Notices
Results 1 to 87 of 87
Like Tree27Likes
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By MeteorWayne
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 4 Post By KALSTER
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 2 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 3 Post By Strange
  • 3 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Ascended

Thread: open challenge

  1. #1 open challenge 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    I am a Physics Lecturer in a college. The students of the college have come up with the following "Open Challenge" and they are telling us that they are being taught baseless physics and wasting our time & money. We had meetings with the physics teachers of other colleges and the Kashmir University but all of us are at loss to understand as to how the rebuttal could be produced. The matter was taken up by one Mr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies but once he recieved the replies from the challenger (who is local to Srinagar) he retreated. The correspondence between Mr. Jeremy Dunning-DAvies & the challenger is available on Vixra 1202.0018; www.elixirjournal.org(Feb'2012 page-6809) Vixra 1202.0057 & Vixra 1202.0054. Kindly discuss this serious problem so that on the science forum a rebuttal is producfed against the "Open Challenge".

    Open Challenge:
    The article ‘On the Electrodynamics of MovingBodies’ by Albert Einstein is based on trickeries is proved beyond any doubtwhatsoever in the article...s (1). ‘Experimental & Theoretical Evidences ofFallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the PhysicalUniverse’ published in the peer-reviewed journal namely Indian Journal ofScience & Technology (March 2012 issue) available on Indian Journal of Science and Technology - Free access of full article, open source, free article publication for members (iSee) and subscribers of print journal, Indian Science journal, International science and technology journal, Technology e-jour (2) ‘Onthe Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies By Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries’(Open letter to Professors, Teachers, Researchers and Students of Physics)published in peer-reviewed journal Elixir Online Journal (February 2012 issue)available on Elixir Online Journal. The Voigt transformation was simply amathematical possibility which was changed by Lorentz by introducing theLorentz factor but the Lorentz factor is simply a manipulation. Thus nature andforces in nature were trivialized and made subservient to mathematics in thetheories of relativity, Big Bang Theory, Space-time concept and in all physicalsciences which are directly or indirectly based on the ‘On the Electrodynamicsof Moving Bodies’. It is unfortunate for humanity that exposing thesetrickeries took more than one hundred years. I openly challenge all theprofessors, researchers & teachers of physics/philosophy of physics to comeforward & show me where I am wrong or else they have to accept that theyare teaching incorrect physics based on ‘trickeries’. My challenge may not betreated as a publicity stunt but I sincerely wish that truth should prevail onthis planet and am expecting identical response from all truth lovingpeople/intellectuals. I do understand that it is hard for mainstream physiciststo reconcile with the alternative philosophy; though actual and factual; asalmost all the living physicists and researchers are borne, brought up andtaught physics which is fundamentally incorrect. Their livelihood is based onthe physics which has been adopted as the result of fraud, but these materialinterests should never be a stumbling block to acknowledge the reality, whichto my understanding is the essence of scientific thinking and honest living forthe betterment of entire human society. I have not an iota of doubt that sooneror later the truth will prevail, but it would be in the interest of humanitythat ‘truth’ is accepted now so that humanity comes out of clutches ofmaterialism which in itself is naked atheism.
    Mohammad Shafiq Khan,(M.Sc. Physics)
    Email:- shafiqifs@gmail.com


    Last edited by shahidshah; June 25th, 2012 at 05:33 AM.
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    The following Open Challenge is to the physical sciences under which God cannot exist
    What science are you referring to ? I don't know of any science which specifically excludes the possibility of a God existing. Thus your 'challenge' is really nonsense, and based on a false understanding of science.

    I openly challenge all the professors, researchers & teachers of physics/philosophy of physics to come forward & show me where I am wrong or else they have to accept that they are teaching incorrect physics based on ‘trickeries’.
    This sentence has just exposed you as the crank you obviously are. I content that gravity is caused by pink unicorns ! You prove me wrong, or else I must be right ! What kind of logic is this ?
    You are the one challenging mainstream science concepts, so the onus lies on you and you alone to provide sufficient theoretical, experimental and observational evidence that SR and GR are wrong, and you are right with whatever it is you are proposing. We don't have to prove anything to you - that's your job. Good luck with that

    My challenge may not be treated as a publicity stunt but I sincerely wish that truth should prevail on this planet
    Truth is that there is a huge amount of experimental and observational evidence in support of SR and GR. Here is a small sample :

    Tests of special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Their livelihood is based on the physics which has been adopted as the result of fraud,
    Please not this crap again...


     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    The theoreticaland experimental evidences against the concept of contraction of space in the direction of motion leads to the failure of
    space–time concept and every theory and concept associated with it.
    Please explain the atmospheric muon observation without length contraction and time dilation.

    Consequently the concept ofexchangeability of mass and energy as proposed by Einstein in the article ‘Does the Inertial of the Body Depend upon
    its Energy Content’ Albert Einstein (1905b) fails conceptually, theoretically as well as experimentally.
    This principle underlies all the observations made in modern particle accelerators, as well as, more generally, nuclear reactors. Please explain how these work with energy and mass not being interrelated. Also explain why all massless particles always move at the speed of light.

    radiation is the electromagnetic work capacity dissipated
    by the matter which propagates in the medium of ether as a wave motion.
    Complete nonsense. Please provide direct, repeatable experimental evidence for the existence of ether. Also, you said below that matter and energy are not related. This already is a contradiction.
    You may also wish to refer to all the various "aether" threads on this forum, every single one of which was more or less thoroughly debunked, or simply abandoned by the OPs.

    Consequently the physics which evolved in twentieth century is shown to be incorrect
    These physics, as you well know, underlie everything from GPS to flat screen TVs. And all of this works just fine. Thus physics is right, and you are not.

    The said experiment wasmisconceived and misinterpreted to conclude the
    absence of ether, which stands shown in the article
    ‘Michelson–Morley Experiment: A Misconceived &
    Misinterpreted Experiment’ Mohammad Shafiq Khan
    (2011).
    You are referencing yourself for evidence ? Are you for real ??
    Also : please explain why all the various experiments besides Michelson-Morley also returned a null result. No trace of an ether has ever been found by anyone. There is a very extensive list of such experiments, and it will be your job to explain away each and every one of them. Once again, good luck

    Any ray of light moves in the stationary system ofcoordinates with determined velocity ‘c’ whether the
    ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
    As proven by the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment.

    Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2012b)shows mathematically that Einstein has simply tricked to
    arrive at the Equation of Trickery to justify the adoption of
    Lorentz factor & dependence of time on space
    A "trickery" that has time and again proven to be in perfect correspondence to both experimental and observation evidence.
    At this point I got tired of reading the article, since it is just the same old, meaningless "anti-relativity" drivel. You would not believe how many have done that before you - none of them have succeeded, because SR is too well established, and we know that it works, by experiment and observation. See list referenced earlier.
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    shahidshah, you posted this stuff in another thread. Please stick to that one. If nobody responds, leave it at that. Don't post in threads where it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I am going to move this along with Markus' good responses to the other thread in the morning.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    OK, Markus' posts have been moved here. Please stick to this thread from now on.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    The matter was taken up by one Mr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies but once he recieved the replies from the challenger (who is local to Srinagar) he retreated.
    Presumably because he realised he was dealing with an irrational crank. (Although Dunning Davies seems to have some odd ideas of his own!)

    Kindly discuss this serious problem
    There is no serious problem. Experience on forums such as this indicate that it is best to ignore crackpots with ignorant pseudo-scientific "challenges" like this. Don't give them the oxygen of publicity.

    If your students are not interested in learning science then let them fail their exams. Simple.
    Last edited by Strange; June 26th, 2012 at 08:45 AM. Reason: typo
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I'd never heard of "Elixir" before. Having it referred to as a peer-reviewed journal got my attention. I found this.

    Elixir Online Journal « Scholarly Open Access The final paragraph reads ......

    I recommend that authors and researchers not conduct any business with this journal. While it may contain some quality articles by those authors who have been fooled, I recommend that readers remain skeptical of the journal’s content.
    If this is representative of the quality of work they not just accept, but allow to be promoted as "peer-reviewed", it makes them completely unreliable. In fact, I'd regard them as worse than that. Anyone in physics publishing has to be wary of perpetual motion cranks, Einstein cranks, thermodynamics cranks. A rubbish paper like this should never get past an editor, let alone peer review by anyone who ever cracked a physics textbook.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    @ All those who posted their replies
    You seem to be really strange people. What you say & feel; I also say & feel the same. I have posted this thread for producing a rebuttal. He has openly challenged all of us and your suggestion that we should pay no attention to him and act as ostritches is an adsurd suggestion. Markus seems to an over confident person without any reason. He thinks that we in our internal meetings & meeting with university professors did not discuss anything but we have discussed every pros & cons of the issue. He has challenged the very philosophy of physics; the foundation of physics which emerged from the great article of Einstein in 1905. We have analysed his articles and found out that he has not left any way and to a large extent had been successful in showing the articles of Einstein are incorrect mathematically, experimentally & theoretically. Markus probably should take a few days off & read his articles to make any comments which carry any logical sense. Let this forum join heads to produce a rebuttal after finding the exact mistakes which we physics teachers failed to find one. He has gone far away with his challenge but he should be stoped. This for all professional physicists is not trivial matter as strange has taken which is very strange.
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    [the original post this came from seems to have disappeared]
    Consequently the concept ofexchangeability of mass and energy as proposed by Einstein in the article ‘Does the Inertial of the Body Depend upon
    its Energy Content’ Albert Einstein (1905b) fails conceptually, theoretically as well as experimentally.
    Perhaps these idiots would like to go and tell the inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that (never mind the people around Chernobyl and Fukushima).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    He has openly challenged all of us and your suggestion that we should pay no attention to him and act as ostritches is an adsurd suggestion.
    Why is it absurd. If someone tells you that the sky is green and the oceans are red, would you rebut this "challenge to the very philosophy of physics" or just back away slowly.

    If these are your students then they are not very bright and deserve to fail their course and end up working in a fast food restaurant.

    Markus seems to an over confident person without any reason.
    I think his confidence is based on the overwhelming evidence in favour of reality and the things that these cretins claim.

    He has challenged the very philosophy of physics; the foundation of physics which emerged from the great article of Einstein in 1905.
    Of course he hasn't.

    We have analysed his articles and found out that he has not left any way and to a large extent had been successful in showing the articles of Einstein are incorrect mathematically, experimentally & theoretically.
    And yet GPS systems continue to work. Nuclear power stations carry on running. The LHC functions as expected. Semiconductors work as predicted. Physicists continue to perform experiments that confirm relativity. Mathematicians and theoretical physicists explore the possibilities of relativity and come up with interesting new concepts. Oddly, nobe of have them have found any sign of these "trickeries".

    This for all professional physicists is not trivial matter as strange has taken which is very strange.
    Hundreds of equally deluded people go round saying that "Einstein was wrong" or "Evolution doesn't happen" or "The universe is made of ball bearings". Just ignore them. They are either very stupid or insane. Or both.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Strange is really strange. Moderator please explain to him what he is writting.
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Strange do not forget that he has given an alternative under which the things you say are going on would also go on.
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I understand what I am writing, thank you. I have learnt that it is pointless trying to argue with or refute these sorts of cranks. They are unable to see reason. They will only accept evidence that agrees with their warped view of reality. They will deliberately misunderstand words and math in order to maintain their delusion. They will lie and obfuscate.

    I occasionally engage with them in forums such as this just to point out their mistakes for the benefit of other readers. And sometimes because it can be fun pointing out quite how idiotic they are.

    All scientists and engineers encounter these crackpots occasionally. (I used to be the engineer designated to deal with them at one company where I worked because I would always be polite to them.) If you engage with them it just encourages them and makes the situation worse. What they are after is attention. Ignore them and soon they will go away and find someone else to annoy.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Whoops. I forgot to address the OP.

    The students in question are clearly first years or general students doing a science subject as an add-on. This is a great opportunity to show them something about how science is really done.

    If someone claims a paper is peer reviewed, that alone is not enough to give the claim any credibility.

    What is the journal's ranking?
    How many times has the paper been cited?
    What is the quality and citation record of the papers cited by the author/s?
    What is the quality of the scientific record of the authors of cited papers?

    And when a paper claims to overturn a hundred or so years of well established science, you have to up the ante. The students should ask a few questions themselves.
    If this paper is correct, how many modern inventions and processes will need new explanations for their mechanisms?
    How does the criticism of accepted physics line up with the success of nuclear weapons, nuclear power, satellite operations ...... and on and on?
    How does this 'new' idea explain these things better?

    And remember above all, there's nothing new about challenging Einstein. Remember he didn't get the Nobel Prize for his most famous work. Why not? Because it was so publicly contentious. Remember Einstein's famous remark.

    “At present every coachman and every waiter argues about whether or not the relativity theory is correct.”
    —Albert Einstein--- To Marcel Grossmann, September 12, 1920. AEA 11-500
    Edit: I just put this in from a draft and didn't notice the other contributions since my previous.

