Re: Prediction of Mathematical Beauty


"Triacon Tahedron" <wsjf8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5f64f4e7-be07-4a5c-a8f2-8bd2613c8417@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 21, 11:59 pm, "Pmb" <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Triacon Tahedron" <ws...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:cbb7982c-b781-44be-8e3f-62d1e9265f1d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Jul 21, 11:32 pm, "Pmb" <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Triacon Tahedron" <ws...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:99c044e7-9370-41f5-a7b4-0e0209463c8e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jul 21, 10:21 pm, "Pmb" <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"triacontahedron" <ws...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:4ecc04fb-5519-4902-b808-ed37a89bb953@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I believe that I just predicted the mathematical beauty of
relativity
by mistake.

So faster you accelerate -> slower you go, therefore yo should
not
accelerate in order to go fast

Consequently, when you stay still you travel fastest, but you
tink
you dont, so definetly>> > Look, if you go faster you get

c = c + v

c = c + v

is the mathematical beauty of relativity

Too bad its wrong huh?

Pete

How would I know, when dont say how is it wrong

If you're speaking about relativity it is assumed that you at least
know
the
basic postulates or are willing to learn them.

Do your job!

My job is not to teach physics. It's something I do for fun. What you
say
is

Are you saying that physics is fun!

Yep. If I didn't think so then I never would have become a physicist.

wrong because the invariance of the speed of light is a postulate
(know
as

Are you just saying that this is not real!

Saying what is not real?

the second postulate of special relativity), i.e. it is assumed to be
true
without proof. Only observation can prove otherwise and all
observations
to
date are consistent with the second postulate of relativity.

Does is has proof or does it not has! What do you imply!

Science has never been about proof. Nothing can be proved for the most
part.

Are you just saying that relativity is not empirical large enough?

Nope. He is stating a VERY VERY basic fact of science. Experiments can
never prove something true - they can simply provide evidence it is. The
same with the sun rising tomorrow as well.


All we can do is justify certain things and then observe nature to see if

Are you just saying that nature is fake? And not empirical?

Nature is neither fake or not fake - it simply is.


its consistent with how we believe it behaves. E.g. Coulomb's law states
that the force between two charges is proportional to the product of
their
charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between
them. How do we know this? Through experimentation. The speed of light is
invariant. How do we know this? Through experimentation. The sun rises
every
moring and things fall. How do we know this?





Look, if you go faster you get

c = c + v

Nothing in nature is consistent with this assumption. In any case you
really
meant to write c' = c + v because in what you wrote, i.e. c = c + v,
the
c's
cancel out of the expression to give v = 0 which is not zero by your
assumption.

Are you saying that c is smaller than c' like this

c < c'

If c was not invariant and v>0 then c' > c

I don't understand your mythology

Are you just saying that there are other speeds higher than c ?

One can easily imagine them. Unfortunately they have never been observed.
And observation indicates they don't exist.


What is going on here, you cant speed higher than c

In conclusion

c = c + v

That is wrong and not what relativity says - such would imply V = 0 which is
clearly silly.

Thanks
Bill


is the mathematical beauty of relativity, as predicted by my former
papers




How can it be smaller when it is not, it cannot be smaller!!

In the first place the speed of light is invariant and therefore c' = c +
v
is never true.

Are you just saying that relativity is fake and false !!!


Are you familiar with something called the Galiliean transformation?

Thanks for your direction

You're very welcome.

Thanks,

What else, explain more !!!


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A decisive argument in favour of the existence of an aether frame in a state of absolute rest.
    ... Europe does not have the American education system. ... relativity. ... The issue was not that you did a STRONG mistake, ... saying that p = mv holds in relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Prediction of Mathematical Beauty
    ... basic postulates or are willing to learn them. ... Are you just saying that relativity is not empirical large enough? ... Are you just saying that there are other speeds higher than c? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Effectuationism and Value
    ... I am saying the basics of what science is all about is well known and has ... In relativity, just like a lot of words in the ... >> Since the laws of physics are the same in any inertial FOR how does one ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity, Scepticism and Humility in Science
    ... >> thorough theory of relativity, but what we actually seem to be doing ... of the principle of relativity ... Are you saying that MOND is categorised as not reducing to SR? ... Where SR&GR compartmentalise velocity shifts and gravitational shifts ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relativity, Scepticism and Humility in Science
    ... >> thorough theory of relativity, but what we actually seem to be doing ... of the principle of relativity ... Are you saying that MOND is categorised as not reducing to SR? ... Where SR&GR compartmentalise velocity shifts and gravitational shifts ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)