Informed opinions, please.

[ughaibu]

I know nothing about either maths or physics, so before attempting to understand the arguements on the site linked to, I'd appreciate opinions as to whether or not it makes any valid points.

http://hometown.aol.com/crebigsol/awards.htm

[Jay-qu]

copyright since '96 and still no-one has prooved them wrong.. I would say no-one is bothering because there is a flaw, but its over my head..

[ughaibu]

Okay, thanks.

[Eclogite]

The maths is beyond me, but I have two observations:

 

1. The emotional language in the site is a diagnostic feature of pseudoscience.

2. An acronym of the site's copyright holder is Re my con: a big loser

[Jay-qu]

i just thought that was a silly thing to say.. If there is a flaw and you point it out you get money.. I dont know :)

[ughaibu]

I agree that the sensationalism of the presentation is suspicious. Maybe a concerted effort by our resident physicists can land the 50K.

[Eclogite]

i just thought that was a silly thing to say.. If there is a flaw and you point it out you get money.. I dont know :)

If you have played poker you will be the familiar with the art of bluffing.....when you don't even have a pair.

[Erasmus00]

This site has been around for a few years, and its author is far from serious about his prize offer. Much like Kent Hovind's evolution challenge, there is no real way to win the money.

 

Suffice to say, the page is just bad algebra dressed up as physics.

-Will

[ughaibu]

Erasmus00: Thanks.

[Jay-qu]

yeah I play a bit of poker - I got a 500 chip set for my b'day :)

[Qfwfq]

He's one of many that think these things are wrong because they don't understand them. I could do with the dough but I somehow don't think it's worth the trouble to go for it.

[ughaibu]

Thanks. Does this mean that his maths is clearly incorrect or does it look suspect but for no obvious reason?

[Qfwfq]

Which maths?

 

He simply has no grasp of what he presumes to criticize. It would therefore be pointless to expect him to admit to a proof against him, and fork out the dough.

[ughaibu]

I see.

[CraigD]

Thanks. Does this mean that his maths is clearly incorrect or does it look suspect but for no obvious reason?

The terms used in http://hometown.aol.com/crebigsol/section1A.html are poorly explained. Even without explanation, it appears to me that the author (Rebigsol) uses the term x in the first equation in “Eq. set A” as a constant for initial position relative to a stationary observer, and the position of a point moving at the speed of light © in the preceeding text and the 3rd equation. If so, “Eq. A-1”, though algebraically correct, is nonsensical.

 

In physical terms, the author appears to be attempting to find inconsistency in the predictions of Special Relativity in a system of 2 inertial frames with a relative velocity of c. In common metaphoric terms, he is asking what an observer would see of people moving around on a train moving at the speed of light. In particle physics terms, this is equivalent to asserting that particles moving at c, which can only be bosons, interact according to a statistic such as the Pauli exclusion principle. In mathematical terms, he is measuring infinitesimals ((1-v^2)^.5 as v approaches 1). In either kind terms, he is basing his arguments against the mathematical consistency of Special Relativity on an occurrence that is theoretically impossible.

 

Although I believe his paper can be convincingly refuted, I have not intention of challenging the author, for fear of entering into a weird and disturbing dialog. I mistrust that he is prepared to have judged and awarded the cash prize he cites in legally legitimate manner.

[ughaibu]

CraigD: Thanks, a nice critique.

[Qfwfq]

In particle physics terms, this is equivalent to asserting that particles moving at c, which can only be bosons, interact according to a statistic such as the Pauli exclusion principle.

To move at c they must be massless, they don't need to be bosons.

 

Alright, enough nitpicking.... :D