is wrong, because your claim that it also requires throwing out the things that led to SR shows that you are an actual retard, sub 70 IQ (unless of course you are referring to relative time, and c being relative to observer, as being things that lead to SR rather than referring to them as part of SR; of course, those should be thrown out whether you consider them explicitly part of SR or not)
>>15022747
Wow, a smart person on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15022943]

>>15022747
>Why say this? Are you not confident enough to argue in good faith?
Considering he retreated into his hole without a peep after you trounced him, I doubt he has the intelligence to even respond.

[Anonymous No.15024228]

>>15022747
Going to take the time to sit down and read through both Ungs and Marmanis' papers in greater detail over the next few days because they are interesting reads. Based on the notes I've made so far I think I can offer some insight as to why the similarities show up: The parallels between the equations governing electrodynamics (ED) and fluid dynamics (FD) are a consequence of both arising from similar conservation laws - conservation of energy, momentum, and either mass (FD) or charge (ED). These properties are invariant under transformation and can be expressed in terms of scalar and vector potentials (ϕ and A for ED, u and Φ for FD in Marmanis' formalism or in some variations u and Φ). The mathematics of vectors results in more parallels - diverging E-fields and Lamb vectors, non-diverging B-fields and vorticities, etc. And both end up being expressible in the same four-vector formalism as a result of these parallels.

Ungs explicitly imposes the condition that the maximum speed of transport (speed of sound) is a constant for both his incompressible and compressible frames (see his note in Table 1), and this assumption leads directly to the Lorentz gauge invariance he arrives at at the end of his derivation. In short, he does exactly what Einstein does in deriving the transformation laws in his 1905 paper. Where the similarities (ostensibly) end is in the validity of the imposed condition on transport. While we can experimentally demonstrate that the speed of sound is *not* a constant for all inertial reference frames, the same cannot be said for the speed of light.

While I will admit the parallels in Ungs and Marmanis make for an intriguing indication of how one might start to go about revising the connection between CM and ED **if** SR were falsified through some experimental observation (ex. reproducible superluminal motion), I would submit that the existence of this parallel alone is not a substitute for that experimental evidence.

[Anonymous No.15024233]

>>15022943
Some of us work for a living, faggot.

[Anonymous No.15024296]

>>15024228
Read this and save yourself some time.

[Anonymous No.15024846]

>>15024228
I appreciate you taking the time to consider my argument
Note that I do NOT assert that SR/GR are false, or at least, if they are, there has to exist an equivalent error in aether theory, and I claim that the presence of this error would be easier to spot under this perspective
I should remind you that SR was preferred over Lorentz's alternative purely on aesthetic grounds of parsimony. The simpler explanation should be preferred. In the narrow view of the Michelson-Morley experiment, that was SR, but in the broader context, it is not necessarily the simplest, most explanatory theory

I understand where you are coming from, but how many coincidental formal similarities are needed, before we are allowed to conjecture that they derive from a mechanical similarity?
The scientific method is at its core inductive, at some point you are going to have to make an hypothesis based on the repeated patterns you see in the empirical evidence
What about added mass? What about Brownian motion? What about Aharonov-Bohm? What about Cherenkov radiation? What about quantum hydrodynamics? Etc
How similar has spacetime to be to a fluid, before we declare it a fluid?

If we stubbornly kept Lorentz's view of an incompressible aether, took notice of Prandtl-Glauert's compressibility correction and related it to the Lorentz transformation, we wouldn't have had reason to believe anything like SR to be the case, since all those formal similarities you mentioned would be accounted for by mechanics
Within classical physics, fluid dynamics playing such a fundamental role would be completely unremarkable, and that vector calculus is its language no more surprising than calculus being so for mechanics, because the fluid dynamics of an ideal compressible fluid (which I claim the aether be) is nothing more than the Newtonian mechanics of innumerably many bodies, inheriting all the conservation laws you know and love for free, without need for any sort of mathematical sophistication

[Anonymous No.15024847]

>>15024228
>Where the similarities (ostensibly) end is in the validity of the imposed condition on transport.
>While we can experimentally demonstrate that the speed of sound is *not* a constant for all inertial reference frames, the same cannot be said for the speed of light.
Because in the Einsteinian-relativistic paradigm, an objective slowing down of the speed of light due to differences in density (= compression of the medium) is translated to a slowing down of time by GR, while a subjective slowing down of the speed of light due to motion of the observer is transformed into a deformation of space (and time).

The objective slowing down of light "due to gravity" was Einstein's original conception of light and gravity, with which he derived that light would bend under the effect of gravity.
This is in agreement with Newton's questions in his Opticks, to which he answered positively. In turn, Newton gave mechanical reason as to why light would slow down and what gravity is, which Einstein simply ignored, not being an a fan of aether.

The subjective slowing down is what is addressed by Ungs's paper.
Lorentz assumed an incompressible aether, whether as a simplifying assumption or because he believed it. Euler, before him, advocated for it to be a compressible medium.
Because of the assumption of incompressibility, it is natural that he would stumble upon the same transformation used by Prandtl-Glauert to transform a compressible flow into an incompressible one: any discrepancy would push him towards it, and did.

>I would submit that the existence of this parallel alone is not a substitute for that experimental evidence.
I agree with you, but as I mentioned before, it is not this parallel *alone* that exists, but a slew of otherwise unexplained parallels all pointing to fluid dynamics, therefore I stand by my opinion.

[Anonymous No.15024890]

>>15019040
>Have gravitational tgeory
>It works well
>In some places there are sources of attraction but no visible mass
>Probably there is undetectable mass there
There, now even a retard like you can understand dark matter

[Anonymous No.15025005]

>>15024847
It's interesting that Newton also hints at the origin of dark matter too, explaining that the density of the aether increases continuously the further out you go from celestial bodies.

[Anonymous No.15026722]

>>15025005
I don't think aether density per se has anything to do with dark matter, because the aether is not gravitational, being the cause of gravity.
On that account I'm partial to plasma cosmology (not EU) since it tries to do without dark matter altogether, but I'm that not into cosmology.

Dark matter as a concept evolved alongside that of blackholes, from John Michell's 1783 theorization of dark stars (the Newtonian gravity equivalent of blackholes), then Lord Kelvin and then Poincaré picked it up and gave them the name. So, originally, dark matter referred to the classical equivalent of blackholes. They were stars that were dark due to their high mass, with none of the miraculous time-and-space bending properties of modern blackholes, or the mysterious origin and indetectability of modern dark matter. So very much like acoustic blackholes.

[Anonymous No.15026761]

The analogy is a bit weak, since we have not yet observed any case of 1 + 1 = 3 happening.

[Anonymous No.15026964]

>>15026722
>I don't think aether density per se has anything to do with dark matter, because the aether is not gravitational, being the cause of gravity.
I disagree, I don't think the aether particles are exempt from gravity. Without relativity there's no good reason to believe that any particle can be massless. If the aether itself has its own gravity, this would increase the overall cohesion of galaxies beyond what we see.

[Anonymous No.15026984]

>>15022936
>False, but regardless, Einsteinian relativity is not the only alternate means
Are you fucking kidding me?
>Okay? Most of us are not denying that Albert was a smart guy and made contributions to physics. The problem is not with him. The problem is with his version of Relativity theory. Are you retarded? Honest question.
No you're just shifting the goalposts over and over again

Seriously, think about how strong your intellectual arguments must be if your go-to move is to insult the intelligence of the arguer. You have no fucking leg to stand on, you're delusional butthurt idiots
>>15024296
>I LaTeXed it so it has to be right!
This paper contains several errors I will be quantifying in a later post

[Anonymous No.15027008]

Dear God this thread is pure cope. Is this guy a 2nd year physics student?
>dark matter doesn't make sense therefore we have to abandon all modern physics and go back to one which cannot accurately predict the motion of planets, cannot accurately predict light curves around stars, cannot predict delays in atomic clocks, but oh boy it doesn't have that messy "dark matter" I don't like!

I'm halfway expecting electric universe boogaloo any second now.

[Anonymous No.15027011]

>>15022936
>79 posts
>19 posters
You literally called einstein retarded here, or if not you someone arguing on your behalf >>15020218 Just thinking it's you because you have the same annoying faggot valley girl habit of ending posts with a question like you're so much smarter than everyone, and the fact that the posts vs poster count suggests it's the same few people making the replies
This entire set of conjectures in in hilariously bad faith since it seems to have the explicit goal of disproving Einstein's relativity, not finding the truth

[Anonymous No.15027029]

>>15026964
If there is an aether, gravity would simply be the result of differences in aether pressure and density.
There is no mechanical reason for aether particles to be attracted to each other.

[Anonymous No.15027030]

>>15022476
But it does work. Maybe you should learn some maths and physics and do your own experiments to try and prove your theories wrong. If you are correct it should be very hard to disprove yourself but I have a feeling you will find it very easy if you actually put the effort in.

[Anonymous No.15027034]

science schizos are the funnies bunch
>know nothing about maths, so they can't even write a paper with a bunch of abstract equations
>have zero equipment and experimental knowledge so they are even incapable of testing the veracity of their claims
What schizos can only do is make images in MSPaint and PDFs in Microsoft Word full of colored and underlined words with basic geometric shapes sandwitched between paragraphs of badly formatted text

[Anonymous No.15027067]

>>15027008
hey electric universe is nifty, don't knock it just because someone is being a retard

[Anonymous No.15027090]

>>15026984
>This paper contains several errors I will be quantifying in a later post
Sure you will

[Anonymous No.15027098]

>>15027029
Even if you allow that the aether particles aren't attracting each other, they will still be attracted to celestial bodies (we know that they cause photons to refract), and celestial bodies will also be attracted to dense regions of aether to some extent as well.

