Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

[bjornart]

So you blindly trust those experiments? I don't.

It's not a blind trust, it's a qualified trust. Trusting in a great conspiracy designed to promote and preserve as truth everything you don't believe in seems far more like blind trust to me.

I guess willful ignorance is the correct diagnosis. Thank you for the confirmation.

 

[bjornart]

They have already tested during two or three years.
And they still don't want to publish it.

What more do you need to except the truth that E=mc^2 is falsified as being pseudoscience. As nonsense.

It does not falsify E=mc^2, special and general relativity will still be accurate in almost all situations, just as Newton's laws of motion were (and are) still accurate at low speeds. It may, if replicated and shown not to be the result of an error in experiment or interpretation, be a tremendously exiting new find.

But the result show that neutrinos may travel through the earth at speeds 0.000025 % higher than the current accepted value for c. A shocker, but not by any means the end of physics as we know it.

 

[MaartenVergu]

And neutrino's have mass. So ...

 

[excaza]

Bare assertion in the face of experimental data that shows you are wrong. You claim that time isn't affected by motion, but we have experiments that confirm the predictions based on a model which treats time as affected by motion.

Isn't time dilation used by GPS?

 

[sol invictus]

It's very easy to show that Einstein's special relativity is false.

Oh really?

Two photons traveling in opposite directions have the relative velocity between them of two times the speed of light

True.

not one time the speed of light as special relativity claims.

Nonsense. According to SR, the relative velocity is 2c.

In this case, the emperor of science has no clothes.

Are you the "emperor of science"?

 

[sol invictus]

We can take two photons traveling in space in opposite directions

The reference frame is one of the photons.

Those two statements contradict each other. If you could really use the reference frame of one of the photons, it would be at rest, not traveling.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Nonsense. According to SR, the relative velocity is 2c.

But doesn't SR state that photons traveling in opposite directions: (c+c)/(1 + cc/c^2) = 2c/2 = c = the speed of light. ?

 

[sol invictus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Well, OK. If you're convinced the Michelson-Morley experiment and every experiment since that confirms the constancy of the speed of light is part of a conspiracy to deceive you, then.... there's no much point in having a discussion.

FYI, the everyday operation of the LHC at Cern re-confirms all of the stuff you're saying is impossible. For example, unstable particles last much longer before decaying when they are moving relativistically, because of time dilation, and that is a huge effect at the LHC (since the particles in the accelerator ring are ultrarelativistic).

 

[sol invictus]

But doesn't SR state that photons traveling in opposite directions: (c+c)/(1 + cc/c^2) = 2c/2 = c = the speed of light. ?

No. You've misunderstood what that's a formula for.

SR says exactly the opposite. Assuming the two photos are moving in opposite directions, their relative velocity is 2c is all (inertial) reference frames.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Those two statements contradict each other. If you could really use the reference frame of one of the photons, it would be at rest, not traveling.

Sure, the reference photon is at rest, while the other photon is moving away from it at 2c.

 

[Mashuna]

I used to think it was rare to meet someone quite so proudly ignorant, but relativity deniers seem to be all too common around here.

They have already tested it during two or three years.
And they still don't want to publish it. Because they are afraid.

What more do you need to except the truth that E=mc^2 is falsified as being pseudoscience. As nonsense.

We read:

"Over 3 years, OPERA researchers timed the roughly 16,000 neutrinos that started at CERN and registered a hit in the detector. They found that, on average, the neutrinos made the 730-kilometer, 2.43-millisecond trip roughly 60 nanoseconds faster than expected if they were traveling at light speed."

16.000 experiments.
I think there is a cognitive bias not to accept evidence of the contrary in science.
What more prove do you need to except that a part of the scientific worldview till know was based on pure nonsense.
The math failed. E=mc^2 is at the same level as homeopathic ideas. It's nonsense.
16.000 experiments, and still you can not except the truth?
I think Einstein was wrong.

See!

 

[sol invictus]

Sure, the reference photon is at rest, while the other photon is moving away from it at 2c.

SR does not apply to reference frames in which any photon is at rest. So that doesn't contradict SR either. It also doesn't contradict any experiments.

So - what is your point?

 

[Anders Lindman]

SR does not apply to reference frames in which any photon is at rest. So that doesn't contradict SR either. It also doesn't contradict any experiments.

So - what is your point?

Ha, doesn't apply?! So we have a theory that doesn't apply to reality. RELATIVE means that a photon is at rest compared with other particles.

 

[sol invictus]

Ha, doesn't apply?! So we have a theory that doesn't apply to reality.

Have you ever seen a photon in vacuum at rest? If not, why are you asserting such a thing is "real"?

RELATIVE means that a photon is at rest compared with other particles.

Nonsense. If you see two cars passing each other on a highway, do you have to be in one before you can determine the relative velocity? Of course not - relative velocity is simply v1-v2.

 

[excaza]

Ha, doesn't apply?! So we have a theory that doesn't apply to reality. RELATIVE means that a photon is at rest compared with other particles.

I am not a physicist, but I thought the whole point of SR is that there is no 'rest.'

 

[paiute]

This thread

The speed of lulz in a vacuum?

 

[Anders Lindman]

I am not a physicist, but I thought the whole point of SR is that there is no 'rest.'

The rest (unmoving) is the frame of reference. So if the frame of reference is a photon, the relative velocity for a photon traveling in the opposite direction is two times the speed of light. According to Einstein that velocity is one time the speed of light = false theory.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The rest (unmoving) is the frame of reference. So if the frame of reference is a photon, the relative velocity for a photon traveling in the opposite direction is two times the speed of light. According to Einstein that velocity is one time the speed of light = false theory.

The speed of any given photons in ALL reference frames is c. This includes the photon you center your reference frame on. So they both move at c, but away from each other, resulting in a relative motion of 2c.

Not terribly difficult.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Have you ever seen a photon in vacuum at rest? If not, why are you asserting such a thing is "real"?

If we take one of the photons as being the frame of reference then it is at rest RELATIVELY to the other photon.

 

[paiute]

From the article:



Like what - a fine??

Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.