Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By x0x
  • 1 Post By Boing3000
  • 1 Post By x0x
  • 1 Post By x0x

Thread: The Theory of Invariance

  1. #1 The Theory of Invariance 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    Hi everyone,

    I found the theory on internet:

    Please read it and go ahead to post any comment.

    The Introduction of the Theory of Invariance
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4r...it?usp=sharing

    The Theory of Invariance
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4r...it?usp=sharing

    Have fun,
    Thanks,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    312
    Moderator Note: I have reviewed the links above and they seem to be safe documents, but users click on them at their own risk.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg View Post
    Hi everyone,

    I found the theory on internet:

    Please read it and go ahead to post any comment.

    The Introduction of the Theory of Invariance
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4r...it?usp=sharing

    The Theory of Invariance
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4r...it?usp=sharing

    Have fun,
    Thanks,
    It is not physics, it is (advanced) numerology. Sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg View Post
    Hi everyone,

    I found the theory on internet:
    My policy is not to click on such links. Would you simply provide a representative sample here? No need to copy the whole thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    It's kind of sweet, but you cannot take a limit at v << c and then use it to derive formulae including v/c. Apologies if I have missed something obvious.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    Hi everyone,

    Jilan just point out a point in derivations in the theory, about exponent function.

    For example, giving an exponent function y = ekx.

    Say, we performed experiments to determine the value of k, then we get y ~ 1 + 0.2x,

    The question is that could we say k = 0.2?

    ------------------------

    Hi Jilan,

    I think we could. The reason is k cannot be anything else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Hmmm, I wonder how the relationship between gravitational mass and inertial mass would change if that approximation had not been made?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    Hi tk421,

    I don't know how to post it here, but through the theory, you can see a picture of the natural world from the view of absolute space and time. Based on the classical perspective, the author presents relationships among physical concepts of energy, momentum, acceleration, velocity, gravitational acceleration, initial mass, gravitational mass,... He also shows how the equation E = mc2 can be derived without relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg View Post
    Hi tk421,

    I don't know how to post it here, but through the theory, you can see a picture of the natural world from the view of absolute space and time. Based on the classical perspective, the author presents relationships among physical concepts of energy, momentum, acceleration, velocity, gravitational acceleration, initial mass, gravitational mass,... He also shows how the equation E = mc2 can be derived without relativity.
    Again, you don't need to post the whole thing, so that shouldn't be a reason to present nothing.

    I'm assuming that you're the author of the work, or are closely connected to him or her. In either case, it should be trivial to extract one piece of it and present it here. It's not that hard to do, and if you are truly interested in a discussion, it represents a minimal expenditure of effort on your part.

    I review more manuscripts per week than I would like as it is. Give me a reason to spend time on this one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    Hi tk421,

    You are not wrong. I am a friend of his.
    I asked a moderator how to post the document and he said I need to use Latex for equations. Unfortunately, I haven't used Latex.

    I could not post any part of the theory. Any piece has equations.
    Sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    Hi tk421,

    I think I can post the conclusion of the theory here. It has no equation.

    <<
    Conclusion
    We have studied the theory of invariance, which is based on the perspective of absolute space and time. Our analysis produces invariant equations which yield results that are approximate results calculated with either Newtonian mechanics or special relativity. In addition, we reproduce two of Einstein’s equations of special relativity: Eo = moc2 and E2 = p2c2 + mo2c4. These outcomes indicate that the theory of invariance can provide a distinctive view of the natural world, and the perspective of absolute space and time is an appropriate perspective in progressions of understanding reality.

    (*) Note of the speed of light
    Presently, in Physics, the speed of light in vacuum, denoted c, is defined as the distance light can travel through vacuum in a unit of time, and it is a constant. While, in the Theory of Invariance, the speed of light in vacuum, denoted c, is defined as the rate of change of the distance between light and objects which are shined with the light, in a unit of time, in vacuum. In the Theory of Invariance, the speed of light in vacuum is also a constant. The invariant definition of speed of light in vacuum is perfectly appropriate with Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, the results of Michelson-Morley experiment, and the De Sitter binary stars observations.

    >>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg
    He also shows how the equation E = mc2 can be derived without relativity.
    Einstein wasn't the first one to derive that relationship. It was derived before his 1905 paper on which special relativity was founded on.

    See Did Einstein really discover ‘‘E=m c2’’? by W. L. Fadner, Am. J. Phys. 56, 114 (1988)
    In 1952, Herbert Ives claimed that Einstein’s first development of E=m c 2 was circular, and that he had not been the first to develop that equation. That allegation has been repeated in several more recent works. Earlier, Planck asserted that one of the postulates that Einstein had used in that development was not exact. Those claims and subsequent papers concerning them are examined herein. The surprisingly long history of the mass–energy relation is summarized. In the context of this topic, it is argued that circularity is seldom a legitimate critique of scientific proposals. A simple refutation of Planck’s claim is also included.
    It's very thorough. If anybody would like to read this paper then please let me know and I'll post a link to the paper as soon as I can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg View Post
    These outcomes indicate that the theory of invariance can provide a distinctive view of the natural world, and the perspective of absolute space and time is an appropriate perspective in progressions of understanding reality.
    But it doesn't, since all the math in the "paper" is just pure numerology based on repeating over and over the same mantra:






    (duh!)