[Anonymous No.15027167]

>>15027098
>they will still be attracted to celestial bodies (we know that they cause photons to refract)
Well, they will be pushed towards zones of lower density and pressure by the particles in zones of higher density and pressure.
But it would be incorrect to say that they are gravitating towards the low-pressure celestial bodies, unless you're fine saying that a fluid's particles gravitate towards a body immersed in it. The pressure *is* gravity, and matter forms zones of low pressure in the aether, presumably due to its ultimate composition.

>and celestial bodies will also be attracted to dense regions of aether to some extent as well.
And here I simply disagree, because, by the above reasoning, they would be pushed away from them.

[Anonymous No.15027379]

>>15026984
retard
>>15027011
I am the first person you quoted, not the second. Also, he didn't say Einstein is retarded, he suggested that by the logic of the anon he replied to, Einstein would be retarded.
>This entire set of conjectures in in hilariously bad faith since it seems to have the explicit goal of disproving Einstein's relativity, not finding the truth
To find the truth, surely we must stop basing our searches on a false framework, no?

[Anonymous No.15027383]

>>15027034
>>know nothing about maths, so they can't even write a paper with a bunch of abstract equations
>>have zero equipment and experimental knowledge so they are even incapable of testing the veracity of their claims
You're talking about Einstein, right? Because you justt described him perfectly.

[Anonymous No.15027404]

>>15019055
>>15019064
I wonder how strong is your foundation in trigonometry. Because I am sure you are just a cork sniffing faggot that can't even do math.

[Anonymous No.15027442]

>>15027167
>Well, they will be pushed towards zones of lower density and pressure by the particles in zones of higher density and pressure.
Right, but what particles are small enough to push photons around toward regions of lower pressure? What's likely happening is that we have photons pushing photons. Thus, the aether is composed of photons, and these photons are also affected gravitationally by the aether.

>matter forms zones of low pressure in the aether, presumably due to its ultimate composition.
I think there are multiple forces at work. Large celestial bodies absorb aether particles from collisions, which is how they create a low-pressure zone around themselves that creates gravitational attraction. Aether particles themselves can also be subject to this gravitational pressure. And over very large distances, the aether particles can effectively act as large, diffuse gravitational bodies composed of "ponderable" matter.

To some extent it depends what you consider the aether to be composed of. If you include all of the photons that stars are radiating into space, and consider that they all must have mass, then there's a great deal of mass that exists in transit between stars.

[Anonymous No.15027537]

>>15027442
>Thus, the aether is composed of photons, and ...
Photons (I believe) are collective excitations of aether particles, i.e. waves, that are quantized, i.e. described as if they were particles. I don't think that it's a particle at all. They are like phonons.
These photon "particles", then, are affected by "gravity", simply because waves in a medium are affected by changes in density and pressure, and gravity is an observed effect of difference in pressure.
I'll admit that I have not looked much into photons, but if sound waves can be described through quantized phonons, which we know not to be actual particles of the medium, then I'll keep the option open for light to be the same, if we also allow ourselves to have a fluid medium in which it travels. The closer we can keep to classical mechanics the better.

>Large celestial bodies absorb aether particles from collisions, which ...
I'm more in favor of (extrapolating from) Lord Kelvin's theory of vortex atoms, that matter should ultimately not really be material per se (not composed of aether particles), but an effect of aether in motion (vortices), and these vortex atoms are naturally lower in pressure and resist/are shaped by the outside pressure.

>To some extent it depends what you consider the aether to be composed of.
Yeah, I agree. For the sake of the argument, I think that it is composed of ideal corpuscles of identical mass, colliding with each other perfectly elastically. So I don't think that it is anything more complex than an ideal compressible fluid of featureless particles, really.
So I'm inclined to believe that it would be more fruitful to look for electricity in space, as in plasma cosmology, than to try to account for the missing mass of dark matter.

[Anonymous No.15027543]

>>15027442
Also, are you Nathan? I think I've seen him talk about tis "aether composed of photons" idea before.
If you are, PDF related is Marett's 2020 reproduction attempt of Feist's experiment.
Given that you have
>We hypothesize that a careful replication of Feist’s experiment should validate his second hypothesis rather than his first.
in your article, you might be interested in it, especially what he has to say at the end about Feist's results.

[Anonymous No.15028051]

>>15027543
Yes, thank you for bringing this to my attention! I missed this paper in my literature search.

It appears that Marett's data validates Feist's second hypothesis, as I expected. The data is very noisy, unfortunately, but there are clearly two very distinct trend lines for the parallel and perpendicular orientations, with the parallel orientation declining with speed much more quickly. That's encouraging.

[Anonymous No.15028069]

>>15027537
>I'm more in favor of (extrapolating from) Lord Kelvin's theory of vortex atoms, that matter should ultimately not really be material per se (not composed of aether particles), but an effect of aether in motion (vortices), and these vortex atoms are naturally lower in pressure and resist/are shaped by the outside pressure.
The wave theory has a lot going for it, however, one of the things that makes me keep coming back to particles is the fact that there is a LOT of good geological evidence to support the expanding Earth theory, and of course a lot of astrophysical evidence to support the idea that stars expand with age as well (with the official explanation involving changes in fusion processes being incorrect).

That along with light polarization makes me lean toward a corpuscle model as the fundamental nature of matter. We also know, for example from the behavior of common fluids like water, that the motion of these fluids is modeled perfectly well as waves without considering that at a very small scale, water is composed of individual molecules.

[Anonymous No.15028779]

>>15028069
Yeah, I don't have anything against the corpuscular model, I just don't find it plausible personally. This is a debate that goes at least as far back as Newton, I'm just taking Euler's side with some Maxwell thrown in.

The hydrodynamic analogy gives me confidence that light is not a particle, but an excitation in the medium, that doesn't have to be necessarily a longitudinal wave (although, being compressible, it should support them too).
Maxwell spoke about a medium-within-a-medium composed of vortices (magnetic lines), which in an ideal fluid do not naturally dissipate.
The link to turbulence then also explains why it has escaped simple explanation for so long. Turbulent flows are significantly more complex than the simple flows they were studying back then, at the birth of fluid dynamics.
I admit that it's not as clear of an answer as the corpuscle model, but something has to be happening in water too, in order to emulate electromagnetism hydrodynamically, and that's just a liquid.

In the end, what is needed is more experimentation, which we aren't getting enough of.

>We also know, for example from the behavior of common fluids like water, that the motion of these fluids is modeled perfectly well as waves without considering that at a very small scale, water is composed of individual molecules.
Fluid mechanics does consider that the fluid is composed of particles, but it is generally done at a scale where they are too small to be considered individually + at a low Knudsen number, so rather than tracking individual particles, you track control volumes of fluid.
Fluid dynamically, individual volumes of fluid (and thus fluid particles) do not flow forwards with the wave, but oscillate in place.
This is why I object to the photonic aether: if they were particles, then they would participate in waves, but they wouldn't move.

As for expanding celestial bodies, I agree, but like dark matter, I think that cosmology should seek to expand its toolbox first.

[Anonymous No.15028789]

>>15020201

Yes. Materialism is absurd. The Phenomenal is simply Demiurgic appearance without locality and without movement, and, most importantly, without exchange, i.e. an observation cannot be exchanged for a datum.

[Anonymous No.15028839]

>>15027067
It is not nifty, it is as retarded as this thread. It takes more from cave paintings and than it does plasma physics. They really claim they can replace dark matter, but in reality they don't even agree amoung themselves if the Sun has a positive or negative charge. It is heavily based on the baseless writings of a scifi writer, it is very much the scientology of astronomy.

[Anonymous No.15028867]

>>15020183
Its called the Bible, son

[Anonymous No.15028985]

>>15026984
>This paper contains several errors I will be quantifying in a later post
Don't bother dude. Nathan's been spreading his ignorance here for the better part of a year now, maybe longer. He's admitted to getting a BA in physics with a 3.0 GPA from THE OSU. He's a brainlet. When he originally posted his "paper" it was "published" on vixra (and still is—i.e. it's not peer reviewed). Nathan's most egregious error is he doesn't even understand dimensional analysis kek. Don't waste your time, he's braindead.

[Anonymous No.15029018]

>>15028985
The Doppler paper doesn't contain any dimensional analysis, so that can't be the source of errors the paper supposedly contains. Care to clarify?

[Anonymous No.15029058]

>>15029018
Nathan, people have clarified this to you for over a year, and you still don't understand. For any other anons here, czech it out.
https://vixra.org/author/nathan_rapport

[Anonymous No.15029079]

anyone else remember when nathan tried to say photons are spin 2 particles? funniest shit ever

[Anonymous No.15029098]

>>15029058
I'm not Nathan, and I don't particularly care for what is written in the other paper. Can you point to the mistakes in the Doppler article?

[Anonymous No.15029182]

>>15029098
Nice try Nathan. How many physicists have you harassed now?

[Anonymous No.15029197]

>>15029182
I'm not him so I can't give you such a number. Do you have any mistakes to point out or are you only assuming that there are?

[Anonymous No.15029206]

>>15029197
>Gets 3.0 BA in physics from OSU
>Took at most two courses on modern physics, probably getting Bs
>Calls modern physics wrong
>Actual physicists with PhDs mog you so hard you have no defense but to pretend you weren't mogged
>Pretends to be someone else while autistically watching his own thread
Nathan, you're a true schizo. Hold on to that job at Wayfair for as long as you can. You're showing a rapid decline in cognitive ability, and I expect your job is at risk. You're going to be the next Tooker, with none of the charm, a fraction of the wit, and no balls.