    Oh well. No matter.
    Strange likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    You can tell that adelady has some experience of teaching while I am just a grumpy old man!
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I've just had a birthday. I'm fully qualified as a grumpy old lady now.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Happy birthday!
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    A quick search shows this Khan geezer promoting his idea around the web. As expected, when his trivial errors are pointed out he comes up with the usual reactions:
    - ignores the response
    - says "prove me wrong"
    - asserts the response is wrong (with no explanation)
    - insists that anybody who disagrees obviously hasn't read and understood his "paper"
    - misunderstands and misrepresents what other say (as always, it is not clear if this is deliberate dishonesty or genuine stupidity)
    - insists that his idea is vitally important and will be proved the be true in time
    - etc.
    - etc.
    - yawn

    In short, just another crackpot spouting the same old nonsense. The amazing thing is, it doesn't matter what the crackpot theory is. People claiming that Shakespeare didn't write the plays, for example, behave in exactly the same way.

    xkcd: Revolutionary
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Yeah. The anti-vaccination and related health woo promoters are much the same. (Homeopathy, energy healing, toxins and all the rest.)

    Re-reading your list of reactions, they are exactly the same.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    I would still ask you to be serious. How could main-stream journals publish such an article and how could main-stream physicists cite such an article which challenges the foundation of physics. Aristotle point of view survived for thousands of years but finally showed him wrong. The problem is production of rebuttal to his calculations & arguments & I think we cannot discard those so casually.
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    I would still ask you to be serious. How could main-stream journals publish such an article
    What mainstream journal has published it? It is in some "vanity" journal and vixra (home of the crackpot).

    and how could main-stream physicists cite such an article which challenges the foundation of physics.
    Has it been cited by any mainstream physicists?

    Aristotle point of view survived for thousands of years but finally showed him wrong.
    Yes. Didn't Aristotle claim that men and women have different numbers of teeth? If only he had looked at the evidence. (Something Khan also isn't able to do.)

    The problem is production of rebuttal to his calculations & arguments & I think we cannot discard those so casually.
    Do a web search. You will find people rebutting them. And getting into the inevitable pointless debates. If you want to waste your time like that, then feel free.
    xkcd: Duty Calls
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I would still ask you to be serious
    I presume everyone else is as serious as I am.

    The science you claim to have overturned has had 100 years and tens of thousands of scientists to work it out.

    They've not only worked it out, they've used it to design a vast number of products and processes ...... which work as predicted by the design. The science has been validated by its practical applications.

    Anyone making an extraordinary claim has to present extraordinary evidence. Not just logic or common sense or a form of words or mathematics. That evidence must provide alternative explanations to the scientifically established explanations for how and why certain things have been shown to work. And the alternative explanations have to be better than the current ones - they must explain things that the current theory doesn't as well as improving the descriptions of the successes.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Strange you have been an engineer I as physicist know that there is not even a single experimental proof of space not being absolute. Time is relative & there is time dilation; there are sufficient proofs of that but his alternative suggests that. He is taking advantage of lack of evidence of space contraction which is the crux of SR &GR. There is just one evidence of that & that is MM Expt..But he has rather very adequately taken care of that in his articles. His calculations seem to be flawless. The climax is that he has written the articles such that even lower undergraduate students understand the articles easily and we teachers just cannot stand the arguments which the students pose.
     

  25. #24  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Then you are lousy teachers
    Strange and Ascended like this.
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Strange you have been an engineer I as physicist know that there is not even a single experimental proof of space not being absolute.
    Nonsense. As an engineer, I have worked on the design of GPS systems. One of the things they have to do in their position calculation is allow for distance contraction due to the relative motion of the satellite and the observer. Also, observations of the lifetimes of muons from cosmic rays, the correct functioning of the LHC, and on and on, demonstrate the theory is correct.

    There are also hundreds, maybe thousands, of different experiments that prove Lorentz invariance to very high accuracy. This is absolutely equivalent to proving length contraction. Saying "no one has measured length contraction directly" is about a mature an argument as "no one has seen an electron therefore they don't exist".

    There is just one evidence of that & that is MM Expt..
    I thought you said you were a physics lecturer? How come you appear to know nothing at all about physics? Are you Khan posting under a false identity?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Markus probably should take a few days off & read his articles to make any comments which carry any logical sense.
    My objection - to which, I should remind everyone, you have not replied yet - is a very simple, very logical one : SR produces results which are in perfect agreement with all experimental and observational evidence. Thus your assertion that SR is wrong is contradictory to evidence.
    How is that not logic ?
    As for the matter of "over-confidence" - was it not you who said that :

    I openly challenge all the professors, researchers & teachers of physics/philosophy of physics to come forward & show me where I am wrong or else they have to accept that they are teaching incorrect physics based on ‘trickeries’.
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    I would still ask you to be serious. How could main-stream journals publish such an article and how could main-stream physicists cite such an article which challenges the foundation of physics..
    You are right, they couldn't. Why ? Because mainstream physics are based on the scientific principle, including the fact that theories like SR are accepted because they are in agreement with observational evidence.
    Your ramblings are solely based on a refusal to accept reality.
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Let this forum join heads to produce a rebuttal after finding the exact mistakes which we physics teachers failed to find one. He has gone far away with his challenge but he should be stoped. This for all professional physicists is not trivial matter as strange has taken which is very strange.
    So, you are unable to find a fault with his challenge. Surely that means, from your point, that his claims may be correct? In that case why would you wish to stop him? Surely you would wish to support the spread of this knowledge throughout the scientific community? Or, do you simply believe in relativity dogmatically and not through solid understanding?

    I am inclined to agree with the others on this thread who have pointed out the deficiencies in his argument and offered ways of getting the students to think.
    Strange likes this.
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Strange you have been an engineer I as physicist know that there is not even a single experimental proof of space not being absolute. Time is relative & there is time dilation; there are sufficient proofs of that but his alternative suggests that. He is taking advantage of lack of evidence of space contraction which is the crux of SR &GR.
    What do you even mean by absolute ? Absolute in whose reference frame ? The entire concept of "absolute" in relation to space is just silly from the start, there is no evidence whatsoever of a preferred frame of reference. Or would you care to reference some real experimental evidence in support of such an idea ?
    Space contraction is just the other side of the coin to time dilation - they are both facets of the same principle. Time dilation is very well verified, and there is plenty of evidence in support of length contraction as well. The Muon observation is only the most well known.
     

