Here’s another fallacy within relativity – from Robert Bennett.
1- E=mc2 applies to all objects with energy
2- Photons have radiant energy via E = hf
3- E=mc2 applies to photons => photons have mass.
4 – Any object with mass cannot travel at c.
5 – light travels at c in any inertial frame.
6- But as light has mass, it therefore cannot travel at c in any inertial frame.
Evidently 5 contradicts 6, therefore relativity theory is invalidated.
1- A real inertial frame is not testable in relativity theory . . . only quasi/pseudo inertial frames
2- The scientific method requires testability
3- The inertial frame concept is not falsifiable by the scientific method
4 - Ergo, the inertial frame concept is not scientific.
5 –As the inertial frame is not scientific, then relativity is not science.
6 - But relativity claims to be a scientific maths model.
Evidently 5 contradicts 6, therefore relativity is invalid.
1- To allow clocks to be synchronized, the observer must know the initial tick rate of the clock compared to a universal bench mark.
2- For to only know a tick rate locally, means the tick rate is arbitrary.
3- But the tick rate of the clock is only known locally in relativity
4- As the clock rate is only known locally, then it is unknown universally
5- Therefore the tick rate of the clock is arbitrary
6- But what is arbitrary cannot be synchronized
7- But relativity claims to synchronize clocks.
8- 6 contradicts 7, therefore relativity is invalid.
1- E=mc2 applies to all objects with energy
2- Photons have radiant energy via E = hf
3- E=mc2 applies to photons => photons have mass.
4 – Any object with mass cannot travel at c.
5 – light travels at c in any inertial frame.
6- But as light has mass, it therefore cannot travel at c in any inertial frame.
Evidently 5 contradicts 6, therefore relativity theory is invalidated.
1- A real inertial frame is not testable in relativity theory . . . only quasi/pseudo inertial frames
2- The scientific method requires testability
3- The inertial frame concept is not falsifiable by the scientific method
4 - Ergo, the inertial frame concept is not scientific.
5 –As the inertial frame is not scientific, then relativity is not science.
6 - But relativity claims to be a scientific maths model.
Evidently 5 contradicts 6, therefore relativity is invalid.
1- To allow clocks to be synchronized, the observer must know the initial tick rate of the clock compared to a universal bench mark.
2- For to only know a tick rate locally, means the tick rate is arbitrary.
3- But the tick rate of the clock is only known locally in relativity
4- As the clock rate is only known locally, then it is unknown universally
5- Therefore the tick rate of the clock is arbitrary
6- But what is arbitrary cannot be synchronized
7- But relativity claims to synchronize clocks.
8- 6 contradicts 7, therefore relativity is invalid.
WOW! allmost 2 years passed for this post and.. Nobody give it a comment?! Poor fella. This Blog must be so unvisited... So... i though that i'll give a little life to this refuting your refutations :D
ReplyDelete1st: "E=MC2 applies to photons" FALSE. E=MC2 is the short version and only applies to objects that stand still. The full equation is E2=m2c4+p2c2. P is the Momentum. Photons have no mass but have MOMENTUM. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=42269.0
2nd: Every Framework in Mathematics are... that. Frames. Is like you wanted to study a environment but only through a little window. inertial frame by definition is only a fraction of the reality. Is used to make more easy the calculations.
3rd: Where do you get this "Universal BenchMark" Bullshit? The only requirement is to have 2 even clocks synchronized to each other. No other requirement. The relativity test consist in speed one clock to near the speed of light and the other keep it still (as reference). Then meassure the difference. I don't understand what you define as "Tick". If is the Mechanics of the clocks, that has nothing to do with the universe (That's why i said "Two EVEN clocks. Same model. Same mechanics.)
Now... what? :D