[Anonymous No.15029216]

>>15029206
Why do you say that I'm Nathan? I just want to know what his mistakes are. I'm starting to believe that you have none.

[Anonymous No.15029255]

>>15029216
>argues just like nathan
>claims he isn't nathan
this schtick is getting old. call your mom and tell her you love her.

[Anonymous No.15029272]

>>15028985
>i.e. it's not peer reviewed
Nathan here. Just dropping in to mention that the Doppler shift paper has now been peer-reviewed and published (picrel). I've been posting the original version still because the figures in the original are larger and in higher quality.

[Anonymous No.15029278]

>>15029255
I argue like him by... asking you to substantiate your claims? If you breathe like Nathan, does that make you Nathan too?

Also, do you actually have any mistakes to point out in the Doppler paper?

[Anonymous No.15029290]

>>15029272
Congratulations on getting published in a journal with an impact factor equal to 0.25!
>I do not see anything wrong with the author's derivations
Lol. I guess if you're a reviewer for a shit journal, then you're probably unable to see problems where they exist.

[Anonymous No.15029304]

>>15029290
So what mistake did the reviewer miss that you have found?

[Anonymous No.15029458]

schizos be like
>RELATIVITY IS FAKE!!! SCIENCE IS FAKE!!! MODERN SCIENCE DOESN'T GIVE US REAL ANSWERS!!!
and then be like
>what do you mean "what's the ether"? it's like..... IT'S A MEDIUM OK STOP ASKING WHAT IT'S MADE OF, YOU OUGHT TO BE SATISFIED WITH THAT ANSWER

[Anonymous No.15029574]

>>15029458
You will never be a physical theory. You have no use. You have no ontology. You have no epistemology. You are differential geometry twisted into a crude mockery of natural philosophy.

All the "experimental validation" you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock you. Real physicists are disgusted and ashamed of you. Your "students" laugh at your foolish paradoxes behind closed doors.

Engineers are utterly repulsed by you. Decades of practical experience has allowed engineers to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even relativistic effects that "pass" look uncanny and unnatural to a practitioner. Your non-Euclidean geometry is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get an experimenter to use you, he'll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your diseased, circular mathematics.

You will never be a physical theory. You will never be experimentally verified. You wrench out a fake smile every morning and tell yourself it's going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the inconsistency with quantum mechanics creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.

Eventually it will be too much to bear--you'll buy an acoustic interferometer, put it in a wind tunnel, and disprove the Michelson-Morley experiment. Academics will find your publication, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They'll bury you with a headstone marked with your inventor, and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know a failed theory is buried there. Your ideas will decay and go back to the aether, and all that will remain of your legacy is space and time that are unmistakably Euclidean.

This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no curved space.

[Anonymous No.15029581]

>>15029304
He'll never answer.

[Anonymous No.15029621]

>>15020117
Or...How to argue like a flat Earther

[Anonymous No.15029622]

>>15029621
Relativity is basically Flat Earth for Jews.

[Anonymous No.15029625]

>>15029458
Hi, I define the aether here >>15024846 as an ideal compressible fluid embedded in classical Newtonian time and space, a mathematical object that is at least as well defined as Minkowski spacetime, that shares many similarities with the well known substances known as superfluids.
I posted papers about how the aforementioned Minkowski spacetime, Maxwell's electrodynamics and Schroedinger's equation emerge from it here >>15022747, here >>15020906 and here >>15024846, and a preliminary argument on how it could be connected to gravity by looking at Einstein's original conception of general relativity and comparing it to Newton's own ideas here >>15024847.

You can also find a nice historical review of the key experiment that initially casted doubt on the existence of the aether here >>15024296, alongside to a thorough analysis of what the problem actually was. Don't forget to let the author know if you find any mistake!

[Anonymous No.15029629]

>>15029458
>>15029625
P.S.: it may look otherwise to some, but I am not the author of the last paper!

[Anonymous No.15029746]

>>15029629
>look mom, i posted from two different IPs!

[Anonymous No.15029768]

>>15019061
the left can't meme

[Anonymous No.15029770]

>>15029746
Is this "Nathan" you speak of in the room with us right now?

[Anonymous No.15029936]

>>15019089
with this kind of thinking we would still be looking for planet Vulcan

physics has had no significant advancements for the last half century. building the accelerator does not count because that is an engineering feat

[Anonymous No.15030433]

Bit of a vent. I'm starting to realize that I fucking hate physics, during my gymnasial time I was really into astronomy and thought I could get a career at the ESA through astrophysics, and I really liked math a lot, still do. But now that I'm in uni studying physics, I realize I fucking despise it, but LOVE my math(I think it's calculus in English) course, I even go digging around in some mathematical stuff outside of our course. I also have an assignment to hand in due Wednesday but I just can't be arsed to even start, I prefer to study math. Thank you for reading my blogpost.

[Anonymous No.15030561]

>>15029770
It's crazy how far people will go to ignore his papers. With Tooker and Mandlbaur you always see people talking about exactly how they're wrong. With Rapport they just insult him. Nobody has math.

[Anonymous No.15031605]

>>15019061
>he posted it again
>still cant explain why cyclic cataclysm is not valid

[Anonymous No.15031628]

>>15031605
Because it's just heckin' not ok?!!?!?

[Anonymous No.15031739]

>>15019089
>The is aught fallacy is totally fine because it makes me feel better when I use it
Finding new "objects" because we used placeholders and propping up the entire framework of all of modern cosmology with placeholders are not equalz

[Anonymous No.15031745]

>>15019061
kek saved

[Anonymous No.15031749]

>>15031739
This is explained pretty well by >>15029936 with the Planet Vulkan example. Obviously no Planet Vulkan exists. The "dark mass" was just a misunderstanding of how gravity works with multiple bodies.

[Anonymous No.15031763]

>>15019040
I'm just typing here: Now that's cooking with the hamster wheel on.

[Anonymous No.15032030]

>>15029278
>In the end, he never did give a single example of a mistake
pottery

[Anonymous No.15032032]

>>15031745
How new are you?

[Anonymous No.15032044]

>>15032030
No-one ever does. >>15030561 was completely right about the phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.15032275]

>>15019040
I don't care if this is bait. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.15032285]

>>15032044
It's because people have been telling Nathan what he did wrong for over a year now. He never listens. Engaging with details is a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.15032291]

>>15032285
What did he do wrong?

[Anonymous No.15032340]

>>15032291
Reading comprehension, retard. You/Nathan obviously doesn't care. It's just sealioning, and I won't waste my time debunking your shit (again). It's been debunked for over a year now. If you didn't understand it the first time, you won't understand it the seventeenth time.

[Anonymous No.15032366]

>Nathan still doesn't understand Kepler's laws
Kek. no, I won't tell you where it is. Anyone who understands fundamental physics knows where this fuckup is. There are several more significant errors as well.

[Anonymous No.15032428]

>>15032340
I care. I want to know why he's wrong but nobody will tell me. I'm not that good at the kind of math he's working with, so even though I can debunk Mandlbaur easily I'm not sure what Rapport gets wrong.

[Anonymous No.15032436]

>>15032428
>Debunks mandlbaur
>Can't debunk Nathan
It's because you can't actually debunk mandlbaur. You simply regurgitate what others have said while debunking Nathan. You have zero understanding of physics. Why are you even on this board, pseud?

[Anonymous No.15032485]

>>15032436
So you have no answer. Typical.

[Anonymous No.15032500]

>>15032291
>What did he do wrong?
Challenged the sacred cow of physics.

>>15032366
>Kek. no, I won't tell you where it is.
Of course not. You know exactly what the problem is, but instead of simply refuting the argument, which you could have done right away if you were capable of doing so, you continue throwing insults and insist that everyone replying to you is Nathan.

I wonder who's paying this person to post here....

[Anonymous No.15032964]

>>15032285
>It's because people have been telling Nathan what he did wrong for over a year now.
Can you at least link the thread where the mistakes are pointed out, if you don't want to type them out again? You know what they are, so you should know what keywords to search for.

[Anonymous No.15032998]

>>15032964
Not even him but why don't you just try searching 'Nathan' or 'doppler effect' you dumb newfag moron?

[Anonymous No.15032999]

>>15032998
Because I've seen the paper brought up in 5+ threads and either people accept and agree with it or they say some gay shit and don't explain why they hate it. It would take ages trawling through the archive to find a thread where someone actually argues in good faith.

[Anonymous No.15033011]

>>15032998
I did and came up empty handed. He already knows what the mistake is, so I'm asking him to tell me what keywords to look for to search for HIS posts, not Nathan's.

[Anonymous No.15033014]

>>15032999
>either people accept and agree
Lol. Lmao
>It would take ages trawling through the archive to find a thread where someone actually argues in good faith.
Not my problem. His earlier derivation of the doppler shift was nonsensical but he seems to have modified his paper now. In the new version he makes more retarded statements about "observed speed" and more nonsense, so it's probably worse.

[Anonymous No.15033015]

>>15032366
The only place where Kepler's laws of planetary motion would even be applicable, as far as I can see, is the section on Roemer's findings, which simply reiterates them, isn't critical to the main argument, and it seems that even if Kepler's laws were not being accounted correctly by Roemer, it would make the effect even more pronounced?
Setting that section aside, what do Kepler's laws have to do with a purely geometrical derivation of Doppler effect, which is the main point of the paper?

[Anonymous No.15033021]

>>15033014
>In the new version he makes more retarded statements about "observed speed" and more nonsense
Nonsense how? He's using the term correctly in the context of reference frames.

[Anonymous No.15033029]

>>15033021
I can't be arsed to look at it in detail

[Anonymous No.15033069]

>>15033015
>Setting aside the part where I misrepresent fundamental physics, where am I wrong?
Kys pseud.