  31. #30  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,486
    I am not a teacher nor have I ever been, that said I do understand a little about helping people to accept and go about things in the correct way. It seems to me that either the student is correct and the science has indeed been built upon a fallacy, or the student is mistaken due to a lack of understanding or is indeed publicity seeking. Now I am assuming that most would dismiss the first possibility as unlikely as science is usually tested many times over before being generally accepted and also it has to logically follow on from what has gone before.

    So where does this leave us? Well we have the last two possibilities and I would suggest a similar approach regardless. That is that a suitable test is prepared to actually fully gage the students level of understanding of each aspect of the science and how it was conceived. This test should be extremely comprehensive with well thought out and clear explanations to the answers already prepared for each question. In this way the teachers can actually gage at which point the students thinking and understanding has diverged and wether this due to lack of understanding and knowledge.

    If after completing the test the student has made mistakes or come up with wrong answers it gives the teachers the opportunity to go to the route of the problem and explain everything clearly. If for any reason the student continues to disagree with some of the answers then if the teachers are well prepared with the evidence and reasons that led to a specific scientific conclusion they can take the student though it step by step and gage the students conclusions at each part of the process.

    This will have the effect of helping the genuine student learn from their mistakes or if they are not genuine and publicity seeking reduce any credibility they may have generated from their challenges.

    It my considered opinion though that the best teachers are capable of finding a way to encourage any student to learn what is correct.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    @ Markus
    There is absolutely no direct evidence of space contraction. The MM expt & muon observations are very indirect evidences. MM Expt he has adequately dealt with total genesis.
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    The problem is the production of a rebuttal. As per the thread that is to be discussed.
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    The problem is the production of a rebuttal. As per the thread that is to be discussed.
    If you are interested in a rebuttal why don't you learn some basic physics and rebut it yourself.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    There is absolutely no direct evidence of space contraction. The MM expt & muon observations are very indirect evidences. MM Expt he has adequately dealt with total genesis.
    What would count as "direct evidence"? Why don't all the many experiments, observations and practical applications that have to take length contraction into account not count as direct evidence? Simply because you can't understand them? Or because you choose to ignore them to prop up this pseudo-science (that you appear to be spamming all over the Internet).

    Why are you doing so much to promote this moron's ideas?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    I think there is an elephant in the room, which is what the real identity of shahidshah is.

    It seems to me that for a physics teacher, he doesn't know that much about topic. Also, a forum like this, imo, would not be a place a physics teacher would come to for guidance. I have a feeling that he is in fact this Khan character and have devised this little ruse in order not to be banned immediately off of forums like these.

    What do you say to this shahidshah?
    Strange likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    We as physics teachers have gone through the articles ten times each of us. His calculations are elementary, simple and flawless which students do understand. You have to realise that Theories of Relativity are just theories; right or wrong nobody can tell with absolute authority and fortunately adopted as there is no competative theory. Now somedoby has come with a competative theory & challenged us all; is it not our responsibilty to respond to him befittingly? You unnecassaries blame me that I am representing him. Why should I come for seeking help for producing the rebuttal for which we are facing serious difficulties? Strange you are very strange; go and refer all the literature and check if there is any direct evidence of space contraction.
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    You have to realise that Theories of Relativity are just theories
    Here's another teaching opportunity for you and the rest of the faculty. I realise that most of your students will have English as a second (or third or fourth) language which might be an issue. But plenty of native-born exclusive English speakers have difficulty with the notion of "scientific theory".

    A scientific theory is the highest standard that can be reached. There are some concepts that were named a long time ago which we still refer to as "laws", but that's only a habit. No newer scientific theory will ever be called a 'law'.

    It is entirely wrong to dismiss any scientific theory in the conversational way we might say to anyone about cooking or gardening, Well that's just your theory. 'Just a theory' is not a valid criticism of any scientific theory. There are ideas. These can be developed into scientific hypotheses. Experiments and tests can be carried out to test the hypothesis. This process destroys all but a very few propositions. Once the tests, the evidence, the explanations, the maths have all been put together in a coherent package - and that package has been tested, retested, challenged again and again by lots and lots of people - then we might just get ourselves a theory.

    And there is also no "absolute authority" in science.

    The correct response to a new, competing scientific theory is to ask the obvious questions.

    Does this theory line up better, worse or much the same as the current theory with the relevant observations and evidence?
    What does this theory do to fill shortcomings in the current theory?
    What evidence and observations does this theory explain that the current theory does not?
    Is there any experimental or observational data which clearly shows that this theory has more explanatory power than the current theory?
    What experimental or observational data is needed (if it's not yet available) to demonstrate its explanatory and predictive power?
    Does the proponent have any experiments designed (even if they're not yet practical) to demonstrate its scientific validity?

    I'm sure other people have other similar questions they might put. Some of these might not be obvious to me or other people who aren't professional scientists or engineers - but they must be answered effectively if such a challenge is to have any chance.

    Your students need to understand the scientific process. The best description is one I've used before, I'm perfectly happy to use it again

    You put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the s**t out of it. If it's still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected.

    This time.
    Students who are serious about a career in science need to get their heads around the idea that it is seriously competitive. The first lesson is that it's much less stressful to find your own errors before you put any papers out for public consumption.
    KALSTER and Rookie like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    We as physics teachers have gone through the articles ten times each of us.
    If you are a physics teacher, I can only praise God that none of my teachers were this ignorant of science.

    You have to realise that Theories of Relativity are just theories; right or wrong nobody can tell with absolute authority and fortunately adopted as there is no competative theory.
    Of course it is "just a theory". That is the nature of science. We don't rely on authority. Which is yet another reason why, even if Einstein had made a mistake, it wouldn't matter: the same ideas were developed by several other people at the same time. The same results have been developed by multiple people since then.

    Science relies on experiment and observation. On this basis, the theory of relativity works. That is all we can ask. There have been, and still are, alternative theories. Unfortunately, none of them match the facts as well as relativity. (They are not rejected because "Einstein said so" as you claim).

    Of course, if you had ever studied science you might know some of this.

    Now somedoby has come with a competative theory & challenged us all; is it not our responsibilty to respond to him befittingly?
    So test your theory against experiment and observation. Does it work? Does it produce the correct result for the precession of Mercury? Does it correctly predict gravitational lensing?

    You might need someone who has learnt some physics to help you with that, I suppose.

    You unnecassaries blame me that I am representing him.
    But you are doing such a good job of presenting and defending his ideas. You should get the credit. Anyone would think your real name was Khan...

