Jump to content
Science Forums

A fatal flaw in the laws of physics


Recommended Posts

nice, i'll have to wait till my shift ends to be able to read it all but..


too much energy is missing for the standard model to be able to account for everything in the universe.


energy and the existance and workings of subatomic processes.


e=mc^2 may be wrong but with it we have done quite a lot. should these debunkers come up with laws as correct as e=mc^2 and further discoveries from the facts that study of those laws will provide then we will be much better off. in the meantime relativity is still paying its dividends.



To this writer, paradoxes belong in religion and fairy tales, not science

i especially liked this part.


if you get paradoxes and inconsistent data go and do the math again, or bring more people in with a fresh perspective. i.e. time travel paradoxes and FTL paradoxes for tachyons etc.. very little in the physical world allows for such things if anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think rather he's trying to say that light doesn't have a speed, it has velocity which is relative


thus nothing has speed, speed is the relative relationship between two objects


his example (for which he used lasers, could be anything, two cars for instance)


if a space ship was moving close to the speed of light the relative speed to the light would mean that the light is only moving at a few hundred k faster relative (than) the ship


if you were moving at the speed of light light would have a speed of zero


there the equation e=mc^2 only should be applied when the speed of light IS actually 299.792.458 kilometers per second other wise it screws up.


what he is proposing is a relativity equation that takes the relative (assuming the actual values) velocities. instead of using an arbtrary value (the speed of light relative to a stationary object .. e.g. 299.792.458 kilometers per second)


makes me wonder even more if all velocities should be measured against the speed of light (speed of light being zero) but even this consession may have its detractors since light has been proven to not be a constant ANYWAY. even if all velocities were measured against light light can be slowed or sped up. we need to find a universal constant measure of velocity (one stationary and/or one moving).


for now though given that nothing moves as fast as light (space ships that is (matter)(man made)) we should just use relative speeds not arbritrary values (like the speed of light.. and quote unquote stationary which also doesn't really exist since the planet resolves around the sun and the sun around its ultra massive gallacti core which is dynamic within it cluster etc. but i've prolly gone off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His main point is that everything moving relative to everything else should make it so that the beam misses the said mirror. However what he's calling a "force field" is already known about and accounts for the phenomina that he's talking about. It's known simplisticly as Space-Time Curiviture.


The author even admits this with ignorance of the prinicibles. he says that one of his conclusions is that the shortest distance is a curve. A posulate that is expressed already in the Theory of Space-time Curviture.


I understand his frustration with Physics and all but he needs to go back to school and read some more books. Alot of the stuff he puts forth is hardly Scienientific Method. ok thought experiments but nothing ground breaking. IMHO.


Also his assertion that the lorentz transformation equations are wrong is not supported. As experiments show that Time slows in the precence of Gravity and when you approach the speed of light, c.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

space time curvature?


as a zuma player i experience this


i shoot a ball at a target


the ball is moving


the target is moving


the ball will miss the target unless i compensate (for the curved angle the ball should travel (as perceived by me as a watch both it and its target and its starting position, all relative to each other the successful path should look like a curve, but won't actually be a curve because it will physically only travel in a straight line).


i'm sure this isn't the same thing but the laser will only move in a straight line (unless acted upon by an outside force) until it hits or misses its intended target.. which assumes the sender compensated beforehand for where the beam needed to end up.


speaking of zuma, anyone here finish the deluxe version? i have at over 2.89 million.. no one else will say if they have beaten the game and how many points they got, i scoured the net and found nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As experiments show that Time slows in the precence of Gravity and when you approach the speed of light, c


and as i've said the only reason this appears to be so is that it will take exponentially more energy to deveate from your course the more you velocity you pack on (which requires their to me inertia build up)


time will be how much work (movement) you can do relative to everything else, when you do less time slows when you do more time speeds up (relative to the observer)


it will be interesting to see if when you get closer to c if in fact time for the person accelerating seems to slow aswell, where now its currently believed that the accelerator will perceive time normally (relative to him, since locally his perception of time will be measured by everything around him not being able to move as freely because of the increasing (mass/inertia (to move against the acceleration vector (time)))).


does anyone understand that? i don't mind explaining further. but need to catch a bus. leave your questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...