[Anonymous No.15033083]

>>15029768
science is apparently leftist. go figure.

[Anonymous No.15033085]

>>15032999
>It would take ages trawling through the archive to find a thread where someone actually argues in good faith.
Welcome to research. Something you/Nathan critically fail at. Protip: search for the earlier threads. People tried helping earlier, but quicky realized it was useless. Now I just call him the pseudoscientific schizo he is.
>Verification not required.

[Anonymous No.15033086]

>>15033069
There is no such misrepresentation though, since he's reporting what Roemer did. Even if there were, it is not part of the main argument, it's part of the historical account of the Doppler effect. And if there were, it would only make the effect more pronounced.
So I don't see how skimming over how Roemer accounted for Kepler's laws in the historical account of the Doppler effect invalidates the main argument of the paper, which is purely geometric and not linked to planetary movement.

[Anonymous No.15033094]

>>15033086
Yawn. Like I said, I'm not falling for this sealioning. I find it genuinely hilarious Nathan paid $$$ to get his paper published in a trash journal with an IF of about 0.25.

[Anonymous No.15033096]

>>15029272
published where? nobody gives a shit that you paid someone $50 to publish your lies.
>I do not see anything wrong with the author's derivations, so I would recommend publication of the manuscript
WHAT AN AMAZING REVIEW!

[Anonymous No.15033098]

>>15033094
I don't know who the fuck this Nathan person is but there is no way anyone here actually thinks publishing to fake journals is proof of the validity of claims.

[Anonymous No.15033100]

>>15033096
It's in the screenshot. He submitted it to Physics Essays. I was also thinking about how it got recommended, and then it hit me. What kind of fucking loser volunteers to review a shit journal?

[Anonymous No.15033101]

>>15033085
You clearly care about letting people know that the content of the paper is, in your opinion, incorrect, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
If for every post you made ITT you wrote a sentence explaning what the main mistake is, you would have already substantiated your claim.

Instead, you obstruct every attempt at getting something of value out of you, by providing the keywords to look for to find the post where you do.
Are you sure that YOU are not Nathan, false flagging as a shoddy deboonker to make yourself look better?

[Anonymous No.15033107]

Well we can confirm Nathan is telling the truth about his publication.
>http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1982-3-nathan-rapport-classical-doppler-shift-explains.html
Looks like the prestigious Physics Essays accepts other garbage such as
>http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1986-7-reiner-georg-ziefle-absurd-einstein-s-special-relativity.html
Lol.

[Anonymous No.15033112]

>>15033107
And moar!
>http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1977-12-cyrus-master-khodabakhsh-an-accurate-analysis-of-the-michelson-morley.html
>http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1973-8-reiner-georg-ziefle-einstein-s-bias-blind-spot-it-is-evident.html
Etc. The "Journal" has a good track record of accepting "papers" from cranks.

[Anonymous No.15033115]

>>15033107
>>15033112
Character assassination is not a refutation. What's the mistake in the paper?

[Anonymous No.15033121]

>>15033115
I am beginning to think there isn't a mistake.

[Anonymous No.15033125]

>>15032032
older than you but I don't usually go on /sci/

[Anonymous No.15033142]

>>15033115
That's not character assassination. Physics Essays doesn't have a character to assassinate--it has an objective reputation quantified by its impact factor. You do know what an impact factor is right?

Though I will admit, I originally thought the only schizo crank dedicated enough on this topic to autistically respond whenever someone else does (at any time of the day) would have to be the original author. Upon seeing multiple schizo cranks on Physics Essays, all publishing about the doppler shift refuting Einstein, I now recognize I was wrong. Nathan isn't the only schizo crank invested in this topic, and there are multiple others ITT.

Wouldn't it be funny if you were one of the other cranks linked to? Hmmm.

[Anonymous No.15033150]

>>15033142
>3 lines of nothing
>still hasnt said the error

[Anonymous No.15033155]

>>15033142

[Anonymous No.15033159]

>>15033155
imagine using a gay pyramid posted by a woman, kek.

[Anonymous No.15033171]

>>15033155
ahahahahahahahahah

[Anonymous No.15033172]

>>15033159
>>15033171
Literally grasping at straws lmao.

[Anonymous No.15033175]

>>15033172
so why didn't you link to paul graham's original argument, and instead used the infographic? you didn't even know who paul graham was until you got pwned. hey man, if you want to hinge your argument on a pretty infographic designed by a woman, by all means. back to /pol/ with you. :)

[Anonymous No.15033176]

>>15033159
>>15033171
You have gone down a level

[Anonymous No.15033178]

>>15033175
>a pretty infographic designed by a woman,
Not even the same one kek.
Mine comes from here http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/

You still haven't mentioned what the mistake is. Nathan won.

[Anonymous No.15033180]

>>15033176
you're under the presumption my goal is to disagree (since i can tell you're low iq, i'll flesh it out: that doesn't imply i'm agreeing with you schizos). there is nothing good to come from a good faith engagement with schizo cranks like you/nathan/et al. you all deserve to be mocked and ridiculed as the cranks you are. simple as. the fact you cannot comprehend this is merely extra fuel to the fire.
>verification not required

[Anonymous No.15033183]

>>15029936
>physics has had no significant advancements for the last half century
>plasma processing and cold atmospheric plasmas
>graphene, carbon nanotubes, and novel materials
>development of the standard model
>experimental confirmation of all of majority of particles predicted by standard model
>experimental observation of gravitational waves
There’s a ton of stuff I’m sure I could find if I looked shit up, but that’s off the top of my head

[Anonymous No.15033185]

>>15033180
>Gives a whole paragraph of text explaining why he is acting like a women

give a single example of an error and there will be an end to the horror

[Anonymous No.15033187]

>>15033180
>no argument
NATHAN RAPPORT THE UNDEFEATED

[Anonymous No.15033188]

>>15033180
let me flesh it out further. if schizo cranks could be reasoned with, they wouldn't be schizo cranks. best to just rattle their cage and watch them sperg out

[Anonymous No.15033194]

>let me flesh it out further. if schizo cranks could be reasoned with, they wouldn't be schizo cranks. best to just rattle their cage and watch them sperg out

[Anonymous No.15033195]

>>15033194
that one stung, didn't it?
>verification not required

[Anonymous No.15033201]

>that one stung, didn't it?

Still not a single error. Why do schizo's think they can argue like /pol/? "Nathan is wrong, just trust me bro"

[Anonymous No.15033204]

>>15033201
seethe more schizo :) you've already been ousted.
>verification not required

[Anonymous No.15033209]

>seethe more schizo :) you've already been ousted.

This guy has been searching for an error all day, completely gave up but cant admit he is wrong. Now to keep his sanity in check he is screaming he is right in a /sci/ thread with no source or argument.

Please take your medication.

>Post the error and there will be an end to the horror

I know you wont provide it because it doesnt exist, Nathan already won.

[Anonymous No.15033212]

The Alpha of Awe. The Brute of Brawn. The Cultivator of Class. The Duke of Domination. The Emperor of Eloquence. The Fiercest of Fighters. The Greatest of Glory. The Height of Heroism. The Imperator of Intellectualism. The Jarl of Justice. The King of Knights. The Lord of Loquaciousness. The Master of Mortality. The Naysayer of Noobs. The Overlord of Obituaries. The Prince of Passion. The Que-hagen of Quixote. The Ruler of Ruination. The Sultan of Smite. The Taskmaster of Trembles. The Undertaker of Ubiquity. The Vaeyen of Vociferousness. The Warranter of Weaklings. The Xenophobe of Xenogeny. The Yardmaster of Yesteryear. The Zhar of Zoroastrianism.

THE INDOMITUS REX THE ALPHA OF ALPHAS THE KING OF KINGS THE LORD OF LORDS THE JUSTICIAR OF JUSTICE

CHADTHAN THE DOPPLER APEXPREDATORthan the MASCULINE GRIPthan the CRUSHING INSURMOUNTABLEthan the UNSURPASSABLE INDOMITABLEthan the UNYIELDING AESTHETICthan the BEAUTIFUL SWOLEthan the RIPPED TANKthan the RESOLUTE PHYSICALLYIMPOSINGthan the INTIMIDATING GLAREthan the DOMINEERING JUGGERNAUGHTthan the UNSTOPPABLE DISCIPLINEDthan the ENLIGHTENED ZENthan the SPIRITUAL POTENTthan the VIRILE ALMIGHTYthan the INVINCIBLE VALORthan the DAUNTLESS IMPERIOUSthan the DOMINATOR INVICTUSthan the ETERNAL MAELSTROMthan the TITANIC QUAKEthan the SPACE-TIME SHAKING COLOSSUSthan the LEVIATHAN BEHEMOTHthan the MASTODONIC MONSTERthan the TERRIFYING LORDthan the KING DEITYthan the CHRIST CRIMSONthan the LEGEND SUPERNOVAthan the TRANSIENT THANCHAD THE NA NACHAD THE THAN THANCHAD THE CHAD KINGCHAD THE LORDDOPPLER THE CHAD OF CHADS ANCHAD CHADTHAN CHADCHAD CHADCHAD CHA CHAD

ENTER CHADTHAN

[Anonymous No.15033219]

>>15033212
Schizo meltdown. Wonder what the trigger was?

[Anonymous No.15033225]

>>15033212
beyond based

[Anonymous No.15033258]

>>15019040
This kind of thing has actually worked out pretty well for the standard model, which was able to succesfully theoretically predict the existance and masses of a bunch of different elementary particles before they were ever found experimentally.

[Anonymous No.15033361]

>>15033212
kek and then you ask why no one takes you seriously
keep publishing in your 0.25 impact factor journals, retarded schizo

[Anonymous No.15033373]

>>15033361
My brother in Christ, you have literally an impact factor of 0. You have no argument.