    Strange you are very strange
    If you keep doing that, I am going to start calling you Mr Khan.

    go and refer all the literature and check if there is any direct evidence of space contraction.
    That is such a stupid argument. Only someone who has no understanding of science could make it. Have you ever seen an electron "directly"? Does that mean they don't exist? Have you ever seen a magnetic field "directly"? Does that mean that magnets don't work?

    There are thousands of experiments that confirm the theory of relativity to extraordinary levels of accuracy. If some part of the theory was wrong (e.g. length contraction did not happen) then these would give different results.

    Please use your theory to check the results of these experiments. It is typical of crackpots like you to ignore the evidence and focus on some irrelevant detail.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    You have to realise that Theories of Relativity are just theories
    Here's another teaching opportunity for you and the rest of the faculty.
    Maybe that should be "learning" opportunity.

    [And thank for a much more moderate and useful response!]
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Strange you pretend to be philosopher but you are neither a philosopher nor a real physicist. Why you do not read his article from head to tail and come up with your statements. Non sense fellow.
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Strange you pretend to be philosopher but you are neither a philosopher nor a real physicist. Why you do not read his article from head to tail and come up with your statements. Non sense fellow.
    Mr. Khan, when you have some supporting evidence and manage to get your theory published in a proper peer reviewed journal, I will take a look.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  43. #42  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    A search for some of the Khan's other papers reveal an assortment of howlers, like:

    "Theoretical model of God: proof of existence"
    "Ultimate proof of energy theory of matter and cosmology: ‘Theory of everything’"
    "Michelson– Morley experiment: A misconceived & misinterpreted experiment"

    pyoko, Strange, adelady and 1 others like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    A search for some of the Khan's other papers reveal an assortment of howlers, like:

    "Theoretical model of God: proof of existence"
    "Ultimate proof of energy theory of matter and cosmology: ‘Theory of everything’"
    "Michelson– Morley experiment: A misconceived & misinterpreted experiment"

    These "papers" also appear on a website called the "International Islamic Thought Forum" and altho' I haven't looked at the site in detail a cursory glance would suggest that Islamic, or religious thought, is considered to be much more important, and accurate, than scientific thought.
    Surely this thread should be shifted to a more appropriate sub forum. I can think of one right now!
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Michelson-Morley? OK, you made me look.

    Put down any hot drinks. This is part of the conclusion.

    The alternative state of existence of space, time, matter, radiation and luminiferous ether is described in the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b). The humanity was
    deceived by denying the existence of ether in the space which is visible to even a layman. If during the night anybody stands near an electric lamp with the filament and stresses the muscles of the eye; he would see the shining ether around the lamp.
    Re-read that last bit of text and tell me you didn't smile, laugh, face-palm, head-desk, asplode your irony meter - or all of them at once. Howler? This is howler gold!!
    Strange and Rookie like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    This is what he has put on his Facebook page

    Friends kindly read what Hartwig Thim; an authority on theoretical & experimental verification of theories of relativity; has to say about my article 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe'
    Dear Dr. Khan,
    I have read your excellent paper published in the Indian Journal ofScience and technology (ISSN:0974-6846) on the fallacy of space timeconcept. I am pleased about the content of your paper. I did notanswer through facebook as I had problems using their (facebook)communication system. So I am writing to you directly using my email ofJohannes Kepler University (JKU) in Linz, Austria.
    best regards,
    Hartwig Thim
    Everybody is at liberty to confirm this on the e-mail address of Mr Hartwig Thim on hartwig.thim@jku.at
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Moderator,
    What he has said is absolutely correct as I have done this hundred times and I see the shinning lines eminating from the lamp. If you do not see these lines please get your eyes tested.
     

  48. #47  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Do you still maintain that you are not Shafiq Khan or an advocate of his "work"? The Quran forbids lying.
    Strange likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  49. #48  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Warning to shahidshah: Based upon your posts in this thread there seems to be a strong possibility that you and Dr. Khan are the same person, or that you are a supporter of Dr. Khan. We require that you address this possibility in your next post and that you do so clearly and that that post deal only with this issue. Failure to follow this requirement will result in a suspension.
    KALSTER and Rookie like this.
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Friends kindly read what Hartwig Thim; an authority on theoretical & experimental verification of theories of relativity; has to say about my article
    Argument from authority? FAIL.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  51. #50  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Moderator,
    What he has said is absolutely correct as I have done this hundred times and I see the shinning lines eminating from the lamp. If you do not see these lines please get your eyes tested.
    Good grief. I am dumbfounded. Lost for words. Clearly you are not a teacher of science. I hope and pray you are not a teacher of anything. If you are, I feel very sorry for your students.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    My sole concern is the discussion about producing of the rebuttal of his calculations and I would like to have inputs from this forum so that a stategy could be worked out. Instead of discussion about the production of rebuttal the discussion is about the statements and about the arguments That is not the purpose of threat; we need to seriously see where his calculations are wrong and the how could we counter the conclusions which he has drawn. His statements are not to be rebuted but his calculations are to be rebuted. If I had been him why should I come on this forum to for seriously addressing the issue of producing the rebuttal.
     

  53. #52  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Let me ask again, but respond with only a yes or no answer: Are you Shafiq Khan or a supporter for his work. Yes or no?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    My sole concern is the discussion about producing of the rebuttal of his calculations and I would like to have inputs from this forum so that a stategy could be worked out.
    Please go back and re-read adelady's posts. She is full of good advice. Take this as an opportunity to teach your students critical thinking skills. (Although, clearly, you have some work to do in this area yourself, first). Ask them to evaluate his theory against evidence. Ask them to look at other derivations of Einstein's results (e.g. I think Lorentz and Poincare both did it first and independently). Get them to work it out from first principles. Get them to understand Lorentz invariance and how it is tested.

    And, finally, if you think his ideas are wrong then stop arguing in favour of them.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  55. #54  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    While we wait for his reply, I found this comment at the bottom of an article at DailyGalaxy:

    "I would like to display a letter from S.W.Hawking which should open the eyes of the readers of this site that what is written on this site are not facts. The models & theories on the basis of which everything is written about the cosmology are fudamentally incorrect because the space-time concept is incorrect. This scenerio has been created because MM Expt. was misinterpreted which is proved in the article 'Michelson-Morley Experiment- A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment' being published shortly on www.indjst.orb.