    (where do you get this from? it is pulled from thin air)

    The above qualifies your friend's theory as numerology, not physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    To Physicist,

    I do not disagree with what you wrote.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    To xOx,

    First, we have

    EA/EC = func(2h)

    We also have

    EA/EC = (EA/EB)(EB/EC) = func(h).func(h)

    Thus,

    func(2h) = func(h).func(h)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg View Post

    Thus,

    func(2h) = func(h).func(h)
    So is func(0.3h).func(1.7h). So?
    Like I said, the above is numerology, not physics. You are the author, not a friend. You are promoting your own fringe theory that says that (and ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    func(0.3h).func(1.7h) = func(2h) too,

    So it is clear that func(h) = ekh.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg View Post
    func(0.3h).func(1.7h) = func(2h) too,

    So it is clear that func(h) = ekh.

    Yes, that was my point, your theory is not physics, it is numerology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    Anyway, it is clear that f(h) = ekh.

    To me, this is not an evidence to claim that the theory is not physics.

    Sorry. I cannot agree with you.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg View Post
    Anyway, it is clear that f(h) = ekh.
    Yes, it is also clear that your theory is based on the numerology .
    It is also clear that you are a shill for the author.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    If invariance is non-science, then it cannot get along with the natural world.
    Would you please point out any experiment which is against invariance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #22  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg
    If invariance is non-science, then it cannot get along with the natural world.
    Would you please point out any experiment which is against invariance?
    No, it is the other way around, because we cannot point you to any experiment which is against Unicorns either.

    So, if invariance get along with the natural world, can you point us to any experiment which can test one of its predictions ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #23  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    Hi Boing 3000,

    When you say "its prediction", do you include or exclude its equations?

    Can I say the theory predicts that kinetic of a mass m moving with velocity v is: Ek = moc2(cosh(v/c)-1)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #24  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg View Post
    If invariance is non-science, then it cannot get along with the natural world.
    Would you please point out any experiment which is against invariance?
    The point is that you are using numerology to "prove" the invariance.
    The other point is that you lied all along, you are not a friend of the author, you ARE the author, shilling for yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #25  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg View Post
    Hi Boing 3000,

    When you say "its prediction", do you include or exclude its equations?

    Can I say the theory predicts that kinetic of a mass m moving with velocity v is: Ek = moc2(cosh(v/c)-1)?
    Sure you can, but it is all wrong. Experiment contradicts your formula.
    Besides, there is another crank who pre-empted your discovery, he came up with the same fringe formulas, years before you. See here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #26  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    Hi xOx,

    I don't know any experiment which contradicts invariant equations.
    Would you show me couples?
    Thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #27  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg View Post
    Hi Boing 3000,

    When you say "its prediction", do you include or exclude its equations?

    Can I say the theory predicts that kinetic of a mass m moving with velocity v is: Ek = moc2(cosh(v/c)-1)?


    You can learn that by studying particle accelerators operation. So, every day, thousands of experiments falsify your crank claims, like the one above.
    Boing3000 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #28  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg
    When you say "its prediction", do you include or exclude its equations?
    I include only equations. Tearing apart chickens organs won't do

    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg
    Can I say the theory predicts that kinetic of a mass m moving with velocity v is: Ek = moc2(cosh(v/c)-1)?
    You can, but it is false. The correct one is well known and is confirmed to a very high degree of accuracy (see x0x posts)

    So Invariance fails.
    x0x likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #29  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    The value of the two equations are different at v is very high, close to c.

    I don't think that velocity and kinetic energy of a very high speed particle can be measured exactly by now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #30  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    At what level of v would you be able to measure the difference between the two formulae?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #31  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by CindyNg View Post
    The value of the two equations are different at v is very high, close to c.

    I don't think that velocity and kinetic energy of a very high speed particle can be measured exactly by now.
    Perpetrating falsities, again. Both math and physics contradict you. See here
    Why do you call yourself Cindy?
    Jilan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #32  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Perpetrating falsities, again. Both math and physics contradict you. See here
    Smashing graph, so if I am reading it right if we are above 0.4c we should see a measurable difference? Can we achieve those speeds in experiments OK?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #33  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    Smashing graph, so if I am reading it right if we are above 0.4c we should see a measurable difference? Can we achieve those speeds in experiments OK?
    Huge one. Particle accelerators can achieve above 0.9c. LHC achieves 0.999999991 c. So, the shill is shown wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #34  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Thanks X0X. CindyNg are you happy with that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #35  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    Thanks X0X. CindyNg are you happy with that?
    My money is that she'll come back with a new crankery, hardened cranks never give accept reality. Let's wait and see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #36  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    My money is that she'll come back with a new crankery, hardened cranks never give accept reality. Let's wait and see.
    Bingo.
    Boing3000 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •