Relativistic Temperature Decrease

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9777788]

Hello!
I do not speak English well, so I use Google Translate.

I want to show you some of my ideas in this little work.

[Anonymous No.9777803]

>>9777788
>time does not exist
Stopped reading there

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9777806]

>>9777803
why?

[Anonymous No.9777812]

>>9777806
I am not the other guy but a claim as big as “Time is not real” has to be supported with much more substantial evidence than just “it’s man made”

For that reason I also disagree with you. But it was a neat concept

[Anonymous No.9777814]

>>9777806
Because it obviously exists. It is a parameter that pops up in all branches of physics. We observe it, can measure it, and intuitively feel its passage. We know that time never ticks backwards, only forwards. We know time ticks so that the entropy within closed systems increases. "Time does not exist" is definitely something only a psued would say. You might as well say "space doesn't exist."

[Anonymous No.9777818]

>>9777788
Take this to a university class, and you'll get a 100 for a project grade. Bring it here to /sci/ and people will tear it to pieces just because they can.

[Anonymous No.9777819]

>>9777818
>Take this to a university class, and you'll get a 100 for a project grade
Lmao

[Anonymous No.9777826]

>>9777806
"Time does not exist" is nonsense.
"Time" is just what clocks (any regular, periodic, process measures. Springs, vibrating atoms, radioactive decay.)
But I kept on reading.

"Mass and momentum decrease".
Wrong. Both can increase without limit even though nothing can move faster than light.

The KE of particles does not decrease -- not even "temporarily". You seem to think energy conservation is not violated because the energy returns when they stop again.
The energy of the particles never decreases, whether measured by a "stationary" observer or by one riding along with the sample.
Therefore, there is no "relativistic refrigeration".

Interesting attempt, but you need to learn more about relativity.

[Anonymous No.9777832]

>>9777819
Maybe in a class on Mythology or Literature written by Old White Guys.
Not in any Physics class.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9777842]

My model of the universe:
Time, energy, space and matter do not exist.
We misunderstand the structure of the universe.

Cause: Specific evolution of our brain.
We just need another brain or AI.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9777845]

Forget about time just read this little work to the end.

[Anonymous No.9777848]

>>9777788
I found a thread on the issue of Lorentz variance of temperature here:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/83488/is-temperature-a-lorentz-invariant-in-relativity

So your idea isn't new, but it looks like the jury's still out on what the exact lorentz transformation behavior of temperature should be.

[Anonymous No.9777862]

>>9777845
I did read it and much like this guy >>9777826 I also think you lack a bit of understanding

But as I said, it was a neat concept

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9777875]

>>9777826
Object's Time Dilation => Particle's Velocity Decrease

The particle moves at a lower speed.
Impulse and kinetic energy are decreases.

The Kinetic Energy Decreases => Temperature Decrease

Decreased speed => The relativistic mass Decreased

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9777880]

>>9777848

I rediscovered this, there is nothing strange about this. Sadly of course, I'm not the first again.

But I have several ideas and conclusions.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9777885]

>>9777862
>>9777875

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9777934]

I see no reason to continue.
I will always be second. :(

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9777940]

But if I continue, then, maybe sooner or later I'll be the first.

[Anonymous No.9777997]

>>9777934
>>9777940
I agree, you clearly stumbled upon something interesting. And because of that I think you do have the potential to maybe find something new. Just don’t get caught up in being first, focus on understanding and improving your ideas.

Also I’m the neat concept guy

[Anonymous No.9778014]

>>9777940
You certainly have a chance of being first eventually, but you have to work hard to get to the cutting edge. Special relativity was cutting edge in 1905, so there are limits to what's left to discover using only the tools it provides.

[Anonymous No.9778022]

>>9777875
We build a spacecraft.
A mass (red dot) is heated to 1000 K and radiates heat (green lines) into interstellar space.
The black lines are perfect mirrors. Their only job is to protect the dot from the impacts of dust grains and photons which would heat it.
Motors on and we accelerate in the direction of the thick blue arrow.

