SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: − I think I have a strong (theoretical) argument against the theory of relativity. Is there anyone who could help me by reviewing my stuff, by giving me a professional opinion? May email address: laszlogm@admarc.hu+ − − Line 392:
Line 390: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 18:33, January 11, 2015
, 18:33, January 11, 2015New objection, and reply
<!---------------------------------- Comments go below this line --------------------------->
<!---------------------------------- Comments go below this line --------------------------->
== Special relativity and evidence ==
== Special relativity and evdience ==
Many objects have been accelerated to velocities near the speed of light (in particle colliders) and it is easily observed that the rate at which those objects speed up as a constant force is applied is (very precisely) consistent with special relativity and not Gallilean relativity. That is, as their measured speed approaches the speed of light, that speed increases less and less in response to each "push" even though the "pushes" remain the same strength, thus apparently violating Newton's F = ma. On the other hand, Einstein's famous E = gamma * mc^2 appears to describe their rate of acceleration very accurately. I don't understand how this article proposes to surmount that objection. [[User:ZeroThree|ZeroThree]] 15:47, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
Many objects have been accelerated to velocities near the speed of light (in particle colliders) and it is easily observed that the rate at which those objects speed up as a constant force is applied is (very precisely) consistent with special relativity and not Gallilean relativity. That is, as their measured speed approaches the speed of light, that speed increases less and less in response to each "push" even though the "pushes" remain the same strength, thus apparently violating Newton's F = ma. On the other hand, Einstein's famous E = gamma * mc^2 appears to describe their rate of acceleration very accurately. I don't understand how this article proposes to surmount that objection. [[User:ZeroThree|ZeroThree]] 15:47, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:10, 30 October 2014 (EDT)
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:10, 30 October 2014 (EDT)
== An argument against relativity ==
I think I have a strong (theoretical) argument against the theory of relativity. Is there anyone who could help me by reviewing my stuff, by giving me a professional opinion? May email address: laszlogm@admarc.hu {{unsigned|Laszlogm}}
::I think things like this would be best played out in public. After all, this is a wiki, and Conservapedia has a long history of debating relativity issues openly. But if you really do want to promulgate it in private, my email is near the top of my user page. However, if you go that route, I very well may decide, based on what I see, to make it public somewhere here on CP.
::Your next choice might be simply to publish it directly, either on your own user or talk page, or at the bottom of this page (Talk pages are appended at the end, so they are in forward chronological order).
::Perhaps your best bet, if you are feeling really confident, is to add it to the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. But I should advise you in advance: The bar for counterexamples is rather high, and, unless you really have a correct counterexample, your argument will be figuratively ripped to shreds, the way all the others have been.
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:33, 11 January 2015 (EST)