Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Time to move this to alternate theories.

I don't judge a thing in general as right or wrong. I will analyze and ask questions one by one, waiting for the other party to answer.OK, let's continue to discuss it in depth. I hope our discussion

I did notice your red stamp in this thread.   I didn't remove it. :)

Posted Images

Posted (edited)

It seems your thread has fallen into a black hole.

 

Basically, your theory was rejected as crackpottery.

 

My friend, I've been in classical Newtonian mechanics. Black holes can bend light, but it is still guided by Newton's classical theory. Let's see.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with that, the physics forums is like a meat grinder. 

 

My friend ,Physics forum is not a meat grinder. They are still in the Copernican era. Posts with different views will be deleted. Science Forum is a fair and free platform. We can express different views. Thank you very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let me try again. :beer:

 

 

This time I published a post very carefully. I hope they can respect me as a learner. :zip:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-story-about-special-relativity-who-can-explain-it%EF%BC%9F.162954/

Janus 58, who has given you a thorough reply on that forum, is a professional astronomer. He will know what he is talking about, so his reply will be worth considering carefully. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Janus 58, who has given you a thorough reply on that forum, is a professional astronomer. He will know what he is talking about, so his reply will be worth considering carefully. 

 

OK, I see. I can't reply to him until tomorrow morning. It's late night here. Good night. Thank you very much for the reminder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Janus 58, who has given you a thorough reply on that forum, is a professional astronomer. He will know what he is talking about, so his reply will be worth considering carefully. 

 

I'm back.

Yes, I have thought about his reply in the morning. There are some logical errors in his reply, and I will ask him to give further answers.

This story has become more interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who can tell me, at present, what is the highest accuracy of the speed of light?

 

I've been designing a system these days that uses it to get the speed of light to an accuracy of 0.01 meters, or even higher. It may take me a few weeks to finish debugging this system.When I finish the final verification, I will publish the data.

 

The data I found is:

(299792500 ± 100) m / S 

299792458.458     m / S

299792458            m / S

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Okay next forums go to the http://www.sciforums.com/ and post there.

 

My friend, you can see our discussion on sciforums. Special relativity is still very fragile there. I ended the discussion with three questions. They began to accept my article. Should we seriously think about it? Is special relativity really right?
 
I want to focus on the measurement of the speed of light. I want to challenge the accuracy of the speed of light to 0.00001 m / s. If I succeed, will it be a successful design?
 
I would be very honored if I could win your support.
Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My friend, you can see our discussion on sciforums. Special relativity is still very fragile there. I ended the discussion with three questions. They began to accept my article. Should we seriously think about it? Is special relativity really right?
 
I want to focus on the measurement of the speed of light. I want to challenge the accuracy of the speed of light to 0.00001 m / s. If I succeed, will it be a successful design?
 
I would be very honored if I could win your support.

 

No they did not "begin to accept your article". Halc was polite enough to read it and point out some mistakes, that's all.  

 

He even signed off with the following: "Just a little constructive criticism to make a paper slightly less confusing, albeit still wrong"

Edited by exchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No they did not "begin to accept your article". Halc was polite enough to read it and point out some mistakes, that's all.  

 

He even signed off with the following: "Just a little constructive criticism to make a paper slightly less confusing, albeit still wrong"

I've given three very simple scenarios that they can't solve with special relativity, and I think that's enough.

My article has been reviewed by several college students (they have all won the National Physics Olympic Competition Award), and they think it is right from the perspective of classical physics.

I also hope that they can point out where the writing is wrong, and I will reply one by one.

It's not simple. Generally speaking, the article is wrong. If they don't understand it, they say it's wrong. It's irresponsible words.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've given three very simple scenarios that they can't solve with special relativity, and I think that's enough.

I don't know what your talking about you are obviously delusional, I solved it then they solved it using special relativity(http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36528-questions-to-special-relativity and http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-story-about-special-relativity-who-can-explain-it%EF%BC%9F.162954/).

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've given three very simple scenarios that they can't solve with special relativity, and I think that's enough.

First, who is "they"? Janus has not yet responded. He is a busy man and has other things to do than converse with internet cranks. 

 

Second, Halc has told you your paper is wrong.

 

Third, even if you pose a problem that people find difficulty solving with SR, that does not make SR wrong, let alone make Newtonian mechanics right. You may get a solution out of classical mechanics, but it is highly likely to be wrong, seeing as it gives the wrong answer in simpler scenarios. 

 

You have a choice here. You can either make an effort to listen to knowledgeable people and learn to understand SR, which currently you do not, apparently. Or you can hastily dismiss the advice you are getting, claim victory and carry on as if nobody had ever responded to you. It is entirely up to you. 

Edited by exchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

First, who is "they"? Janus has not yet responded. He is a busy man and has other things to do than converse with internet cranks. 

 

Second, Halc has told you your paper is wrong.

 

Third, even if you pose a problem that people find difficulty solving with SR, that does not make SR wrong, let alone make Newtonian mechanics right. You may get a solution out of classical mechanics, but it is highly likely to be wrong, seeing as it gives the wrong answer in simpler scenarios. 

 

You have a choice here. You can either make an effort to listen to knowledgeable people and learn to understand SR, which currently you do not, apparently. Or you can hastily dismiss the advice you are getting, claim victory and carry on as if nobody had ever responded to you. It is entirely up to you. 

I don't judge a thing in general as right or wrong. I will analyze and ask questions one by one, waiting for the other party to answer.
OK, let's continue to discuss it in depth. I hope our discussion is comprehensive and logical.
 
I'll wait for Janus to respond.
Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...