An observer riding on the craft will experience no change whenever we turn the motors off and coast briefly. Whether the motors are on or off, the dot will radiate energy as the 4th power of its temperature and cool down exponentially towards the CMB temperature (where it will reach equilibrium). Can't get any colder than its surroundings. Are we all agreed so far?

Now, if you are right, the dot will eventually cool BELOW the 4 K or so of the CMB and start absorbing energy. That's what a distant, un-accelerated, observer will see.
Since there is no limit to tau, there's no limit to how cold the dot can get.

We have a paradox. Different observers may disagree on where and when events occur, but never of WHETHER they occur. One person can't see two cars smash and someone else sees them barely miss.

The only consistent resolution is that relativistic cooling does not occur.
The molecular motion of particles may slow, but (because their masses have increased) energy per particle has NOT gone down.
Therefore, neither has their temperature.

>>9777875
Neither KE nor momentum ever decreases.
You're just not understanding relativity.
Counter-question: If they DID decrease, where would they go? Both are conserved quantities and there's nothing else around they could be transferred to.

[Anonymous No.9778208]

>>9778022
But is the CMB temperature measured the same in all inertial frames? That's a no, right?


I'm liking this thread OP. You should not be discouraged, as there seems to be no consensus on this topic in the scientific community yet.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9778225]

>>9777997
>>9778014
...
Thank you all!

>>9778022
Sorry, I do not have time for you anymore.
Because time does not exist. ;)
And I do not see the point of arguing with you.
Good luck!
Bye!

[Anonymous No.9778233]

>dude just shove the gamma factor in front of everything and call it "relativistic"
Also I like how this retard ALMOST hits the "Wick rotation" mark, though the gamma factor would just be a regular length element since Wick rotation brings hyperbolic Minkowski geometry to flat Euclidean.
Even if somebody were to interpret his abysmally retarded post extremely generously they'd still have to conclude that he doesn't know shit. It's hilarious.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9778261]

>>9778233
I used simple names.
I knew very well that some inadequate primates would not like it.

In addition, you are full of nonsense about Wick.

Dumb trolling and incompetence.

[Anonymous No.9778273]

>>9778261
Did I hit a nerve, dumbass? Kids like you full of Dunning-Kruger has no business trying to "innovate" anything in science, despite what other anons ITT says.
>you are full of nonsense about Wick.
Oh yeah tell me what you know about Wick rotation, I'll wait. I'll even allow you to copypaste Wikipedia.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9778275]

>>9778233
I'm talking only about the consequences of the Special Theory of Relativity.
I'm not talking about quantum physics.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9778284]

>>9778273
Read my work again.
There are no mistakes.

[Anonymous No.9778297]

>>9778275
>consequences of the Special Theory of Relativity.
Which has fuck all to do with temperature. Relativity deals with individual motion where reference frames are well defined, and NOT with consequences of collective motion of ensembles such as temperature.
>which has nothing to do with quantum physics
The only relationship between relativity and temperature is through the correspondence between QFT and stat mech via the Wick rotation. Anything else is pure crackpottery.
>>9778284
Good job dodging the question. I'll safely accept this fact as your admission that you know fuck all about Wick rotation (or Wick anything, really) and you're just trying to blow steam up your retarded ass.
>There are no mistakes.
The only thing that's correct in your retarded image is the elementary school level symbol pushing. I'd say the most egregious error here is the fact that your parents failed to bring you up free of ignorance and Dunning-Kruger, or even have birth to you at all.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9778321]

>>9778297
You need to see a psychiatrist.
Fatty troll, a liar and a virgin. A loser and an empty place. Absolute zero. ^^
I will not waste anymore time.