    Dear Prof Shafiq

    Your present paper has definitely clarified what your theory actually explains. It is amazing that how all physicists including myself were confused for a century. Me and my colleges here read your paper with interest and had a nice discussion on it. We find it so interesting that we are all shocked at what you have proved. It has already changed the course of modern physics. You are definitely
    the best scientist of this century. You will face a lot of opposition now as you have challenged all existing scientific theories, which will make a lot of physicists lose jobs. Now all physics has to be rewritten, and almost all work done on relativity has to be discarded.


    With Regards

    S. W. Hawking
    Cambridge
    United Kingdom
    The article he mentioned is 'Foundation of Theory of Everything' which is available on www.indjst.orb & also on Islamic Thought.corn

    Posted by: Mohammad Shafiq Khan | August 29, 2011 at 03:33 AM"


    Last edited by KALSTER; June 27th, 2012 at 05:54 AM. Reason: links edited by me.
    Strange and adelady like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  56. #55  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Hilarious. I imagine the letter being dictated by a voice synthesizer with a Pakistani accent...

    Now we know what levels of dishonesty and deception he will sink to, I am utterly convinced that "shahidshah" is Khan. He can't even lie convincingly, never mind understand physics.
    KALSTER likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Khan-watching could be the new google-whacking. A competition to spot the most idiotic comments that Khan makes ...

    He has spammed the same nonsense on some "free energy" website. And, of course, they love it.

    And on a "libertarian" website. I have never quite understood why "libertarians" think that most modern science is some sort of communist conspiracy. Perhaps because they think that special relativity is backdoor for moral relativity. Or maybe just "absolute time and space was good enough for the founding fathers, so it's good enough for me".

    But Kalster is definitely winning so far.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Talk about an irony bypass.

    It's one of those things where it doesn't matter whether that letter is real or not. The mere fact that Khan has posted either a real or a fake letter like this publicly is an indication of a serious inadequacy in understanding - of other people's perceptions if not a lot more.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  59. #58  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I loved the "Me and my colleges here ..."

     

  60. #59  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    I loved: "You are definitely the best scientist of this century".
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Nobody discusses the production of a rebuttal. Let his calculations be discussed. I fail to understand what sort of people are.
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Nobody discusses the production of a rebuttal. Let his calculations be discussed. I fail to understand what sort of people are.
    We are intelligent people who understand science and can spot an imposter a mile off. You probably don't feel comfortable here because of that.

    Why would anyone need to rebut the claims of a lying moron like Khan?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  63. #62  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Nobody discusses the production of a rebuttal. Let his calculations be discussed. I fail to understand what sort of people are.
    Warning: you have been issued a warning earlier in this thread. You have failed to comply with the requirements of that warning. You are hereby suspended for two days. When and if you return your first post should be a clear declaration as to whether or not you and Khan are the same person, or you are his associate. If you post anything else before posting that you are likely to be permanently banned.
     

  64. #63  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    I did notanswer through facebook as I had problems using their (facebook)communication system.
    Ha ! Hilarious...
    Thanks for the laugh at the end of a long day at work...I needed that
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Nobody discusses the production of a rebuttal. Let his calculations be discussed. I fail to understand what sort of people are.
    And I fail to understand why you fail to understand - the rebuttal is already there, right in front of you. I have provided you links to experimental and observational evidence which shows that SR is correct in its predictions. That automatically invalidates the paper you are referring to, because they can't both be correct, now can they ?? Over and above that no one is going to waste any precious time on just another "anti-relativity" nonsense-paper. There have been thousands of those, all of which quietly slipped back into obscurity ( or the trash box ). Prof Einstein was right, you are not. Simple.
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Nobody discusses the production of a rebuttal. Let his calculations be discussed. I fail to understand what sort of people are.
    And I fail to understand why you fail to understand - the rebuttal is already there, right in front of you. I have provided you links to experimental and observational evidence which shows that SR is correct in its predictions. That automatically invalidates the paper you are referring to, because they can't both be correct, now can they ?? Over and above that no one is going to waste any precious time on just another "anti-relativity" nonsense-paper. There have been thousands of those, all of which quietly slipped back into obscurity ( or the trash box ). Prof Einstein was right, you are not. Simple.

    Could you direct me to a link where there is direct experimental evidence of space contraction in the direction of motion. Just one such experiment in the whole of the aftermath of SR & GR.
    Seconodly you all say that there is no need of rebuttal but could any one here on Science Forum help me to show how his calculations of so-called Equation of Trickery could be nullified.
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Could you direct me to a link where there is direct experimental evidence of space contraction in the direction of motion. Just one such experiment in the whole of the aftermath of SR & GR.
    Let's start at the beginning. You may have seen surveyors in your town using rulers and theodolites to measure distances and angles between points so they can produce a map. The uses basic trigonometry, which has been developed and formally proved by mathematicians in many countries thousands of years ago. It has a solid theoretical basis and, again, thousands of years of practical use. So I think we can all agree that there are no problems or "trickeries" as you like to put it there.

    Now, satellite navigation systems (GPS) work the same way - not by magic, as some people think - they find the distance to four (or more) satellites and use the information to calculate your position. Using trigonometry. So far so good. no problem.

    Use simple trigonometry as above and ... wrong answer. Out by several hundred metres. What went wrong?

    Oh, but hang on, the satellites are moving relative to the GPS receiver. That means the distances may not be the same as if the satellites were stationary. Let's take Lorentzian length contraction into account and adjust all the distances based on the relative velocity of each satellite.

    Use simple geometry with the contracted lengths and ... correct answer.

    The usual response from denialist cranks like you is to waffle about Doppler effects, different coordinate systems, etc. But all of those have to be taken into account as well.

    Also muon lifetimes. And all (I know this seems to go over your head) other experiments that test Lorentz invariance. These would not work if length contraction did not occur as predicted.

    Seconodly you all say that there is no need of rebuttal but could any one here on Science Forum help me to show how his calculations of so-called Equation of Trickery could be nullified.
    Very good: two Signs of the Crank in one sentence: ignoring all evidence/arguments presented and saying "prove me wrong".

    Test it against the evidence. As it contradicts SR it will not match the evidence. This proves you wrong. So stick that up your rebuttal.

    Of course, as you are a spokesman for the idiot Khan, you will presumably ignore the evidence and just keep repeating the same old nonsense.
    KALSTER, John Galt and adelady like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Could you direct me to a link where there is direct experimental evidence of space contraction in the direction of motion. Just one such experiment in the whole of the aftermath of SR & GR.
    Firstly, all experimental evidence for time dilation ( off which there is plenty ) is also evidence for length contraction, because these are two facets of the same effect in two different frames of reference. Since you are so well versed in SR/GR I would have thought you are aware of this. I am sure you are also aware of the huge body of evidence that directly shows time dilation, and thus automatically also length contraction. We are using this in everyday technology, e.g. GPS, as Strange has already pointed out.

