Prev: Global Contributions to Charity Collections
Next: FR Bending of Light -- Proof
From: gsardin on 21 Jan 2010 03:18
Let me announce this new article:

Beyond the Fundamentals of Special Relativity: Full Lorentz gamma
factor

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.3039v1.pdf
From: Androcles on 21 Jan 2010 04:13

"gsardin" <georgesardin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10d82d96-d2c3-4f3f-ba07-047dac852d63(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Let me announce this new article:
>
> Beyond the Fundamentals of Special Relativity: Full Lorentz gamma
> factor
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.3039v1.pdf


Let me announce a simple fact.
Newtonian Mechanics has so long fit all experimental data, so it has been
ascertained;
your relativity bullshit is wishful thinking, you crank.


From: Tom Roberts on 21 Jan 2010 10:57
gsardin wrote:
> Let me announce this new article:
> Beyond the Fundamentals of Special Relativity: Full Lorentz gamma
> factor
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.3039v1.pdf

Here is what I wrote in sci.physics.foundations in reply to an identical article
from you:


You obviously do not understand Special Relativity. Its first premise, the
Principle of Relativity, permits an inertial observer to reference all speeds to
his own inertial frame. It also precludes the existence of any "preferred frame"
to which to reference your v1 [#]. The necessity of Lorentz transforms forming a
group precludes your "modification".

[#] The CMBR dipole=0 frame does not qualify, as there is no CMBR
in SR.

Note that SR is a rather poor model of the world we inhabit on scales large
enough for gravity to matter or for experiments in which the CMBR is visible.
For such cases one needs to use GR, and your whole discussion fails.

You paper ASSUMES the existence of an absolute, preferred frame, which you
ASSUME is the dipole=0 frame of the CMBR. Neither of these assumptions stands up
to scrutiny in the context of SR. In the context of the world we inhabit, SR
does not apply (except approximately, in regions small enough so the
approximation is better than experimental resolutions).

[Moreover you ignore the fact that the CMBR dipole=0 frame is
DIFFERENT at different locations in the visible universe.]

On page 3, your equation (2) is just plain wrong, reflecting a FUNDAMENTAL
misunderstanding on your part. On page 4 you claim v2=v1+v, which is also just
plain wrong. I gave up at that point, as your entire argument has devolved into
nonsense due to such basic mistakes.


As if these reasons were not enough to reject your premise, you completely
ignore the fact that your "modified gamma factor" is singular or imaginary when
v1+v >= c. That is complete and utter nonsense in this context. This indicates
to me that you simply do not understand what you are trying to do, because
checking for such nonsensical values is an important part of physical reasoning.


If I hold my nose and simply assume that your "modified" gamma factor applies
(i.e. ignoring the theoretical inconsistencies that it introduces, and carefully
avoiding the singularity), and if I assume your |v1| is 370 km/s, then your
"modified gamma factor" differs from the usual one by an arbitrarily-large
amount as v1+v approaches c. Values of v/c ~ 0.998 are easily achieved in
accelerator labs, and observations on such systems COMPLETELY rule out your
"modification". Values of v/c ~ 0.99999999, which make your factor singular or
imaginary, behave normally with REAL ratios of proper time.


You REALLY need to understand the subject before attempting to write about it.
An important aspect of this is understanding when SR is applicable, and when it
is not. Another important aspect of this is getting the basic equations of SR
correct.

I suggest you withdraw the paper because it is nonsense and just riddled with
errors.


Tom Roberts
From: Dono. on 21 Jan 2010 14:14
On Jan 21, 12:18 am, gsardin <georgesar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me announce this new article:
>
> Beyond the Fundamentals of Special Relativity: Full Lorentz gamma
> factor
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.3039v1.pdf

Now that you managed to upload this collection of errors in aexiv , I
suggest that you find a crackpot journal where to submit it for
publication. I suggest "Progress in Physics" or "Apeiron". Good luck!
From: eric gisse on 21 Jan 2010 14:17
Tom Roberts wrote:
[...]

How do papers like this get onto arXiv?
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Global Contributions to Charity Collections
Next: FR Bending of Light -- Proof