[Anonymous No.9778345]

>>9778321
Projecting this much just because someone called out your retardation? Immeasurably stupid ABD mentally unstable? Better go see a therapist, stupid little boy.
>I will not waste anymore time.
Can't say the same for your parents for the past few decades; that time spent raising an anomalously stupid and self-unaware idiot like you was definitely a waste.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9778352]

Our dispute is similar to Einstein's dispute with Bohr.
Bor trolled Einstein, and you troll me.

Quantum physics, blablabla.
Teleportation of information.
One object in two different places at the same time. Blah blah blah. XD

"Random events do not exist."
I understood this when I was a kid.
Everywhere a causal relationship.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9778361]

Everyone knows my email.
23:05
I went to bed.
Dosvidanya.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fB__mB_amE

[Anonymous No.9778363]

>>9778352
>too pussy to quote me
This far ITT you've proven yourself to be
1. irredeemably stupid
2. incurably mentally unstable
3. incredibly deluded,
and you've just proven
4. unbelievably cowardly.
Anything more you'd like to share with the class?
>this deluded
No trolling here; everything I've said (which you haven't even attempted to address, not that you could) is completely 100% truth. You would've realized this if you had the least bit of humility to Google the jargon I wrote up. Vat you don't, since you're too deluded to even fact check the bullshit you write up. So deluded in fact that you think you can compare yourself to Einstein, even though he'd say the same thing I've said to you for confusing something as classical as kinematics vs stat mech.
>Quantum physics, blablabla.
>Teleportation of information.
>One object in two different places at the same time. Blah blah blah. XD
Literally no one said this. Stop fighting with the voices inside your head and take your meds, retard schizo.
>Everywhere a causal relationship.
Which is what quantum theory describes, albeit with a different ontology than classical physics. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone as completely braindead as you to understand this though.
Again, save your parents anymore grief and kill yourself, you waste of resources.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9778434]

>>9778363
Write to me on my email.
I'll show you where your mistakes are.

[Anonymous No.9778694]

>>9778434
No I'm going to embarrass you here in public. Don't you run away with your tiny cock between your legs like the mentally ill crank coward you are.
I'll gladly destroy you if you haven't had enough, but I'm only going to do it here so the rest of /sci/ sees how fucking pathetic people like you are, and to also serve as a deterrent.
>ill show
You've shown literally nothing, even to milquetoast criticisms given above by other more kind-hearted anons. What exactly in your zero-measure brain made you think you have any non-vanishing chance of showing me where I'm wrong?

[Anonymous No.9778701]

>>9778694
>being this autistic
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.9778705]

>>9778701
>this bad at samefagging
Quit while you can, idiot.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779269]

>>9777788

BUMP

And do not feed anime-troll please.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779325]

>>9778022

"Any paradox is a consequence of an error."

https://twitter.com/kiridu1988/status/970661455501676545

Where is the error?
You do not understand my work.
Read the "Additions" again.


For v_object<<c only:

t_0 = γt => v_p0 = γv_p =>
=> v_0 = γv => v_r =sqrt[ (γv_0)^2 + (v_object)^2 ]

The velocities are directed perpendicular to each other.
v_p - process velocity.
v_r – particle's relative velocity (total real velocity).

Ek = m(v_r)^2 /2
Average Ek = 3kT/2 => => T = 2A.Ek/(3k)
T = m(v_r)^2/(3k)

!!!Formulas for v_object<<c only!!!

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779382]

>>9779325
It seems like nonsense. XD

[Anonymous No.9779403]

Well, it seems that people seeing movies of science and scientists are thinking that writing scientific papers is like making a comic book. Well, as far as this piece of whatever is concerned is non-sense. Let us grant the author the courage to say what they think but there is a huge flaw- There is not title and there is not idea that is demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.9779418]

>>9778233
>>9778273
>>9778297
>>9778345
>>9778363
>>9778694
>>9778321
> all these anime pictures and responses

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779452]

Now I make a table and I want to draw a graph.

[Anonymous No.9779458]

You have to consider the fact that temperature is a statistically defined quantity, and a lot of scalars (such as pressure, actually) are invariant under relativistic transformations.

In fact, when REALLY doing relativity, analyzing invariant, covariant and contravariant quantities is one of the most important tools.

One thing worth considering is that high-temperature bodies emit blackbody radiation. This blackbody radiation is then redshifted at high speeds if the source is moving away from us. A very simple way to test this theory would be to just compare the redshifted, un-transformed temperature's emission spectrum to the emission spectrum of the transformed temperature.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779499]

In my scientific work there are small inconsistencies.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779514]

>>9779499
There should be two different gamma-factors.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779517]

>>9779458
cool thx

>>9779403
>>9777875

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779531]

>>9779458
sorry but

p = dF / dS
F = ma
a = dv / dt

m and v is not a constant.
Pressure is not a constant.

And I don't know your experiment is correct or not.

[Anonymous No.9779541]

>>9779531
Sorry but you can't apply newtonian definitions of force and pressure in a relativistic context.

[Anonymous No.9779560]

>>9777788
>>9777848
>>9777880
>>9778022>>9777826

SR effects should realistically be considered outside the thermodynamic limit in the same way that many GR effects already are. The concept of temperature in particular is an equilibrium phenomenon. It describes the macroscopic behaviour of a chunk of matter in equilibrium. It doesn't describe the energy of matter except for when it is in this equilibrium state.

Consider a simple classical fluid mechanics non-relativistic example; a convection stream of warm water flowing over a plate. We do not compute a relative temperature based on the convection movement (even though the mean kinetic energy of the water relative to the plate is actually higher than it would've been if there were no convection).

However, clearly convection transfers energy to the plate "quicker" (cf. heat transfer textbooks if you don't know why). So could we actually have a "pseudo-temperature" value for the convection. That is to say, we replicate the (first order) dynamics of the convection heat transfer by assuming a "pseudo-temperature" of a stationary conduction transfer across an interface. This is, of course, an idiotic exercise that would mean fitting hundreds of new parameters and tracking the energy balance becomes far more difficult. In addition the measured temperature of the plate would have to be transformed to a pseudo temperature (otherwise we violate Thermo Law I) and then transformed back. So instead we dissociate the equilibrium thermodynamics from the transfer equations and we use the concept of energy balances and heat transfer so that all the equations derive from more fundamental laws.

The same semantic fuckery is happening with trying to give temperature an SR transform. It senseless in many ways.

>>9779458
We gave this data, the reason no one has done this yet and claimed a PLR log-log publication is because of the above reason.

[Anonymous No.9779578]

>>9779560
I'm really just baiting him to try and redshift the BB radiation spectrum because it's pretty clear just from looking at Planck's equation that it won't match up with "relativistic temperature decrease"

[Anonymous No.9779584]

>>9779578
Ah, my post made it seem like I was addressing you, I meant it more like "Also listen to this Anon's example OP".

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779643]

>>9779560
You're wrong.
A smaller number of particles collide with the wall of the bank for one rest second and the velocity of the particles decreases.

The force will decrease => The pressure will decrease

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779652]

Only inside the object will not notice any changes inside the object if we are inside the object.

But when we will look out of the window, we will be astonished.

[Anonymous No.9779676]

>>9779269
>>9779325
>>9779382
>>9779452
>>9779499
>>9779514
>>9779517
>>9779531
>>9779643
>>9779652

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779685]

The moving inflated ball will look like an inflated ball, but when we measure the pressure inside the ball, then it will turn out to be less than it should be.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779694]

>>9779685
than it "should be".

[Anonymous No.9779697]

>>9779643
Reread my post. Your reply is completely irrelevant to the problem.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779708]

>>9779697
Your example does not take into account the Special Theory of Relativity.

v<<c only.

