Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

Just curious, Johan; what was the other online forum you caused a stir and were "teaching physics" as regards the Twins Paradox?

Randi Educational Forum. But even YOU have more brains than the idiots on that forum: eg. Ben m, Ziggurat, Sol Invictus and Reality Check. But believe me this is not a compliment!

[GIThruster]

If you ignore the position coordinate when doing a time transform, as Einstein has done, you obtain rubbish. Similarly if you neglect the time coordinate when transforming the length of a rod YOU ALSO OBTAIN RUBBISH. The latter rubbish is the conclusion that the length of a rod that is stationary within Kp contracts within Ks.

Well lets not pretend its just Einstein. It's Lorentz you're correcting as well. Einstein, Lorentz, Lamour, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Langevin, Minkowski, Zeeman, all believed in time dilation due to relative V between frames. Every physicist who has studied SR in the last century believes in it. Every physics student believes in it.

Basically, you and Mendal Sachs don't. And DeltaV.

You said "many" physicists don't. Would you name 3 please?

[DeltaV]

If you ignore the position coordinate when doing a time transform, as Einstein has done, you obtain rubbish. Similarly if you neglect the time coordinate when transforming the length of a rod YOU ALSO OBTAIN RUBBISH. The latter rubbish is the conclusion that the length of a rod that is stationary within Kp contracts within Ks.

Well lets not pretend its just Einstein. It's Lorentz you're correcting as well. Einstein, Lorentz, Lamour, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Langevin, Minkowski, Zeeman, all believed in time dilation due to relative V between frames. Every physicist who has studied SR in the last century believes in it. Every physics student believes in it.

Basically, you and Mendal Sachs don't. And DeltaV.

You said "many" physicists don't. Would you name 3 please?

Stop your mind-warp tactic of insinuating that all of relativity is being rejected here. The issue is specifically:
Do Lorentz transforms between inertial frames induce actual, or only apparent, time dilation and length contraction?

So according to you, whatever the majority believes is truth. The history of science suggests otherwise.

Why don't you just tell Johan exactly where his math is wrong?

[GIThruster]

If you ignore the position coordinate when doing a time transform, as Einstein has done, you obtain rubbish. Similarly if you neglect the time coordinate when transforming the length of a rod YOU ALSO OBTAIN RUBBISH. The latter rubbish is the conclusion that the length of a rod that is stationary within Kp contracts within Ks.

Well lets not pretend its just Einstein. It's Lorentz you're correcting as well. Einstein, Lorentz, Lamour, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Langevin, Minkowski, Zeeman, all believed in time dilation due to relative V between frames. Every physicist who has studied SR in the last century believes in it. Every physics student believes in it.

Basically, you and Mendal Sachs don't. And DeltaV.

You said "many" physicists don't. Would you name 3 please?

[GIThruster]

Why don't you just tell Johan exactly where his math is wrong?

Because then I would be guilty of pretending to understand advanced mathmatics I have never been trained in, same as Johan. I honestly thought to write a friend who has taught relativity for decades, and ask him to show where Johan is wrong, but I don't think an answer to this would make any difference. You and Johan would continue to argue that you're correct.

If one finds a house that has no square angles, one doesn't need to know just how the carpenter went wrong with his ruler. He knows he went wrong. The evidence is obvious.

In just the same way, Johan is necessarily wrong about relativity and the twins paradox. The original observation Einstein made that lead to relativity is that the constancy of light, requires the relativity of time and distance. It is because the speed of light is an invariant, that length and time MUST vary when measured from frames that contain relative motion between them.

When 100,000 really smart physicists have come to this conclusion over 100 years, and all the physical evidence is in support, one needs more than a delusional old man's writings, which one does not understand, to take his part. I will remind you, Johan has several subjects where he has convinced himself despite the evidence that he is right where all the rest of the world is wrong, and has yet to provide any evidence for these claims.

Let me also remind you, I labored for months to find investors for Johan so that he could provide the world with evidence, and he destroyed all those possibilities with his cantankerous, taciturn behavior. No one wants anything to do with him because as soon as his delusions are threatened, he responds with rancor, bitterness, spite, and vindictiveness, just as do most psychotics given to delusions of grandeur.

[Teemu]

Why don't you just tell Johan exactly where his math is wrong?

Why just do hyperbolic rotations of Minkowski space, Lorentz transformations (Lorentz transformation was finished into their correct form by Poincare who noticed the 4D space connection), and verbal twisting, when you actually fully embrace Minkowski space and do it in a more beautiful way?

Johan Prins' paper on his page had two simple not than helpful figures on 25 pages of text. Frankly he has most likely relied too much on simple equations and verbal twisting than actual concepts, and somewhere there is though error, but this type of substitution of the better tools with verbal twisting makes physics really ugly and hard to read.