    As for other evidence :

    Atmospheric Muons : Length Contraction
    Drift Velocity of Electrons : Purcell, E. M. Electricity and Magnetism. Berkeley Physics Course. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. New York
    Heavy Ion Collisions in Particle Accelerators : Manuel Calderon de la Barca Sanchez - Physics Research
    Heavy Ion EM Excitations : Electromagnetic excitation
    Free Electron Laser Experiments : http://flash.desy.de/sites/site_vuvf...hrefrs_web.pdf

    Seconodly you all say that there is no need of rebuttal but could any one here on Science Forum help me to show how his calculations of so-called Equation of Trickery could be nullified.
    They are already nullified by the very fact that we have a huge amount of evidence that supports SR and GR. All predictions of relativity are experimentally well proven - see links in post 2. In other words we know that SR and GR are right - so what is there to "nullify" ? You can call SR and GR trickery, or whatever else you want. Fact is that the predictions of the theory are in perfect agreement with reality, as shown in the evidence I have referenced. Relativity is right, that's all there is to it - the article is "nullified" simply by reality.
    KALSTER, John Galt and adelady like this.
     

  69. #68  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    So stick that up your rebuttal.
    Ha ha ! Well spoken !
     

  70. #69  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    ]Could you direct me to a link where there is direct experimental evidence of space contraction in the direction of motion. Just one such experiment in the whole of the aftermath of SR & GR.
    Seconodly you all say that there is no need of rebuttal but could any one here on Science Forum help me to show how his calculations of so-called Equation of Trickery could be nullified. .
    Did you fail to read the warning I gave earlier? Or are you just being arrogant and foolish? The evidence suggests the latter. I'm suspending you for a week. When you return your first post should be a clear declaration as to whether or not you and Khan are the same person, or that you are his associate. You are only avoiding a permanent ban because a couple of members seem to be enjoying rebutting your nonsense.
    KALSTER likes this.
     

  71. #70  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    You are only avoiding a permanent ban because a couple of members seem to be enjoying rebutting your nonsense.
    Yup
    It's much like cats playing with a mouse...the result is obvious in both cases, but we might as well have some fun first !
    Also, no one is taking this crap seriously anyway, so no harm done !
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Let you all know that I am not Khan or his associate. But I oppose his theory but not his person. I came here to find ways & means to oppose him on logic, mathematics, theory, experiments he referred in support of his theory. But I found here arrogant, over-confident idiots who do not what they are writing and above all they consider all others as ignorant beings. They enjoy writing non-sense including the so-called biased moderators who openly favour these idiots. They have been harassing me with bans and time & again they have suspended me. Hell with you & your Science Forum.
     

  73. #72  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,486
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Let you all know that I am not Khan or his associate. But I oppose his theory but not his person. I came here to find ways & means to oppose him on logic, mathematics, theory, experiments he referred in support of his theory. But I found here arrogant, over-confident idiots who do not what they are writing and above all they consider all others as ignorant beings. They enjoy writing non-sense including the so-called biased moderators who openly favour these idiots. They have been harassing me with bans and time & again they have suspended me. Hell with you & your Science Forum.
    Well I'm sure we all regret you feel that way, but this is a discussion forum and people give what they believe are honest answers, I hope that in time you can reflect on this and perhaps in future will find it is easier to handle and that you can learn how to engender more possitive responses, best of luck for the future.
    John Galt likes this.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
     

  74. #73  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Shahid
    Hell with you & your Science Forum
    Right. Better luck at another forum then.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    I came here to find ways & means to oppose him on logic, mathematics, theory, experiments he referred in support of his theory.
    The only and best way to show him the error of his ways is reality. We know that relativity is right, and we have shown you that by providing the appropriate references. That's really all there is to it !

    Hell with you & your Science Forum.
    You didn't have much luck on the other forums either...
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Your are arrogant & having superficial knowledge and in short you are a perfect idiot. I have not gone to any forum other than this useless forum. You quoted GPS as the evidence of space contraction whereas every one knows that GPS is concerned with angles & time. I must have checked for one month the whole of internet to locate a single direct experimental evidence of space contraction so that I could throw the same on the face of Khan but there is not a single such direct experimental evidence. Whereas in your arrogance you say that theories of relativity are proved. Time dilation is experimentally confirmed time & again but Khan has even a better formula for time dilation and Maxwell's wave equation is also invariant under his transformation. This is the strength of his theory for which I wanted a clue from this forum.
     

  77. #76  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Good scientists strive to disprove their own theories. We should respect Khan for that, though his methods are ridiculous.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  78. #77  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Your are arrogant & having superficial knowledge and in short you are a perfect idiot. I have not gone to any forum other than this useless forum. You quoted GPS as the evidence of space contraction whereas every one knows that GPS is concerned with angles & time. I must have checked for one month the whole of internet to locate a single direct experimental evidence of space contraction so that I could throw the same on the face of Khan but there is not a single such direct experimental evidence. Whereas in your arrogance you say that theories of relativity are proved. Time dilation is experimentally confirmed time & again but Khan has even a better formula for time dilation and Maxwell's wave equation is also invariant under his transformation. This is the strength of his theory for which I wanted a clue from this forum.
    Right. So are you leaving or what?

    You can't know your physics and still say things you do. That much has been clear from the start and that is why we don't really trust what you have been claiming regarding your identity. People have taken the time to oblige your request, but you are unable to understand them properly. For instance, the GPS example is used because of the loss of synch observed, which is exactly predicted by relativity. I have no idea what you mean with "angles and time".

    IF Khan's "theory" was as strong as you claim, it would have genuinely been revolutionary, instead of ringing the pseudo crank bells and being met with ridicule. His stuff is also not restricted to your OP. He has been making varied claims all over the place, each being as ridiculous as the last. And on top of that, he has been going out of his way, employing a host of dishonest methods to try and find support for his crap. He is an unscrupulous crank and a joke.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  79. #78  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Your are arrogant & having superficial knowledge and in short you are a perfect idiot. I have not gone to any forum other than this useless forum.
    Aha. So now we are resorting to name calling. How mature
    I could have sworn I saw posts by yourself under the member name "shahid" on scienceforums.net. Now all these posts seem to be deleted.

    You quoted GPS as the evidence of space contraction whereas every one knows that GPS is concerned with angles & time.
    And then of course there are those of us who actually understand SR. Those select few know that length contraction and time dilation are actually the same phenomenon, seen from two separate frames of reference. Petty you don't belong to those who are in the know about such matters...