[Anonymous No.9779795]

>>9779708
A thing you should consider in regards to how scalar quantities transform as well is that regardless of the actual speed and geometry, the same PROCESSES still have to happen

For example, we know certain chemical processes start when the temperature gets high enough. How does your model account for this? Are you going to claim that if my oven goes fast enough, the pizza will never be cooked?

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779805]

On a high mountain it is impossible to weld eggs.
But most people do not know this.
But this does not change reality.

[Anonymous No.9779806]

>>9779805
A high mountain also doesn't experience any kind of special relativity effects compared to being down on the ground. This is not a valid parallel, or even a relevant argument.

Also, welding is the process of melting metal to join two pieces of metal. I think you mean boiling eggs.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779809]

>>9779795
I understand perfectly well that there are many paradoxes.

But "Any paradox is a consequence of an error."

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779813]

>>9779806
google translater ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point

[Anonymous No.9779818]

>>9779809
>>9779813
Yes, and the error is that you've confused a translation (Moving onto the top of a mountain) with a lorentz transformation (Boosting or rotating, i.e. putting your boiling pot on a rocket flying away from earth at 1/2c)

The boiling point changes with air pressure, that is correct. However, the fact that the equation of state for water is nonlinear in pressure and temperature could easily be seen as an argument for why it'll be a lot harder than you think to formulate a lorentz-covariant theory of hydrodynamics. That, or it'll be trivial because the scalars are already invariant.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779820]

The time dilation is experimentally proved.
All processes inside the moving object are slowed down.
It is a fact.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779823]

>>9779818
I did not say anything about "Moving onto the top of a mountain"

[Anonymous No.9779828]

>>9779820
This is like the one thread on /sci/ where nobody is denying special relativity, you don't need to convince anyone of that. The problem is that you're insisting that temperature, a property with a lot of complicated effects, should have a simple behavior at relativistic speeds. This is not the case.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779839]

>>9779828
Temperature is just kinetic energy.
Temperature is the speed and mass.

[Anonymous No.9779860]

>>9779839
Temperature is actually more rigorously defined in statistical mechanics by

[eqn]\frac{1}{T} = -\frac{\partial S(E,V,N)}{\partial E}[/eqn]

Where S is the entropy of the system, i.e. how many microscopic states correspond to the macroscopic state of the system.

A big part of the issue here is that temperature isn't a fundamental property, it depends on a lot of the properties of the objects in question. (For example, something with a higher heat capacity will take more energy to increase in temperature). This means, again, that we can't expect temperature to have simple lorentz transformation properties.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779869]

Inside a moving object, the same amount of energy is released, but slower for us.

Time Dilation => Energy Dilation => Temperature Dilation.

This is elementary.
No one can argue with this.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779879]

>>9779860
>>9779869

no schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.9779886]

>>9779869
And yet by the above definition of temperature, the actual kinetic energy is irrelevant because the temperature only depends on how entropy changes when the energy changes. That's the point, there are several definitions of temperature that agree somewhat in regular Galilean mechanics, but disagree in relativistic mechanics.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779898]

T/t decreases exactly when heated.
Heating is slower.
And cooling too.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779909]

ΔX0 > ΔX

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779914]

>>9779886
We do not know what is the "temperature".
Only theories, simplifications and assumptions.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779917]

>>9779860
And I do not understand your formula :)

[Anonymous No.9779920]

>>9779914
We know quite well how temperature behaves in a stationary reference frame, but as I keep saying relativity doesn't play nice with the usual variables. That's why you see things like 4-momentum, energy-momentum tensors and so on in relativistic theories. They're the more general objects that actually play nice in a relativistic theory.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779931]

Ek = Δmc^2 (Δm = m - m0)
The asteroid falls on the planet.
The asteroid's potential energy is transformed into "real" energy.
The temperature rises.

m = ym0 - velocity (energy of motion) increases the mass.

Temperature is the mass and speed of a moving object.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779937]

It's pointless to argue. We need experiments.

[Anonymous No.9779938]

>>9779931
Just FYI it's pretty uncommon to use the relativistic mass increase formalism at higher levels of education nowadays, since m0, the rest mass, works as a really nice lorentz-invariant property.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779945]

The transfer of temperature is the transfer of kinetic energy.
The temperature is the kinetic energy.

I will try to improve my work.

[Anonymous No.9779948]

>>9779917
Yeah no shit, retard.

[Anonymous No.9779955]

>>9777803
>>9777806
>>9777812
>>9777814
>>9777826
I'm pretty sure OP meant "time does not exist" in the same way an object cannot posses heat, but it is rather as he said a process.
It still is a thing it's just not a possesable or whatever other way you wanna think about time.
Either that or OP is a w0ke edgelord

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9779963]

>>9779955
what?
Time does not exist in real. This is a theoretical thing.
And temperature is the movement of particles.

[Anonymous No.9779987]

>>9779963
I really have to disagree with your notion that time dilation from special relativity implies time doesn't exist at all

It's more accurate to say that time depends on reference frame

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9780013]

1) v<c

The process released 1 J of energy per second in rest.

Now we are looking at the moving object.
There, this process is still going on (start in one moment for everyone).
There's only 0.8 (J) for us and for them.

And now we want tea, so we boil water.
process x N (J)
Only during this process, the temperature is the same everywhere.

2) v->c

The process released 1 (J) of energy per second in rest.

Now we are looking at the moving object.
There's only ->0 (J) for us and for them.

process x N = ->0 (J) -> 0

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9780015]

>>9779987
This is not a consequence of the special theory of relativity.

[Anonymous No.9780025]

>>9780015
Yes, it would be pretty stupid for a theory about the behavior of spacetime to state that time does not exist. That's why I'm pointing out to you that "time does not exist" is an unjustified assertion. Time, like a lot of physical concepts, has well-defined properties and behavior that make it clear that it has to exist.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9780047]

>>9780025

Where do you see time in the real world?
And energy?

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9780056]

>>9780013
But this is another thing.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9780131]

I don't see time and energy anywhere.
I see only space and matter around.
I see electromagnetic waves and gravity.
But my inner voice tells me: "Close your eyes. What do you see now?".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GELtgLNseM

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9780153]

>>9780013
This model does not take into account the relativistic velocity. decrease.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9780178]

For us: water inside the moving object will boil earlier (<100C) and the pressure will be less, hah.

[Anonymous No.9780208]

>>9780153
You really need to look into how people formulate theories to be lorentz invariant by default.

In relativistic theories we use [math]\{t,x,y,z\}[/math] coordinates, for units to match we multiply t by c. Momentum similarly becomes the 4-momentum, [math]\{E/c,px,py,pz\}[/math], and several other quantities end up being modeled as tensors.

The reason why we do this is that in this formalism, we can define the inner product of vectors in a lorentz-invariant manner using [math]v\cdot u = \sum_{\mu=0}^{3}\sum_{\mu=0}^{3} v^\mu u^\nu g_{\mu\nu} [/math], where g is the spacetime metric, usually [math]\begin{bmatrix}1&0&0&0\\0&-1&0&0\\0&0&-1&0\\0&0&0&-1\end{bmatrix}[/math].

I'm not expecting what I just said to teach you anything, I'm just providing it as an example of the kind of stuff people who actually do relativistic physics work with, in the hopes that you might understand how to actually formulate your theory without massive problems.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9780234]

>>9780208
blablabla and pseudo-formulas

thx you

[Anonymous No.9780243]

>>9780234
>Pseudo-formulas
No, these are the legitimate basics of modern special relativity. If you're not interested in working with relativity in the way that actually works, which has been developed by people MUCH smarter than you and produces actual results, kindly sit the fuck down and let the adults talk in peace.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9780279]

>>9780243
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX1BsDMTmH4

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9781514]

It's good that everyone agreed with me.