Frankly it seems that he himself commits the sin that he claims the others are doing, relying too much on math at expense of physics:

Scenario:
You use basic equations that describe phenomena related to electrons, and you end up in situation where the electron density increases to infinity

Math based thinking: Since equations say that electron density increases to infinity, they must increase to infinity, and form BEC to avoid Pauli exclusion. Now I have a superconductor.

Physics concepts based thinking: Almost all basic equations describing electron related phenomena are based on electron gas assumption, thus not taking into account electron-electron scattering. This ideal gas assumption can lead to ideal metal results, the electron density increasing to infinity in equations. No it doesn't meant that I found an actual perfect metal.

[DeltaV]

In just the same way, Johan is necessarily wrong about relativity and the twins paradox. The original observation Einstein made that lead to relativity is that the constancy of light, requires the relativity of time and distance. It is because the speed of light is an invariant, that length and time MUST vary when measured from frames that contain relative motion between them.

When 100,000 really smart physicists have come to this conclusion over 100 years, and all the physical evidence is in support, one needs more than a delusional old man's writings, which one does not understand, to take his part.

"MUST vary when measured". There you go again. Implying that Johan and Sachs (and I, a mere engineer) deny observed variations in Lorentz transformed time and length measurements between relatively moving inertial frames.

That's not what was said. You know darn well that the contended issue is:
"Do Lorentz transforms between inertial frames induce actual, or only apparent, time dilation and length contraction?"

The contended issue is also not the validity of relativity as a whole, as you repeatedly imply.

You apparently hope that casual readers of this thread will simply accept your games and dismiss Prins and/or Sachs as frauds before getting around to actually reading the details.

You also seem to have a serious "disinformation" agenda, to discredit the Prins superconduction theory by any means. Is someone paying you to do this?
Perhaps the "men who stare at goats"? Are you a disruptive-technology disruptor? What's your agenda with Woodward?

Let me also remind you, I labored for months to find investors for Johan so that he could provide the world with evidence

I see no evidence that you labored in that regard for even one nanosecond. Are we just supposed to take your word for it? Psychotic delusions of grandeur?

[Betruger]

Just too much of a demagogue.

[johanfprins]

Well lets not pretend its just Einstein. It's Lorentz you're correcting as well. Einstein, Lorentz, Lamour, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Langevin, Minkowski, Zeeman, all believed in time dilation due to relative V between frames.

You are correct they all "believed" in this paranoprmal metaphysics, but they were and are wrong; as I have just proved above. They blindly "believed" as religious dogmnatists are doing, instead of doing the correct derivation from the Lorentz transformation WHICH DEFINES SPECIAL RELATIVITY. They would then have reached the factual conclusion that such a time dilation violates the Lorentz transformation.

Thus there are two possibilities which EXCLUDE each other: Either time dilation does occur, but then the Lorentsz transformatiom MUST be rejected as wrong OR the Lorentz transformation is correct in which case time dilation as having been taught for more than 100 years MUST be wrong. You cannot have both possibilities to be correct.

All these scientists ALSO believed that the Lorentz transformation is CORRECT: AND SO DO I. I have just now above derived that the transformed position within Ks of the clock withio Kp is exactly the same as the position determined by the clock in Ks. Furthermore I have shown that the Lorentz transformation demands that the transformed time on the clock in Kp is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE TIME ON THE CLOCK WITHIN Ks. According to "believers" in time dilation, it is claimed that they have derived from the Lorentz transformation that the transformed time must be dilated. According to my impeccable deivation from the Lorentz transformation, which you cannot prove wrong, this is not TRUE.

Basically, you and Mendal Sachs don't. And DeltaV. You said "many" physicists don't. Would you name 3 please?

There are many others who cannot get their work published. I know quite a number, but I am not going to name them and open them up to the insane abuse of a moronic crackpot like YOU! Physics is NOT determined by the "faith" of the majority but by facts and logic. My proof is clear that IF THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION IS CORRECT, THE TRANSFORMED TIME FROM THE "MOVING CLOCK" INTO THE REFERENCE FRAME OF THE "STATIONARY CLOCK" CANNOT BE DILATED.

If experiments do prove that it is dilated, then the Lorentz transformation must be wrong. This conclusion is physically irrefuteable unless you can point out a mistake in my derivation above. I thus challenge you to do the latter instead of blowing off hot air, stinking with halitoses, on this thread.

[johanfprins]

Why don't you just tell Johan exactly where his math is wrong?

Because then I would be guilty of pretending to understand advanced mathmatics I have never been trained in, same as Johan.

I have been trained in theoretical physics and the mathematics that is required to do this physics. I have also taught theoretical physics and mathematics for many years at three different universities. So stop posting LIES about me on this thread. You are deliberately derfaming me and I think the time has come to hand you over to my lawyer Mr. Ron Stahl.

