LOL. As if a train car could go near light speed. HYPOTHETICALLY -- Duh!
Relativity: A Theory in Crisis
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Aaron, Nov 18, 2018.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
-
-
Why was this post given spotlight?
Reminds me of the episode from South Park - ICenti-Ipad. "BUT CAN IT READ!?"
Let's go through it.
If you do not understand, this experiment was never done. The Chinese physicist proposed an experiment that wasn't and I'm pretty sure will never be done. It is that bad of a proposal.
Let me reiterate this. No experiment has been done. No empirical evidence has been found.
This Ruyong Wang seems to have made a cottage industry of this dog doo and from what I can tell has not succeed in either getting someone else to do his experiments or succeeded in setting up his experiments himself. He is mindlessly plowing forward into a fictional area and no one native to this continent is following him.
Wang says a lot of silly stuff.
"Some deductions in special relativity, like the relation between mass and speed, have strong experimental support." - There is no relation between mass and speed. This is a common mistake that has to be demonstrated to Undergraduate Physics majors because they were taught this by a poor U.S. HS science teacher who was forced to teach a subject they knew nothing about. And I guess it's being taught in China somewhere - I'm hoping not Taiwan.
"If motion really is purely relative, then speed is also purely relative, and therefore, mass must be purely relative." - This insanity is exactly why there is no relation between mass and speed. This also shows that the author, despite his position, doesn't understand basic undergraduate physics. Although understood by those who needed to know like the people who built the atomic bombs, the notation used in the equations at the beginning of the 20th century was confusing to those who didn't come from the experimental background. This is why Einstein suggested a notation change in 1948.
Regardless, could you people please read the articles before you blindly put your faith in them. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Aaron is physics challenged.
A few posts upstream I facetiously posted my "How does he do that? Does he [the observer] have eyes on the back of his head?" to see what Aaron would say.
-
-
Article Abstract
The calculation using the GPS range equation and the results of a Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) differential GPS test have shown that the constancy of the speed of light relative to moving airplanes is not correct. The change of the time difference could reach about 10 ns for subsonic airplanes and 30 ns for supersonic airplanes. The result of this crucial experiment is not only important scientifically, but also indicates the possibility of a new way to directly measure vehicle speed relative to the ECI frame. -
What happened was I quoted physicists who said that one can assume the earth to be motionless at the center of mass of a rotating universe, and the observations could be explained with Relativity.
Einstein's theory of general relativity adds further to the debate. It asserts that it is impossible for a human observer to determine whether any material body is in a state of absolute rest (i.e., immobile in space). It claims that only motion of two material bodies relative to one another can be physically detected. According to this theory the geocentric and heliocentric viewpoints are equally valid representations of reality, and it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to speak of one as being true and the other false.
. . .
Relativity is the theory which is accepted as the correct one by the great majority of scientists at present. However, many science teachers and textbooks are not aware of this, and it is not uncommon to find heliocentricity taught as the progressive and "obviously true" theory even today.
The gist of the rebuttal was that that would have distant bodies exceeding the speed of light, thought to be constant at about 186,000 miles/sec. But GR allows light and bodies to exceed that speed limit by several orders of magnitude, it seems.
That's what physicists are saying. Can you prove them wrong? -
I’ll just have to put you on ignore. -
Just quoting the scientists. :Thumbsup -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk -
Have you looked to see if the guy even graduated high school?
Willfully ignorant. -
-
You have no clue what a Physics professional journal is or what they are all about. You still haven't bothered to read the article. You have no idea who Ruyong Wang is and you haven't made an infantile attempt to find out.
How many articles have you read written by Ruyong Wang - Zero.
The last thing I would want is Ruyong Wang's publishing record. Nor would I want either of his patents he shares with some less than stellar engineers.
And now you're just chasing Red Herrings.
George Carlin Quote: “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Bye -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
LOL. "Dox yourself." Puh-leeze! If you're all about the man and not the argument, seems you should put something out there that would support the notion you're worth listening to. :Tongue
I'm quoting statements of fact by people who've been published in peer reviewed journals. And I've offered more than just abstracts from ION. -
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
All bluster and no substance.
For the rest, ION is a well established and prestigious organization made up of the world authorities in navigation and technology. But this Southpark devotee wants to call them names. :p -
Maybe Star Trek can be recycled as series about mercenaries.
Page 2 of 3