[Anonymous No.9781677]

>>9781514
They didn't, you just stopped making points that were coherent enough to even be argued with.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9781702]

>>9781677
What to argue, if everything is so elementary??

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9781744]

v=c
We are at rest.

Only for us:
Time freezes in inside the moving object.
Inside the object, the whole world froze.
The object does not emit waves.
The object does not emit thermal radiation.
Temperature of the object = absolute zero.

v<c
Time dilation.
The speed of processes decreases.
The velocity of the particles decreases.
The kinetic energy of the particles decreases.
The temperature decreases.

No one can refute this.
And no correct experiment will disprove this.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9781768]

>>9781744
But for a moving object no change occurs.
It's like another but little universe.

E=mc^2, ptotal=mc, p=mv
E0=m0c^2, ptotal=m0c, p=m0v0???

[Anonymous No.9781781]

>>9781677
Don't waste your breath on this immense retard. Talking to him kills more brain cells than alcohol poisoning

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9781785]

>>9781781
>>9781744

[Anonymous No.9781787]

>>9781781
It's actually helping me solidify fundamentals for my GR course by asserting them over and over

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9781804]

We see a man who moves very slowly and speaks very slowly.

A temperature detector sees a molecule that moves very slowly.

The faster the molecule, the higher the temperature.
A slow molecule is a small temperature.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9781845]

Anyone who gets into the "frozen" system (v=c) will never return from there.
But it is impossible to gets there.
If such a system exists in reality (hypothesis).

[Anonymous No.9781885]

>>9781787
It's helping you a lot less than you think, since you could destroy his stupid shit by saying literally anything that's remotely correct.

[Anonymous No.9782034]

>>9781885
Looking past the nonsense ramblings, the question of how temperature varies under lorentz transforms was actually interesting to look into

Too bad he stood his ground when confronted with evidence

[Anonymous No.9782040]

>>9777788
So, what is the consensus, guys? Do we have one somewhat clever crank starting multiple unrelated threads abut his crankishness, or an influx of several of them?

[Anonymous No.9782056]

>>9779269
The ironing is palatable.

[Anonymous No.9782068]

>>9779805
>On a high mountain it is impossible to weld eggs.But most people do not know this.But this does not change reality.

If the guy who made the "You cannot change physics be not understanding it" banner over in tether thread is still around, this cries out to you...

[Anonymous No.9782076]

>>9779917
Well, you can't change physics by not understanding t.

[Anonymous No.9782080]

>>9780047
>Where do you see time in the real world?
I'll tell you later.

[Anonymous No.9782084]

>>9780279
Argumentum ad Youtubum

Can we say /thread now?

[Anonymous No.9782088]

>>9782040
Anonymous "science" forums are a desirable place for cranks. They love to spew their bile in places like this.

[Anonymous No.9782139]

>>9782088
They also love attention and namefag (like that "The Lord" idiot), even though this just makes it that much easier to ridicule them.

[Anonymous No.9782182]

>>9782080
I will now tell you.

Did you see what I did there?

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9783532]

Even the speed of light decreases.
The speed of light is not a constant.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9784720]

If the speed of light is relative...
This speed can increase...
v > c hmmm...

[Anonymous No.9784727]

>>9783532
This is an absolutely undebatable aspect of relativity that you can't show with relativistic formulas. Please READ the assumptions of the theory you're using before trying to apply it.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9784772]

>>9784727
I know better than you, what the formulas say. sor

[Anonymous No.9784781]

>>9784772
No, you don't. You know how I know that? You're not even familiar enough with the formulas to use [math]\gamma[/math] as a shorthand for the lorentz factor. In fact, I can go on to say that your confusions about relativity puts you somewhere below high school level.

[Kirill Dubovitskiy No.9784784]

do not feed the trolls.

[Anonymous No.9784788]

>>9784784
The only trolls are the ones ironically supporting your position.