[Anonymous No.15033509]

>>15029574
>Your non-Euclidean geometry is a dead giveaway.
He said, standing on the surface of a rotating sphere.

[Anonymous No.15033595]

>>15033029
You apparently can't be arsed to do a lot of things, pseud.

[Anonymous No.15033598]

>>15033121
You're beginning to be entirely correct in your assumptions.

[Anonymous No.15033602]

>>15019040
Your pic is wrong
Dark matter would more like

1 + 1 + x = 3
x = 1 (dark matter)

You're a retard

[Anonymous No.15033631]

>>15033602
>observed findings dont match reality i.e. 1+1=3
>rather than re-evaluate your system, say there is an X and it must = 1 with no other evidence for it existing outside of the need of your broken theory to fit.

[Anonymous No.15033636]

>>15033602
The unexpected coherence of galaxies falsifies the standard model.

[Anonymous No.15033706]

>>15033631
>observed findings dont match reality
Just think for like 3 seconds about what you wrote

[Anonymous No.15033720]

>>15033209
>>15029272

The major flaw remains exactly the same, his derivation of the transverse Doppler effect is not actually transverse. This is because he is considering the difference in between the moving object at two times (marked S and S').

In the article it's claimed this is a derivation of the transverse Doppler effect (page 25). It is not. At point S, the direction of motion (v) is not perpendicular to the line of sight connecting SR. It's only at the very end of the path when the source reaches S' that the velocity is actually perpendicular. But the equation is using this whole motion, when it contains a combination of transverse and longitudinal effects. If the distance between the source and R is changing significantly it's not the transverse Doppler effect.

If one takes a different arrangement (right) where the source starts at a location vt/2 right of the vertical axis, and ends vt/2 to the left. This is a better approximation to the truly transverse effect because symmetry cancels the change in distance. Indeed we see the starting and final distances (SR and S'R) are equal, so by the derivation so are the wavelengths (lambda=lambda'). Just by changing the starting position slightly the "transverse" Doppler effect has disappeared. Because what was derived was not the transverse effect. In relativity there would still be a transverse effect here.

The whole derivation is silly. The author uses these big time steps and then cannot isolate the transverse effect because the angle is changing constantly along the path. This is noted elsewhere in the paper but ignored here. When derived in the normal way one only considers a single instantaneous moment in time. This could be achieved by shrinking t, and hence vt.

I'm quite sure this will fall on deaf ears. This has been pointed out to the author before, he doesn't care. This thread blew up but we all know none of these people begging for the refutation will consider any of this carefully.

[Anonymous No.15033891]

>>15033706
You get what I meant to write nigger, I am tired as fuck

[Anonymous No.15033898]

>>15033891
i've been tired before, and never wrote anything quite that stupid.

[Anonymous No.15033928]

>>15033720
So, the position you're taking is that no transverse Doppler effect exists? That's obviously wrong, as anyone can see from figure 12. There is clearly a wavelength contraction along the transverse axis. So, the question is, how much does the wavelength contract compared to the stationary case? Well, that's easy to calculate, just draw a triangle.

Figure 12 is NOT being used to compute an average over a range of motion. The figure illustrates a snapshot in time, where the source is at S', and the calculation takes place on that snapshot in time.

Now, for a moving interferometer, if you are in the same frame as the moving interferometer (the lab frame, with S' stationary) you will observe the waves from the source at S' to spread out in exactly the same fashion as illustrated over time, so the amount of contraction measured in each direction will be steady, not changing.

If your claim that [math]\lambda=\lambda'[/math] were true, then Doppler shift would not exist at all. You wouldn't hear a passing train's horn change pitch from high to low. So that claim is empirically false.

>This has been pointed out to the author before, he doesn't care.
Yes. You were ignored because you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.15033951]

>>15033898
>observed findings dont match reality i.e. 1+1=3
>observed findings dont match theory i.e. 1+1=3

You have never used a single wrong word in a sentence before while tired?

You are clutching at straws anyway going after a writing mistake. The theory doesnt work so you make up magic to get it to fit.

[Anonymous No.15033954]

>>15033951
looks more like a cognitive error than a writing error, mate.

[Anonymous No.15033960]

>>15033954
Cope and sneed about being BTFO by nathan. ywnbaw.

[Anonymous No.15033964]

>>15019040
At least scientists admit something is hypothetical when they make it up, unlike you schizos who claim your delusions are real.

Dark Matter is a placeholder term for whatever is causing the discrepancy in galactic gravitation.

There are other reasons to believe it exists beyond "the calculations don't add up" it's not just a random theory somebody invented to act like glue for a model that doesn't hold together.

The model of gravity is very accurate and there's evidence of dark matter beyond the calculations not adding up.

[Anonymous No.15033974]

>>15033960
You will never be a real scientist.

[Anonymous No.15033997]

>>15033212
AETHERCHADS RISE UP

[Anonymous No.15034055]

>>15033720
>his derivation of the transverse Doppler effect is not actually transverse. [...] In the article it's claimed this is a derivation of the transverse Doppler effect (page 25). It is not. At point S, the direction of motion (v) is not perpendicular to the line of sight connecting SR. It's only at the very end of the path when the source reaches S' that the velocity is actually perpendicular.
It's easy to see that having the velocity be perpendicular at the beginning (letting nλ' be the hypothenuse of the triangle) still gives a non-unit factor that depends on β using the same geometric argument.
[math](n\lambda')^2 = (n\lambda)^2 + (vt)^2[/math]
Divide by [math](n\lambda)^2 = (ct)^2[/math], take the square root,
[math]\frac{\lambda'}{\lambda} = \sqrt{1 + (v/c)^2} = \sqrt{1 + \beta^2}[/math]

This is contrary to the formula usually attributed to the classical transverse Doppler effect formula, λ(1±βcosθ), whose factor is 1 when θ is 90°.
Here is an example of such attribution to the classical Doppler effect, from the top of the second page of Hasselkamp et al.'s 1979's reproduction of the experiment, picked at random from the Ives-Stilwell experiment's Wikipedia page (Ives and Stilwell did not specify the classical formula as far as I could see). Paper in the second post.

[Anonymous No.15034057]

>>15033720
>This is because he is considering the difference in between the moving object at two times (marked S and S').
Considering that a wavelength is the distance between two wave crests, you need to consider at least two moments of time, separated by at least one period.
Nathan assumed for simplicity (later in the paper he considers the general case) that the end point would line up with the receiver forming a right triangle.
You do this yourself later, when considering your isosceles triangle.

Making t infinitesimal, and thus vt infinitesimal, does not change this fact.

You are right that if the period of emission aligns such that it begins at angle θ and ends at angle π-θ between receiver and source, forming an isosceles triangle, then the wavelength will stay the same (but a distortion of the waveform would still be observed, still dependent on β), but such a fortuitous case is not the subject of the Ives-Stilwell experiment, which tests the case I showed above, namely for a factor of the order of β^2 when θ = 90° that is thought not to be there classically, but actually it is very much present.

I'm the guy who is not Nathan, by the way.

[Anonymous No.15034063]

>>15033891
I genuinely don't know. I think you're just retarded. The entire point of dark matter is that the observations didn't quite fit in with our theory, so they modified the theory to explain the observed effect.

[Anonymous No.15034069]

>>15034055
>>15034057
So really, the reason the deboonkers resort to personal attacks is because they're incompetent physicists, and actually don't know why Rapport is wrong except "Because Einstein said he has to be!!!!!"

[Anonymous No.15034111]

>>15033720
Told you it was a waste of time bro.

[Anonymous No.15034198]

>>15033928
>So, the position you're taking is that no transverse Doppler effect exists?
The position I take is that there is no transverse Doppler effect in this distorted derivation.
>If your claim that λ=λ′ were true, then Doppler shift would not exist at all
No, it means that the transervse effect doesn't exist in this derivation. It is not a classical effect. It is a relativisitc one and one that exists in the real world.

>>15034055
>It's easy to see that having the velocity be perpendicular at the beginning
But that still suffers the same problem, in that at the end of the path the motion isn't perpendicular. It hasn't fixed the core problem. You've just flipped the problem, it doesn't change anything.

>>15034057
>Considering that a wavelength is the distance between two wave crests, you need to consider at least two moments of time, separated by at least one period.
No it is not. If you do this in a sensible way (differentially) there is no need for intervals at all.
>You do this yourself later, when considering your isosceles triangle.
Because I'm showing his own logic is inconsistent. The result should not change drastically at a small translation if they were robust. As I said, this is a better approximation of truly perpendicular motion.
>Making t infinitesimal, and thus vt infinitesimal, does not change this fact.
It does, because vt goes to zero and so in your own equations lambda=lambda' is the limit.
> but such a fortuitous case is not the subject of the Ives-Stilwell experiment
You misunderstand. This is not a fortuitous case, this is showing that the derived effect is not the transverse Doppler effect at all.
Also note because of the time intervals your angles are not the same as other people's angles, because the angles change over vt. You cannot compare it to other formulae directly.

[Anonymous No.15034273]

>>15034198
>No it is not. If you do this in a sensible way (differentially) there is no need for intervals at all.
>It does, because vt goes to zero and so in your own equations lambda=lambda' is the limit.
If t is infinitesimal, since nλ = ct, either λ is infinitesimal (the wavelength is infinitesimally small) or n is infinitesimal (you don't actually have a full wavelength).
So either we accept that both the base of your isosceles triangle and the base of Nathan's right triangle are infinitesimal, or neither are.
Either way, mathematically, the use of infinitesimals is completely unchallenging. Let S' and R be at position x, let S be at position x-vdt. Nathan's and my calculations go through unimpeded, as do yours. This is a red herring.

There is an unintended consequence for you, that, if we insist that t is infinitesimal and want to talk about full wavelengths, then your isosceles triangle only works for infinitesimal wavelengths. Of course there is nothing wrong about talking about partial wavelengths, but I doubt that's what you wanted.

>You misunderstand. This is not a fortuitous case, this is showing that the derived effect is not the transverse Doppler effect at all.
Then you should've been there in 1979 to better instruct Hasselkamp on this issue, as I have shown you they don't care.
"Differentially", t and t+dt are two different moments of time. Sure, t+dt goes to t at the limit, but if t+dt were equal to t, you wouldn't be able to do calculus.
Regardless of your philosophy of differential calculus, mathematically, looking at it "differentially" is unchallenging in the ways I explained above.

>But that still suffers the same problem, in that at the end of the path the motion isn't perpendicular. It hasn't fixed the core problem. You've just flipped the problem, it doesn't change anything.
No amount of differential calculus can get you out of the fact that you need two moments of time to have two wave crests with a wavelength between them.

[Anonymous No.15034410]

>>15034055
>>15034057
>>15034198
>>15034273
I also include a more detailed discussion about the derivation of the classical Doppler shift in appendix A. The derivation I was able to find in the literature made clear that it was an approximation.

[Anonymous No.15034427]

>>15034410
Also, I show in section 2 how my technique of measuring time between S and S' yields the correct results for longitudinal Doppler shift. Overall my paper gives at least three ways of deriving the classical transverse Doppler shift.

[Anonymous No.15034814]

>>15034273
>If t is infinitesimal, since nλ = ct, either λ is infinitesimal (the wavelength is infinitesimally small) or n is infinitesimal (you don't actually have a full wavelength).
But that is your assumption. There is no reason t has to be a fixed number of periods. The real Doppler effect can be evaluated instantaneously, it should not depend over what time interval you do the calculation. The limit of the hypotenuse from Pythagoras (>>15034055), is simply that the lambda=lambda', i.e. If one considers infinitesimally small time intervals the effect disappears. So it's not a transverse Doppler effect.
> if we insist that t is infinitesimal and want to talk about full wavelengths
I do not insist that. The paper makes this arbitrary assumption, it's clearly needed to fudge the derivation. But it makes no sense as a requirement.
> looking at it "differentially" is unchallenging in the ways I explained above.
If you had really derived the transverse effect the method of deriving the equation shouldn't matter. And yet it does, the normal derivation does not find this. So somewhere something is inconsistent, wrong.
>No amount of differential calculus can get you out of the fact that you need two moments of time to have two wave crests with a wavelength between them.
Why is needed? The paper doesn't justify it.

>>15034427
Because the angle isn't changing with radial motion, there's no problem there. There is a problem for the longitudinal effect.

[Anonymous No.15034822]

>>15034814
>There is not* a problem for the longitudinal effect.

[Anonymous No.15034883]

>>15034814
>But that is your assumption. There is no reason t has to be a fixed number of periods.
Which of these two classical physical facts do you disagree with, that light would travel a distance given by ct in time t, or that if the source emits waves of wavelength λ for a period of time t, the number of wavecrests emitted will be n = ct/λ?

>The real Doppler effect can be evaluated instantaneously, it should not depend over what time interval you do the calculation.
I don't want to be rude, but you seem confused by what waves and calculus even are. Regardless of your preferred philosophy of calculus, Nathan's derivation makes perfect physical sense even in the limit.

>I do not insist that. The paper makes this arbitrary assumption, it's clearly needed to fudge the derivation. But it makes no sense as a requirement.
The paper doesn't, you do, by insisting that we should look at things "differentially".

>If you had really derived the transverse effect the method of deriving the equation shouldn't matter. And yet it does, the normal derivation does not find this. So somewhere something is inconsistent, wrong.
So you *are* arguing by looking at the consequences and ignoring the substance of the argument, which is why you misunderstand the scope of the paper.
The setting is classical. The theoretical derivation of the effect in relativity is irrelevant here. Only the resulting formula and the experiments that test it. If Nathan is correct, then the classical portion of the relativistic formula needs correction, too.

[Anonymous No.15034885]

>>15034814
Anyway, I understand what your problem is, but I already told you why it's irrelevant.
You're insisting that the "real" transverse Doppler effect *has* to be the relativistic gamma factor that doesn't disappear even in the special case of the isosceles triangle.
But this is not about the relativistic tranverse Doppler effect. This is a revisitation of the *classical* transverse Doppler effect, which *does* exist even according to mainstream physics. The contribution is thought to be (1±βcosθ), as I have showed you, and to disappear when the angle of observation θ is 90°, as I have showed you.
The relativistic Doppler shift is thought to be the classical Doppler shift corrected by a factor of gamma, as you can see in my picture, and the Ives-Stilwell experiment, upon which the existence of the relativistic Doppler shift is predicated, tests for the effect by having the classical contribution go to 0, while the relativistic contribution does not and depends on β, which is what is being tested.

Nathan's entire argument is that, after a careful geometric derivation of the transverse classical contribution, a factor that does not disappear at an observation angle of 90° and that depends on β appear, which argument, if correct, implies that not only that the relativistic Doppler shift corrects the wrong classical Doppler formula, and thus should be corrected, but that the relativistic correction could very well be superfluous and that the experiment is detecting the non-zero classical contribution that is thought to be zero.

[Anonymous No.15034887]

>>15034814
So you have three outs:
1. if you believe that there is no classical transversal effect at all (note: I'm not talking about the relativistic gamma factor that remains even in your isosceles triangle example), then what are Hasselkamp et al. talking about when they speak of the "classical factor"?
2. if you believe that there is a classical transversal effect, but Nathan's derivation is wrong, then A. what is the correct one, and B. where is the error in Nathan's geometric derivation? Note again that we are talking about the classical effect, so the gamma factor that doesn't disappear in the your isosceles triangle is irrelevant.
3. if you believe that Nathan's derivation is correct, but the relativistic correction is still necessary, then A. do you think the classical factor in the relativistic formula should be corrected if not why, B. why does Ives-Stilwell not test for that?

[Anonymous No.15034915]

>>15034883
>Which of these two classical physical facts do you disagree with, that light would travel a distance given by ct in time t, or that if the source emits waves of wavelength λ for a period of time t, the number of wavecrests emitted will be n = ct/λ?
Neither. You didn't answer my question. Why is it necessary in this derivation that t is a fixed number of periods?
>The paper doesn't
But it does, and you just confirmed it did. Please think before just denying everything. You stated " you need two moments of time to have two wave crests with a wavelength between them." Why? Why did you declare this is necessary?

>>15034885
>You're insisting that the "real" transverse Doppler effect *has* to be the relativistic gamma factor that doesn't disappear even in the special case of the isosceles triangle.
Correct. Because what the paper claims is that they obtain the relativistic expression from classical mechanics. That is wrong. If there was a true transverse effect (whether it matched relativity or not) then it would not disappear in my scenario.

>>15034887
>1. if you believe that there is no classical transversal effect at all
Correct.
>hen what are Hasselkamp et al. talking about when they speak of the "classical factor"?
It specifically says it's zero at theta=90., i.e. no classical transverse effect. You underlined it yourself. >>15034055

[Anonymous No.15034940]

>>15034915
>Neither. You didn't answer my question. Why is it necessary in this derivation that t is a fixed number of periods?
It is not...? But when it is not, then you have to accept the consequences of that fact. Namely, partial wavelengths. I told you that there is nothing wrong with that, and this whole diatribe is a giant red herring.

>You stated " you need two moments of time to have two wave crests with a wavelength between them." Why? Why did you declare this is necessary?
You do need two wave crests for a full wavelength to appear. Please apply some reading comprehension.

>Correct. Because what the paper claims is that they obtain the relativistic expression from classical mechanics
It does not. It claims
>The Doppler shift explanation is consistent with the [MMX] and all other optical ”relativistic” experiments (e.g., [...] Ives-Stillwell, [...]). [p. 32]
and
>Equation (37), however, is not the correct formula for Doppler shift at a general angle. [p. 17]
It does state that
>we advance [...] that the wavelength of a moving source will be observed to contract along the transverse axis by a factor equivalent to the Lorentz factor in relativity and LET.
which could maybe use better wording, but I already showed you in what sense this is true: there is a second order factor in the classical Doppler effect that isn't accounted for in the relativistic Doppler experiments. You can see this being the case here >>15034055, which you repeatedly ignore, except here:
>It specifically says it's zero at theta=90., i.e. no classical transverse effect. You underlined it yourself. >>15034055 (You)
In which you ignore that this is EXACTLY what is being contested.

>That is wrong. If there was a true transverse effect (whether it matched relativity or not) then it would not disappear in my scenario.
I already explained why that is irrelevant. You could use it to distinguish Nathan's Doppler theory from special relativity. But that's not what the IS experiment tests.

[Anonymous No.15034951]

>>15034940
>But when it is not, then you have to accept the consequences of that fact. Namely, partial wavelengths. I told you that there is nothing wrong with that, and this whole diatribe is a giant red herring.
Pssst. Brainlet. You can derive the longitudinal doppler shift with those "partial wavelengths" as you stupidly call them. Meanwhile, your alleged classical derivation of the transverse Doppler shift cannot account for this. Btw I'm not the same anon who just pwned you.

[Anonymous No.15034964]

>>15034940
>>You stated " you need two moments of time to have two wave crests with a wavelength between them." Why? Why did you declare this is necessary?
>You do need two wave crests for a full wavelength to appear. Please apply some reading comprehension.
You're going in circles without actually answering the question. And why do you need full wavelengths to "appear"? There are already crests filling the space between source and R.