    I must have checked for one month the whole of internet to locate a single direct experimental evidence of space contraction
    See post 67. It only took me a few minutes to find those. Is that perhaps because you didn't actually want to find anything...?

    Whereas in your arrogance you say that theories of relativity are proved.
    See post 67. As well as the very extensive body of evidence in post 2.
    Both of which you have chosen to completely ignore.

    but Khan has even a better formula for time dilation
    Does he ? I don't see it anywhere. Why don't you give us that formula here on this forum, and then we'll see how well it stacks up against the real, correct one from SR.
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    Your are arrogant & having superficial knowledge and in short you are a perfect idiot. I have not gone to any forum other than this useless forum.
    Aha. So now we are resorting to name calling. How mature
    I could have sworn I saw posts by yourself under the member name "shahid" on scienceforums.net. Now all these posts seem to be deleted.

    You quoted GPS as the evidence of space contraction whereas every one knows that GPS is concerned with angles & time.
    And then of course there are those of us who actually understand SR. Those select few know that length contraction and time dilation are actually the same phenomenon, seen from two separate frames of reference. Petty you don't belong to those who are in the know about such matters...
    Why do not you accept that GPS has been wrongly quoted as direct evidence of space-contraction. As everyone knowing GPS are aware of this.
    I must have checked for one month the whole of internet to locate a single direct experimental evidence of space contraction
    See post 67. It only took me a few minutes to find those. Is that perhaps because you didn't actually want to find anything...?
    Only a fool could conclude that muon halflife measurements are direct evidence of space contraction. Even an undergraduate student of physics know that changes in half life of muon is due to the time dilation and cannot be direct evidence of space contraction. I read your post and ignored it because I know you are an ignorant & arrogant being.
    Whereas in your arrogance you say that theories of relativity are proved.
    See post 67. As well as the very extensive body of evidence in post 2.
    Both of which you have chosen to completely ignore.

    but Khan has even a better formula for time dilation
    Does he ? I don't see it anywhere. Why don't you give us that formula here on this forum, and then we'll see how well it stacks up against the real, correct one from SR.
    That means you as an idiot have been writing comments about the article which you did not even bother to read and you had taken for granted this big issue in physics. The formula is t'=t/1+c.V/C where small c is the unit directional vector of light and c.V is the dot product of unit directional vector of light and velocity vector of moving reference frame.
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    You are biased administrator. Instead of assuming SR is absolutely correct why you do not read the Khan's article very carefully and suggest as to how we can proceed to produce a rebuttal.
     

  82. #81  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,486
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Right. So are you leaving or what?
    Why should we continiue to produce responses for you?
    You've just been insulting and stated you are leaving. Why don't you change your attitude and people may actually want to help you, because everyone will get fed up otherwise and simply ignore you.

    Which do you prefer the idea that you got wound up and are sorry and ask people to give a fair chance or do prefer to continue being rude and having people judging you accordingly?
    The decision is yours what is to be, the right way or the wrong way?
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Right. So are you leaving or what?
    Why should we continiue to produce responses for you?
    You've just been insulting and stated you are leaving. Why don't you change your attitude and people may actually want to help you, because everyone will get fed up otherwise and simply ignore you.

    Which do you prefer the idea that you got wound up and are sorry and ask people to give a fair chance or do prefer to continue being rude and having people judging you accordingly?
    The decision is yours what is to be, the right way or the wrong way?
    I came to this forum very sincerely expecting help. But the biased moderators would time & again suspend me for no reason and time & again they warned me of ban. None of the other participants were warned for their non-sense, derogatory and false statements. This reveals that moderators are biased which in no case should be the job of the moderator. I hold on to the correctness of SRT but they take this serious challenge as a trivial matter. The climax is that some Markus would make all sorts of incorrect statements without even reading the article which challenges the SRT. All I want that participants should go through the articles very carefully and take up serious discussion for producing the rebuttal. They outrightly reject the challenge without even knowing the contents of challenge. How that could solve the purpose of coming to this forum?
     

  84. #83  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    I am getting real tired of this.

    You were given clear ultimatums, multiple times, where the consequences were spelled out, which you ignored. Don't come complaining now about it.

    Now, we have taken the time to respond to you and explain why Khan's nonsense is not a serious challange, yet you hold fast that it is. Fine, you can do that if you wish, but you won't get any agreement here. Period. If you are indeed a teacher, you are a poor one.

    Now, again, we don't take Khan seriously and never will, so you have no reason to keep moaning. Sorry to be rude about it, but this is really getting old now. I'll leave the thread open for a few minutes more if anyone want's to add something, after which I am closing it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by shahidshah View Post
    But I found here arrogant, over-confident idiots who do not what they are writing and above all they consider all others as ignorant beings. They enjoy writing non-sense including the so-called biased moderators who openly favour these idiots. They have been harassing me with bans and time & again they have suspended me. Hell with you & your Science Forum.
    Admit you have completely lost the argument and then go back to your pram!
    Last edited by Halliday; July 13th, 2012 at 12:01 PM.
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    There are plenty of physics textbooks online. Get hold of a couple. Read carefully. Re-read the bits that are a bit challenging.

    Then identify where Khan's notions are inconsistent. Try and find exactly where his analysis diverges from the standard text. Then identify the next 3, 5, 17 however many points of further disagreement - exactly where, when and how that divergence occurs.

    In fact, you don't need to do this at all. Give it to a selected group of the best among your students and give them extra credit for completing it as a project.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    21
    Your seem to be very strange people & instead of help you ask me to read books. Know all of you; I have hardly left any relevent book unread and I found no counter to Khan. Now I reached to the conclusion that I could not get any help from this forum because I found only idiots on this forum rather perfect idiots who take such a serious matter so lightly. Why can't you idiots understand that he has openly challenge the world physicist community on the whole.Hell with you & your idiotic forum.
     

  88. #87  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    And with that, we bid you adieu.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

Similar Threads

  1. Open University
    By ClaireLouise in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 30th, 2010, 09:55 AM
  2. AP Chemistry Challenge
    By sportsboy2434 in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 20th, 2010, 08:45 PM
  3. open and closed
    By blbl in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 27th, 2010, 09:33 AM
  4. A Challenge for all of us
    By Robin in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 17th, 2010, 06:33 AM
  5. A challenge.
    By MHFenix in forum Criminology and Forensic Science
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: January 29th, 2009, 01:45 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •