/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16226229]

Is he about to kick Einstein's ass?
After showing we don't need relative space and time, my man proved length contraction without relativity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94EQpJ4d6YY
and he's still going

[Anonymous No.16227755]

>>16226229
>my man proved length contraction without relativity
I already did this in my paper from 2022. Amazing coincidence that after a century of relativity people are suddenly "independently" discovering my result right after I publish it.

[Anonymous No.16227758]

>>16226229
Here's the shorter version for the attentionally-impaired.

[Anonymous No.16227932]

>>16227755
>>16227758
Based schizo proving, yet again, that schizos are always right.
Einsteinian relativity theory is a pseudoscientific hoax.

[Anonymous No.16227975]

Gravity theory falls on its face

Math and physics mis taught

[Anonymous No.16227997]

>>16226229
Maybe, we don't know the underlying reasons for relativity, it is purely descriptive. The math predicts it accurately, we test it and it works. If someone finds a further reductionist reason beneath it all, it'd be very cool.
Totally watching that video, thanks

[Anonymous No.16228008]

>>16227997
>The math predicts it accurately
I personally wouldn't describe any solution involving dark matter accurate

[Anonymous No.16228426]

>>16227758
Can you make it shorter?

[Anonymous No.16228440]

>>16227755
QRD me on this, do you make any prediction or just say Michelson Morley can be explained with 19th century physics? Anything about changing the material in the interferometer with something other than air?

[Anonymous No.16228457]

>>16228008
You would be wrong. HTH!

[Anonymous No.16228464]

>>16228440
>QRD me on this
That's what the one pager was for
>do you make any prediction
Yes, see section 5.2.
>or just say Michelson Morley can be explained with 19th century physics?
Also yes.
>Anything about changing the material in the interferometer with something other than air?
I briefly mention this in section 5.2. If you change the material in the interferometer to something with a higher refractive index than air, I predict that you will see a larger fringe shift.

[Anonymous No.16228476]

>>16227932
>Einsteinian relativity theory is a pseudoscientific hoax
Even if this new way of looking at nature leads to some newer better theory. Relativity is still very accurate and will probably continue to be studied. Newton isn't called a hoax today just because his theory of gravity had more error than relativity.

tl;dr you are an uneducated brainrotted /pol/tard (le einstein bad 'cause jew) and you should get the fuck off my board.

[Anonymous No.16228480]

>>16226229
>>16227755
>>16227758
>I know I said LAST time that relativity was finished, but THIS time I really mean it! Like for reals, you guys!
This shit has yet to make a single new testable prediction that could falsify or support it.

[Anonymous No.16228485]

>>16226229
This guy literally says relativity is an ambiguous subject you don’t say?

So playing with mathematics to prove something that materially exists means somehow it’s true? Mathematics cannot be used to prove an existence of something. Mathematics is a language structure for humans to measure or point of reference of an idea.

This is just playing games or semantics with math to prove a fact. When math is a made up concept by humans

Try again Jewish trickster Einstein

[Anonymous No.16228487]

>>16226229
How is gravity explained in Dialects models? Is it aetherial pressure, or, waves of aether, ect? Previously he has done videos about Chistoffel symbols and general relativity, alluding that he believes in general relativity. But doesn't GR come from a concept of space and time in a very non-mechanical and esoteric framework of differences in reference frame, IE: accelerating vs free fall?

[Anonymous No.16228495]

>>16228487
We don’t quite understand gravity because it’s an ambiguous force. That no one can exactly formally describe. Like we can mesure gravity but don’t really understand what it is. Could it be a centripetal force? Is it bending space time? We really can’t prove it. Because we can’t really experimentally test a mass the size of a celestial body we made ourselves. It’s all just guessing. We know it exists because things fall to the ground

[Anonymous No.16228499]

>>16228464
>larger fringe shift.
larger than what, you mean you will see a fringe shift as the earth rotates around the sun over a 6 month period?

[Anonymous No.16228507]

>>16228499
>larger than what
Larger than what you'd see with air (or a vacuum). A larger refractive index material should produce a larger fringe shift when the interferometer is rotated 90 degrees.