>>It specifically says it's zero at theta=90., i.e. no classical transverse effect. You underlined it yourself. >>15034055
>In which you ignore that this is EXACTLY what is being contested.
I understand the claim. You asked me what Hasselkamp wasy saying if there was no classical transverse effect, but they say exactly the same thing. I have no idea what you think the problem is there.

>I already explained why that is irrelevant. You could use it to distinguish Nathan's Doppler theory from special relativity. But that's not what the IS experiment tests.
No you didn't. You have insisted it's irrelevant. That's not a justification to ignore a result. And it is what the experiments tested, they are testing a true transverse effect, no such effect exists in Nathan's derivation.

[Anonymous No.15034979]

here's a beautiful account
https://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/DopplerEffect.htm
>To this order, relativistic time dilation of the source gives a frequency shift. This was found unequivocally in a beautiful series of experiments in the 1930’s (by Ives and Stillwell) who were attempting to establish the opposite: they were trying to disprove special relativity.

[Anonymous No.15034996]

>>15034964
>You're going in circles without actually answering the question. And why do you need full wavelengths to "appear"? There are already crests filling the space between source and R.
My God. You do NOT need them. I said this multiple times. It is a huge red herring on your part. Do you know what a red herring is? Both derivations go through without challenge.
What I pointed out is that in your isosceles triangle, if you consider a single wavelength, the two emission points have to align for the difference to be apparent.
In THAT case Nathan's formula will only give a deformation of the waveform, while the relativistic one predicts a contraction. I acknowledged this in my first posts, and clarified it again later.

>[...] And it is what the experiments tested, they are testing a true transverse effect, no such effect exists in Nathan's derivation.
That is NOT what the IS experiment tests, and it is plain to see because it uses the Doppler formula for the angle of observation. See pic in >>15034273. If you draw that, you could get any kind of triangle, acute, obtuse, right, scalene, isosceles, depending on the length of the base. Nothing in the paper is done to force the triangle to be isosceles as in your special case. So Nathan's general formula is applicable.

>I understand the claim. You asked me what Hasselkamp wasy saying if there was no classical transverse effect, but they say exactly the same thing. I have no idea what you think the problem is there.
You are objecting that Nathan's classical Doppler shift formula at an angle is wrong, because the relativistic Doppler shift formula is different. This is not a coherent refutation.
There exists a classical Doppler shift formula at an angle. It is thought to be of a certain form without second order terms, which is derived by approximation. A precise geometric derivation shows that it does have second order terms after all.

[Anonymous No.15035027]

>>15034996
>My God. You do NOT need them. I said this multiple times. It is a huge red herring on your part. Do you know what a red herring is? Both derivations go through without challenge.
You literally just said:
>You do need two wave crests
>you need two moments of time
So who do I believe, you or yourself? It is a fact that the paper makes this assumption. I want to know why. You were very sure of it before, please expand.
>What I pointed out is that in your isosceles triangle, if you consider a single wavelength, the two emission points have to align for the difference to be apparent.
Align with respect to what? When did you say this?

>That is NOT what the IS experiment tests, and it is plain to see because it uses the Doppler formula for the angle of observation. See pic in >>15034273 #. If you draw that, you could get any kind of triangle, acute, obtuse, right, scalene, isosceles, depending on the length of the base. Nothing in the paper is done to force the triangle to be isosceles as in your special case. So Nathan's general formula is applicable.
My point, which you have failed to understand again, was that Nathan's derivation has no real transverse effect. If there was my scenario would have Doppler shift, it does not. Because there is no transverse effect it is wrong.
And secondly if you look at the Hasselkamp paper Fig 1, they are observing light from a perpendicular beam. The beam doesn't stop at the center like Nathan's triangle. It goes past the central axis. It is symmetric like my isosceles.

[Anonymous No.15035029]

>>15035027
>>15034996
>I understand the claim. You asked me what Hasselkamp wasy saying if there was no classical transverse effect, but they say exactly the same thing. I have no idea what you think the problem is there.
>You are objecting that Nathan's classical Doppler shift formula at an angle is wrong, because the relativistic Doppler shift formula is different.
That's not what I said at all. I said it's wrong because it doesn't have a transverse Doppler effect.
>There exists a classical Doppler shift formula at an angle. It is thought to be of a certain form without second order terms, which is derived by approximation.
The other derivations are not an approximation, Nathan's is because of the changing angle.

[Anonymous No.15035220]

>>15034055
>>15034940
>>15034885
>>15029272
To put this nonsense to bed more finally I will cite cold reality. You pointed out that Nathan's equation does not actually match the relativistic expectation with theta=0. Eq 30 in the paper reduces to the purely classical formula for theta=0, which is given by eq 31.
The problem is that people have actually tested relativity extensively. The paper claims that the results match experiments, but that's only on the basis that the claimed "transverse" effect matches relativity. But the longitudinal effect does not, it is purely classical. And people have tested this, Mandelberg and Witten 1962 did the alternative experiment, to measure the relativistic component of the longitudinal effect. Here I show their key plot. I was going to plot on Nathan's expectation, but it's just zero for any energy/Beta. Clearly that is incompatible with the results.
https://opg.optica.org/josa/fulltext.cfm?uri=josa-52-5-529&id=75997#
Nathan's general expression for the Doppler effect is wrong. It doesn't match reality, because the derivation is wrong. I'm sure he could have figured this out if he did an hour of research, instead of just falsely declaring that it is consistent with "all other optical relativistic experiments". I'm sure he won't care and this tired shit will end up back here again. It also speaks to the non-existent peer review at this vanity journal.

[Anonymous No.15035244]

>>15027404
But I can draw a triangle in more than one way.

[Anonymous No.15035268]

>>15035220
>Mandelberg and Witten 1962 did the alternative experiment, to measure the relativistic component of the longitudinal effect
I'm not sure where you're getting that, since the abstract says that it's testing the transverse effect. Did you miss the exponent of -1/2?

[Anonymous No.15035277]

>>15035268
The abstract does not say 'transverse", that is false. Incoming and outgoing beams meaning radially, along the line of sight, longitudinal.
And I got it from reading beyond the abstract. See their figure 3, the beam is parallel to the line of sight into the observation chamber.

[Anonymous No.15035297]

>>15035277
Ok so if I'm reading this right, the experiment tested velocities up to beta=0.01. If we compare the prediction of classical longitudinal Doppler shift vs the relativistic prediction in that range we get this (where the lines are too close to distinguish):

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+y+%3D+sqrt%28%281%2Bv%2F10%29%2F%281-v%2F10%29%29%2C+y%3D1%2Bv%2F10+from+v%3D0+to+v%3D0.1

[Anonymous No.15035326]

>>15035297
And now if you subtract the classical term and multiply by the wavelength of H alpha (Balmer alpha) you get a plot that looks just like theirs.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+y+%3D+6563*%28sqrt%28%281%2Bv%2F10%29%2F%281-v%2F10%29%29-%281%2Bv%2F10%29%29%2C+y%3D6563*%281%2Bv%2F10-%281%2Bv%2F10%29%29+from+v%3D0+to+v%3D0.1
Relativity has been tested to very high precision, the relativistic term is 5x10^-5 at Beta=0.1.

[Anonymous No.15035330]

>>15035027
>You literally just said:
>>[things I stand by]
>So who do I believe, you or yourself?
What I said is true, and it is also irrelevant, hence I called it a red herring multiple times. The discussion began because you brought up calculus, as if it changes anything. It does not. I bit the bait because it illustrated how you don't understand the physical situation illustrated by your own damn triangle.

>Align with respect to what? When did you say this?
>>15034057
>You are right that if the period of emission aligns such that it begins at angle θ and ends at angle π-θ between receiver and source, forming an isosceles triangle, then the wavelength will stay the same (but a distortion of the waveform would still be observed, still dependent on β), but such a fortuitous case is not the subject of the Ives-Stilwell experiment, which tests the case I showed above, namely for a factor of the order of β^2 when θ = 90° that is thought not to be there classically, but actually it is very much present.
How about you read my posts, rather than speedreading them to try and find some gotcha "that has to be there"?

>My point, which you have failed to understand again, was that Nathan's derivation has no real transverse effect.
Respond: What is the classical Doppler formula *at an angle*? How is it derived from first principles?
Where does Nathan's geometric derivation fail? Do not appeal to consequence. Do not appeal to another theory. I'm not asking about the trasversal (90°) case, so don't bring it up.
The law of cosines is not novel mathematics. You must agree that Nathan's derivation is proving something. It's trivial to see that when you discard the second order term from it, you get the commonly used classical Doppler factor.

[Anonymous No.15035361]

>>15035330
>What I said is true, and it is also irrelevant
But you just said it was false. Refusing to answer questions is not a defense. You don't get to chose what lines of reasoning are relevant or not. The paper does not justify this assumption, and it's clear from your sinusoidal flip-flopping on this topic that you have no fucking clue. So I won't waste my breath.
It is an arbitrary assumption inserted to fudge the derivation.

>What is the classical Doppler formula *at an angle*? How is it derived from first principles?
That's an irrelevant red herring. It's also in the appendix.

>Where does Nathan's geometric derivation fail?
I have told you. The angles are wrong for a start. But you don't care.

As it happens experiments ruled out Nathan's equation more than half a century ago. It's dead. But somehow I know in my heart that reality will not deter you.
>>15035220

[Anonymous No.15035365]

>>15035361
>But you just said it was false.
If you don't understand calculus, I can't help you. If you can't even look up the definition of wavelength, then you're beyond saving. I told you more than once what it was. Reread >>15034273.

>That's an irrelevant red herring. It's also in the appendix.
Don't parrot me like a smartass. Answer the question.

>I have told you. The angles are wrong for a start. But you don't care.
Are the angles wrong for the derivation of the generic formula of the classical Doppler effect at an angle? What is the correct classical formula?

[Anonymous No.15035371]

>>15035365
>If you don't understand calculus, I can't help you.
lol. There is zero calculus in the derivation. With every irrelevant deflection the stench of your bullshit intensifies.
>Are the angles wrong for the derivation of the generic formula of the classical Doppler effect at an angle?
No, because it doesn't use these silly intervals. See the appendix.

And what a surprise, you don't give a shit about reality or experiment.

[Anonymous No.15035374]

>>15033183
You can't expect him to know any of this. Pop sci vids on yt only deal with relativity and some basic quantum stuff.

[Anonymous No.15035410]

>>15035371
>lol. There is zero calculus in the derivation. With every irrelevant deflection the stench of your bullshit intensifies.
You brought up calculus, what do you want from me lol. I had to school you on the difference of t and t+dt and you still insist that we're talking of one instant of time.

>>Are the angles wrong
>No,
Good. Then Nathan is right. See, I can delete the rest of the sentence too, like you do.

>And what a surprise, you don't give a shit about reality or experiment.
Nathan derived the second order factor that is actually being tested geometrically.
You object to it because it's not the relativistic one, therefore "there must be a mistake somewhere".
No progress can be done until you answer the questions in >>15035330.

[Anonymous No.15035433]

>>15035410
>You brought up calculus, what do you want from me lol.
So how could it possibly relate to my question about the derivation? I wanted you to answer to answer my question about the assumption. But now it's clear you have no clue.
>You object to it because it's not the relativistic one, therefore "there must be a mistake somewhere".
Funny I don't remember saying that.
>No progress can be done
The discussion is over. His equation conflict with decade old data. He is wrong, pure and simple.

[Anonymous No.15035487]

>>15035433
Something screwy is going on with the theoretical discussion of the experiment. If you substitute [math]\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}[/math] into equation (1), this predicts redshift, not blueshift.

This is probably why the paper insists that equation (1) is only valid for "small angles"; it gives the wrong result for large angles. Yet it then goes on to use this small angle formula to estimate the result at [math]\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}[/math], again predicting net redshift.

But the transverse Doppler effect predicts blueshift... so it's not clear to me that this experimental result as laid out is consistent with relativity either.

[Anonymous No.15035525]

>>15035487
>But the transverse Doppler effect predicts blueshift.
Where are you getting that from? Hasselkamp finds redshift. And it's exactly the same equation in Hasselkamp.
If Nathan finds a blueshift then it's double wrong.

The equation is fine. And the paper doesn't use theta=pi/2 at all.

[Anonymous No.15035530]

>>15035433
>The discussion is over. His equation conflict with decade old data. He is wrong, pure and simple.
You completely misunderstood everything presented to you, and everything you presented. Instead of retreating to the bailey just answer his questions with math. Shut up and calculate.

[Anonymous No.15035536]

>>15035530
>I'm not wrong you just don't understand me
I have answered your question. The deviation is in the paper. I'm not wasting my time repeating a high school derivation which has nothing to do with anything. If you want to make a point about the classic equation then do it yourself like a big boy.

[Anonymous No.15035571]

>>15035525
Also, the classical Doppler prediction for equation (4) is the same as the relativistic prediction (which is how Mandelberg/Witten measure beta). See picrel.

[Anonymous No.15035587]

>>15035571
Because the relativistic term cancels in that one equation, it's the same sign forward and back. But it's this beta^2 that they ultimately measure. That is not in Nathan's eq 30.

[Anonymous No.15035600]

>>15035587
No, it seems to me that they calculate beta from the variables in equation 4, then plot beta^2.

[Jealous No.15035602]

3rd party you: my enemies

[Anonymous No.15035624]

>>15035600
Nope, because that term depends on theta. The relativistic term does not. They state in the line above (which you have intentionally cropped out) that they measure the beta^2 by averaging B and R, not taking the difference.

[Anonymous No.15035664]

>>15035624
No, the paper is clear how beta is measured. This experiment can't distinguish between Rapport's classical Doppler theory and relativity.

[Anonymous No.15035692]

>>15035664
>No, the paper is clear how beta is measured.
But the final plot is not beta. They state quite clearly the beta^2 term is derived from a different equation. You're full of shit, you're intentionally trying to misread the paper.
I predicted this, I said you would reject reality before admitting you were wrong.

[Anonymous No.15035726]

>>15035692
And then they go on to say that they calculate beta^2 from the excess difference between the redshift and blueshift.

IF they calculated beta^2 from the average, they should have gotten the same magnitude, but negative, because transverse Doppler shift is a blueshift effect. They probably realized that they were getting the wrong sign, so they switched up their calculation.

[Anonymous No.15035731]

Again it's clear from geometry that the transverse Doppler effect is a blueshift. (Relativity also agrees with this, otherwise it can't explain the Michelson-Morley null result.)

[Anonymous No.15035740]

>>15035726
>And then they go on to say that they calculate beta^2 from the excess difference between the redshift and blueshift.
No they don't. They say beta. Don't lie, we can both say the text.
>IF they calculated beta^2 from the average
They EXPLICITLY say they do.
> they should have gotten the same magnitude, but negative, because transverse Doppler shift is a blueshift effect
Wrong. Where are you getting this claim that it's a blueshift? The experiments show otherwise clearly. >>15035525
>>15035731
Experiments show it's a redshift. Which is what you expect, because in relativity it's time dilation. Please cite a paper which shows the transverse effect is a blueshift.

[Anonymous No.15035776]

>>15035740
>No they don't. They say beta. Don't lie, we can both say the text.
The full context says beta is measured from the difference, not the average.

[Anonymous No.15035797]

>>15035776
>The full context says beta is measured from the difference, not the average.
Yes, beta. Not the lambda_0 beta^2/2, which is the relativistic term in the final plot. It does not say they calculate it from beta as you falsely claimed. It says clearly it's measured from lambda_Q, which comes from the average.
They even show a worked example in table 1. That confirms again that lambda_0 beta^2/2 is measured from lambda_Q which comes from the average.
But I'm sure you're going to try and misinterpret it again because it disagrees with this nonsense so clearly it must be wrong.

Still waiting for a citation on the transverse blueshift.

[Anonymous No.15035817]

>>15035797
>Still waiting for a citation on the transverse blueshift.
Here you go. Bottom formula, exactly the same as eqn (32) derived geometrically in my paper. Source is R.W. Ditchburn's Light.

[Anonymous No.15035834]

>>15035817
Not useful unless you actually include the specification on which lambda is the rest one. Christ.

[Anonymous No.15035843]

>>15034069
internet atheists were a mistake

t.atheist

[Anonymous No.15035852]

>>15035834
If I show you the next page, where it defines lambda as the wavelength emitted in the stationary case, and lambda' as the wavelength observed by an observer at rest with respect to the source, will you concede defeat?

[Anonymous No.15035860]

>>15033094
>sealioning
you're not supposed to telegraph that you have no coherent response so blatantly

do something more subtle like attacking the publisher

[Anonymous No.15035865]

>>15035852
Depends what it actually says, as we've established today you are bareful literate.
And still waiting for an explanation of why both experimental papers because a redshift.

[Anonymous No.15035882]

>>15035852
>>15035817
Well since you pussied out of posting it I had a look myself. Quelle Suprise, you're a fucking liar once again. Are you going to take your own medicine and "admit defeat"?

[Anonymous No.15035927]

>>15035882
At this point you're just making yourself look stupid.

[Anonymous No.15035959]

imagine wasting your time trying to reason with schizos. honestly, bro, it's like a gentleman in a tux playing in a pigsty with a bunch of pigs... you're better than this.

[Anonymous No.15036005]

>>15035959
It's just an undergrad getting blown out by someone who actually did the math. Rapport is no more schizophrenic than Hannes Alfven was.

[Anonymous No.15036011]

>>15019040
actual = prediction + error, as error -> 0 prediction = actual
nothing surprising about it, but yes it makes people that hold physics equations or models as religious tomes look totally foolish since it's just a numerical prediction to an expected/actual value.
Math should be seen more as very good plastic wrap than as "god the machine in itself"

[Anonymous No.15036016]

>>15019061
Take your meds. Now.

[Anonymous No.15036046]

>>15036005
>Can't do high school physics
>Posts on viXra
>Definitely comparable to a Nobel prize winner
Kek. You people are delusional.

[Anonymous No.15036048]

>>15035817
You can also derive the transverse Doppler effect as blueshift from eqn (1) of the Mandelberg/Witten paper (picrel). Note that I don't agree with the logic of the derivation (I don't think equation 1 is correct, for starters), I'm just pointing out that the authors contradict their own argument by later implying that the TDE must be a redshift.

[Anonymous No.15036068]

>>15036048
Oh look, more nonsense. That paper isn't measuring the transverse effect.
And they measure the relativistic term as a redshift, it's not an assumption. So does the tranvserse experiment paper that you cited. It is a redshift in reality, regardless of what you believe is natural. If you derive it as a blueshift then what you have done is wrong. I find it astonishing you are willing to ignore all the data.

[Anonymous No.15036073]

>>15036068
>That paper isn't measuring the transverse effect.
The entire purpose of the experiment, as stated by the authors, is to attempt to measure the transverse effect (by looking at small-angle divergences from the longitudinal effect). The final number they're estimating is the exponent of 1/2. Apparently you haven't understood that.

[Anonymous No.15036162]

>>15035797
>>15035817
And here's the blueshift formula again for the TDE, in the original Ives-Stillwell paper.