You could also just hold the interferometer still and try to measure fringe shift using a time-lapse method as the Earth rotates around the sun, but that's not how Michelson-Morley or DC Miller did it. They made measurements by rotating the interferometer (which "switches" the short/long paths).

You can actually sort of visualize why the rotation doesn't cause any fringe shifts if you think about what's actually happening during the rotation. You have one wave train of signals moving backward while the other wave train moves forward. Interference is caused by the superposition of both wave trains, so the situation is symmetric; you should see the same thing whether the interferometer is rotated +90 degrees or -90 degrees.

[Anonymous No.16228512]

>>16228507
>Larger than what you'd see with air (or a vacuum).
So larger than zero?
Like 10 times zero?

[Anonymous No.16228523]

>>16228480
>This shit has yet to make a single new testable prediction that could falsify or support it.
Wrong; see section 5.2.

[Anonymous No.16228525]

>>16228512
>So larger than zero?
Yes.
>Like 10 times zero?
No.

[Anonymous No.16228544]

>>16228525
>>16228507
Ok so just ti be clear, you are saying that if one arm of the M.M interfometer had a material other than air, we would see a fringe shift across a 6 month period and/or by rotating the interfometer. And just as important, you have a model to explain/predict such a shift?

[Anonymous No.16228624]

>>16228544
>Ok so just ti be clear, you are saying that if one arm of the M.M interfometer had a material other than air, we would see a fringe shift across a 6 month period and/or by rotating the interfometer.
Yes. Water would work (in fact, this would make the experiment somewhat similar to the Fizeau experiment).
>And just as important, you have a model to explain/predict such a shift?
I have a theory (classical wave mechanics explains relativity), and could come up with a predictive model for a new experiment based on that theory.

[Anonymous No.16228680]

>>16228624
So why haven't you done any of this then? It's not like the MM experiment is a particularly complicated setup.

[Anonymous No.16228711]

>>16228680
>So why haven't you done any of this then? It's not like the MM experiment is a particularly complicated setup.
And then do what? Publish in Physics Essays again? I don't want to drop another $2 grand to publish an article, I could use that money for hookers instead. I guess I could put it on my blog that no one reads.

There are already convincing experiments that disprove relativity, which have been ignored. Randy Wayne's replication of the Fizeau experiment, for example: http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/pdfs/FIZEAU.pdf

Also De Witte's experiment: https://globaljournals.org/GJSFR_Volume19/2-The-Roland-De-Witte-1991-Detection.pdf

And Gezari's analysis of lunar lasing data: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.3934

I'm not necessarily against the idea of running an experiment but I don't want to spend a ton of money and time on it unless there's some conceivable benefit for me.

[Anonymous No.16228716]

>>16228711
>paying to publish
found your problem

[Anonymous No.16228721]

>>16228624
>and could come up with a predictive model for a new experiment based on that theory.
holop so you dont have so much as a formula for predicting the shift? I took a glance at your paper and im only asking questions here because i dont want to spend many hours working over the algebra. So you really cant predict the shift, you can only say no-shift is concordant with 19th century physics. Or well, wave mechanics as you call them.
I once studied this retarded-advanced potentials theory

[Anonymous No.16228742]

>>16228721
>so you dont have so much as a formula for predicting the shift?
Predicted shift for an interferometer in a vacuum is zero. I didn't work out the calculations for materials other than a vacuum in my paper.

[Anonymous No.16228756]

>>16228716
It raised the search visibility for my article and established "official" priority for me in scientific literature, so I did get something for the money. I'm not eager to do it again though.

[Anonymous No.16228758]

>>16228742
Thats a shame, now you cant know if the shift is indeed higher than zero. Thats the interesting part because it could be tested, your paper only says we should be seeing the same thing but heres this alternative explanation

[Anonymous No.16228762]

>>16228758
>>16228742
also, an interferometer with an arm with a material not being air has been built, there was a fringe shift, and it moved over a 6 month period but also across a 24 hour period, as the earth rotates that also influences the local speed

[Anonymous No.16228765]

>>16228762
>>16228742
but whats missing is a theory to explain it. Would be better than just indicating some fringe motion that can be discarded as "noise"

[Anonymous No.16228767]

>>16228721
>I once studied this retarded-advanced potentials theory
I think there's a connection between the retarded-advanced potentials theory and Weber's electrodynamics. If you look at Weber's potential, it's extremely suggestive: Just imagine each charge varies by a factor of [math]sqrt{1-\left(\frac{v}{sqrt{2} c}\right)^2[/math].

The part that trips me up is the square root of two. This makes me thing there is a 45-45-90 triangle involved somehow.

[Anonymous No.16228774]

>>16228758
I'm thinking about writing a follow-up paper, maybe I'll work that out in the follow-up.
>>16228762
Source?

[Anonymous No.16228778]

>>16228767
[math]\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{v}{c\sqrt{2}}\right)^2}[/math]

[Anonymous No.16228798]

>>16228762
Considering the scale of the fringes seen in these and the 1887 experiment (looks to be an order or two of magnitude smaller than anticipated) couldn't this be chalked up to something as simple as ambient temperature differences producing uneven changes in the apparatus scale?

[Anonymous No.16228813]

>>16228798
>couldn't this be chalked up to something as simple as ambient temperature differences producing uneven changes in the apparatus scale?
No, for multiple reasons, but you'd have to basically be holding a hot iron to the interferometer while you were turning it. I believe there was a second-order effect due to the refractive index of air being slightly greater than the index of a vacuum that produced fringe shifts as theorized by Cahill; however, I haven't looked into this in-depth.

The fringe observed was 0.4, which basically tottered on the edge of what was experimentally observable.

[Anonymous No.16228816]

>>16228813
>The fringe observed was 0.4, which basically tottered on the edge of what was experimentally observable.
Sorry, 0.4 was *expected*, which was already not much. What was actually observed was almost an order of magnitude smaller.

[Anonymous No.16228817]

>>16228767
>Weber's electrodynamics
>>16228767
Is this the electromagnetics theory where theres no magnetic field?
>source
i can hook you up but only if you can come up with a fringe formula, the guy that ,easured frknge shifts didnt have a theory, he only indicated such a result was against the tenants of relativity
>>16228798
>couldn't this be chalked up to something as simple as ambient temperature differences
Yes, thats why its important to be able to explain the shift theoretically, otherwise it can be chalked up to error. Although this shift tracked the motion of the earth, it repeated every 24 hours with a slower enveloping change over the year

[Anonymous No.16228840]

>>16228817
>Is this the electromagnetics theory where theres no magnetic field?
Yep.
>i can hook you up but only if you can come up with a fringe formula, the guy that ,easured frknge shifts didnt have a theory, he only indicated such a result was against the tenants of relativity
Alright, do me a favor and drop me an email or some means of contacting you (you can use a throwaway email; send it to my email address, it's in my paper). I'll send you a formula + the derivation when it's ready.

[Anonymous No.16228842]

>>16228756
Why did you need to pay for it? When I published a paper my institution paid for everything. Did you publish it yourself? Just curious because I have intensive research on a topic and a couple of stuff we found was never in any paper.

[Anonymous No.16228853]

>>16228840
hopefully you'll get an email from the fellow. But he'll be disappointed that you dont have a formula to predict the shift, say as a function of the refraction index material, optical path of any real life variables in an interferometer.

[Anonymous No.16228860]

>>16228817
but again, we're not talking about much - we're talking about something that was an order of magnitude smaller than an already tiny predicted effect.

something as simple as the fraction of a percent change in lengths of the interferometer arms over the course of a day's temperature swings (especially pre-central air/heating) could easily be enough to cause that kind of a fringe. the same explanation was previously found to explain the anomalous estimates of the speed of light in dayton miller's 1925 experiments. it's reasonable to conclude that the same could apply here.

what about a non-interferometry based measurement of the speed of light, like using a refractor to measure time differences in the transmission and reception of a reflected light pulse (a more modern demonstration used for measuring the speed of light)? This setup is pretty straightforward and you could easily track both transit times and temperatures and see if there's a regular periodic behavior that doesn't correlate with room temperature.

for someone so convinced in their revolutionary theory, you don't seem particularly ambitious to prove it.

[Anonymous No.16228864]

Relativity is based on 1800 scientist making 1800 math trick: the transformation.

This is not how the reality works tho.

[Anonymous No.16228869]

>>16228864
>in real life, things don't look different from different perspectives!

[Anonymous No.16228912]

>>16228842
>Why did you need to pay for it? When I published a paper my institution paid for everything.
I'm a software engineer with a physics degree; I'm not affiliated with any institution. Price-gouging publication costs is apparently one of the ways scientists have decided to gatekeep their profession.

>Did you publish it yourself?
No, it's published in Physics Essays but I also made copies available on my blog, on osf.io, and on vixra.

[Anonymous No.16228918]

You don't need to be affiliated with an institution to submit to most journals. The vast majority of physics journals do not have publication fees. Did you submit to any of these first? If so you should have received some feedback from the peer reviewers. If so, what were their comments and how did you attempt to address their concerns?

For all we know they pointed out all the same issues people in this thread have pointed out already.

[Anonymous No.16228920]

>>16228853
>But he'll be disappointed that you dont have a formula to predict the shift, say as a function of the refraction index material, optical path of any real life variables in an interferometer.
I'll think about it. The issue I remember from the last time I looked into this was the issue of the Fresnel drag coefficient; to theoretically justify that coefficient I would have to come up with a theory for how the aether interacts with matter, which is a separate can of worms. There seems to be good experimental evidence for Fresnel's coefficient but I don't necessarily trust it.

[Anonymous No.16228942]

>>16228918
>You don't need to be affiliated with an institution to submit to most journals. The vast majority of physics journals do not have publication fees. Did you submit to any of these first?
Yes, I submitted the paper to a wide variety of journals.
>If so you should have received some feedback from the peer reviewers. If so, what were their comments and how did you attempt to address their concerns?
The only comments I got from journals other than Physics Essays was that my paper was either "not appropriate" for the journal or "outside the scope" of what they publish (for an example, see picrel). I did get some peer review from Physics Essays. The reviewers basically said my math looked correct, so they recommended publication. Otherwise they seemed somewhat careful not to express an opinion about it.

[Anonymous No.16228957]

>>16228860
>for someone so convinced in their revolutionary theory, you don't seem particularly ambitious to prove it.
I've proven it with pure mathematics, which is probably the highest standard to which you can prove anything. I spent a bunch of time and effort writing a paper and spent a fair amount of money to publish my result.

I'm not particularly convinced that conducting an experiment would be more effective in making my case than presenting a mathematical proof. First, I'm not associated with any lab or university, so people would question my credentials, and second, regardless of my results people would question my methodology. With a math proof there's no methodology to question; either the math holds or it doesn't, and anyone can verify it for themselves.

How much money and effort am I supposed to expend to convince other people that I'm correct? What's the payoff?

[Anonymous No.16228971]

>>16228918
Exhibit B

[Anonymous No.16228980]

>>16228918
Exhibit C

[Anonymous No.16228999]

>>16228918
Exhibit D. "Peer review" from PRD.

[Anonymous No.16229024]

>>16228918
Exhibit E. You get the idea.

[Anonymous No.16229029]

>>16229024
Oops, forgot to include the comments from EPJP-D. Here they are!

[Anonymous No.16229045]

>>16228942
>>16228971
>>16228980
So you started off by trying to go straight for extremely broad-focused journals that only publish a handful of *major* theoretical and experimental papers a year instead of finding something more specialized that you might have actually had a chance with. AIP? Fucking *Nature*? Come on, anon what'd you expect?
>>16228999
>>16229024
PRD and EPJD are at least in the ballpark (though PRA might have been better as its optics instead of cosmology).

Your presentation isn't helping your case either - is this format >>16227755 the same as what you submitted to all of these other journals? Quips and random quotes included? Or did you go and edit the article to comply with the format and style of other articles from these publications first?


>>16228957
But, as has been pointed out, your math proof is (a) untested and (b) doesn't invalidate special relativity. You've succeeded in demonstrating with your proof that *some* (not *all*, it should be noted) observations attributed to relativistic effects could be attributed to your spherical wave doppler shift stuff. And that's really neat, but that on its own is not the silver bullet you seem to think it is.

[Anonymous No.16229075]

>>16229045
>So you started off by trying to go straight for extremely broad-focused journals that only publish a handful of *major* theoretical and experimental papers a year instead of finding something more specialized that you might have actually had a chance with. AIP? Fucking *Nature*? Come on, anon what'd you expect?
No, I submitted my paper to a wide variety of journals, like I said. These are just random rejections I'm pulling from my inbox in no particular order.

The first journal I submitted to was the African Review of Physics, which was where Randy Wayne published his work so I figured my paper had a good shot of being published their. However, that journal apparently closed down and hasn't published any new issues since 2020. Almost a year passed between my submission there and submission to other journals.

[Anonymous No.16229078]

>>16229045
>PRD and EPJD are at least in the ballpark (though PRA might have been better as its optics instead of cosmology).
I tried EPJH as well.

[Anonymous No.16229085]

>>16229045
>is this format >>16227755 (You) the same as what you submitted to all of these other journals? Quips and random quotes included?
No, I submitted multiple different versions of the paper.
>Or did you go and edit the article to comply with the format and style of other articles from these publications first?
I had other versions of the paper, and also did a significant amount of reformatting to make the paper publishable. In physics essays, for instance, they only accepted submissions in .doc format, and my paper was written in latex, so I ended up re-writing ALL of my equations in LibreOffice Writer (92 numbered equations, but significantly more if you include the unnumbered ones) and reformatting/resizing all of my figures, etc so that the paper could be published.

[Anonymous No.16229092]

>>16229045
>You've succeeded in demonstrating with your proof that *some* (not *all*, it should be noted) observations attributed to relativistic effects could be attributed to your spherical wave doppler shift stuff. And that's really neat, but that on its own is not the silver bullet you seem to think it is.
True. However, for myself personally, this question is settled and I've moved on to other questions, other projects, and other problems.

[Anonymous No.16229099]

>>16229045
>Fucking *Nature*? Come on, anon what'd you expect?
My result overturns modern physics; it's probably more important than anything Nature has ever published.

[Anonymous No.16229117]

>>16229045
>your math proof is (a) untested and (b) doesn't invalidate special relativity
Still, that's like saying the heliocentric model doesn't overturn the Ptolemaic model. The Ptolemaic model isn't technically wrong; it describes the trajectories of the planets exactly as they're seen from Earth. However, it overlooks a crucial insight, which is that the orbits of the planets can be explained by the same gravitational force that exists on Earth. Relativity also explains the MM null result, but it requires discarding classical mechanics, whereas you could also explain the result without discarding classical mechanics at all... I suppose my theory is less of a silver bullet and more like an armor-piercing tungsten carbide round.

[Anonymous No.16229831]

>>16228869
If you look a circle (hula loop) from different angle it looks like an ellipse but does it make it an ellipse?

[Anonymous No.16229838]

>>16228476
Newton's theory isn't a hoax because it is legitimately correct. Yes, there are things he missed that are required for perfectly accurate results, but his overall theory is correct.
Einsteinian relativity, however, despite making fairly accurate predictions, is NOT correct, unlike Newton's theory. Einsteinian relativity invokes timefuckery (i.e. relativity of simultaneity), subjectivism within physics (i.e. constancy of c relative to observer), etc, which are objectively wrong. Big fucking difference between the errors in Newton's predictions and the blatant falsehood of Einsteinian relativity.
>le einstein bad 'cause jew
It doesn't have fuckall to do with him being a jew. I didn't even know he was a jew when I realized relativity theory is garbage. I also don't deny that Albert was a smart guy and made contributions to physics. Relativity, however, is trash.
>my board
kys kike