[GIThruster]

That's not what was said. You know darn well that the contended issue is:
"Do Lorentz transforms between inertial frames induce actual, or only apparent, time dilation and length contraction?"

No. You say the issue is between what is "actual or only apparent". The question is properly framed as whether when the two clocks are separated, one spends time in a frame with relative V to the other, and the clocks are rejoined, if they then show the same time. You've spent your time refuting the notion that the clocks are then out of synch. The evidence is that they are out of synch.

You also seem to have a serious "disinformation" agenda, to discredit the Prins superconduction theory by any means. Is someone paying you to do this?

Wow. Johan has delusions of grandeur and you have the other sort--the paranoid sort. What a pair you two make.

I see no evidence that you labored in that regard for even one nanosecond. Are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Don't take my word for it. Ask Johan. I used many different kinds of connections, found what is the industry standard for testing for superconductivity, consulted with two Ivy League PhD EE's, contacted friends in various industries and government agencies, found funding and had it all scrapped because Johan is considered by those who read his writing to be uncooperative. Certainly, Johan did not get copied to all the email traffic I sent and received for 3 months, but he can at least verify for you that I was writing him as well as many others for at least that long, arranging all this. I have several hundred emails in a file documenting all this between 7/14/10 and 10/12/10. I'm sure Johan can find his own copies.

I don't have any reason to try to sabotage Johan's work. I want it to succeed. For crying out loud, as someone who thinks electric thrusters have a future, don't you think I ought to be hoping for a room temperature superconductor? Fact is though, Johan is not coming forward with evidence. Instead, he's spending time on all sorts of psychotic claims to correct the world's physics. How about he just do a simple 4-point test?

You know, there really is no reason he has to separate the supposed superconductor from the rest of the diamond substrate. That's rubbish. If he performs his process on the entire surface of the substrate, then it doesn't matter that the kelvin clips make contact with opposite sides of the substrate. In fact, this allows a better test because the contact points are further apart.

See DV, he really is flat out of excuses. He needs to stop pretending he's a physics professor, and get down to providing evidence. Without evidence, his theory means nothing, and he's just maintaining the whole "I'm a victim" nonsense. Coming up with "proof" that does not include the industry standard test is not "proof" at all. Avoiding giving people what they want, is just a way to continue to play the victim.

And if you need a final nail in the coffin, ask Johan to explain one more time in some detail, how it can possibly be that he has had his superconductor tested on three different occasions, by three different people in three different situations, and none of these people have provided him with the results of those tests nor even got back to him. That story is crazy start to finish.

[Teemu]

Reminder again

The Lorentz transformation describes only the transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is left fixed, so they can be considered as a hyperbolic rotation of Minkowski space. The more general set of transformations that also includes translations is known as the Poincaré group.

[Teemu]

Imagine clock or that fun-house-mirror jumping on trampoline. Now isn't it obvious that correction to actual cumulative time dilation would be different than correction to disruption, that could be corrected based on one cycle, and doing that correction only once? This is what oscillation satellites are kinda doing.

[johanfprins]

Why don't you just tell Johan exactly where his math is wrong?

Why just do hyperbolic rotations of Minkowski space,

Since this is EXACTLY the transformation on which Einstein based his Special Theory of Relativity. Time dilation and length contraction were derived from the Lorentz transformation BEFORE Minkowski came along with his mathematics ALSO BASED ON THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION. I have just now proved that the Lorentz transformation demands that the transformed time from a "moving" clock CANNOT be time-dilated since it is in fact EXACTLY the same as the time on the "stationary clock". NOTHING that Minkowski or Poincare added later on can change this fact.

Johan Prins' paper on his page had two simple not than helpful figures on 25 pages of text. Frankly he has most likely relied too much on simple equations and verbal twisting

So I must not rely on the Lorentz transformation equations? Are you really so insane to argue such RUBBISH? Where have I used “verbal twisting”?

than actual concepts, and somewhere there is though error,

Correct, there has been an error for more than 100 years since it was incorrectly derived by Einstein that there is such a time dilation when transforming the time from a "moving" clock into the reference frame of a "stationary" clock. In addition Einstein also incorrectly derived that a moving rod shrinks in length. This does NOT mean that his postulates on which he based his Special Theory of Relativity are wrong and it does not mean that his conclusion that the Lorentz equations are coordinate transformations is wrong. Einstein still remains one of the greatest physicists ever

but this type of substitution of the better tools with verbal twisting makes physics really ugly and hard to read.

Where did I do "verbal twisting" in my derivation above? In your case any elementary physics is hard to read. One does need some grey matter you know.

Frankly it seems that he himself commits the sin that he claims the others are doing, relying too much on math at expense of physics:

So I must rely on faith of our forefathers. You are also so stupid that you cannot understand what I meant about using mathematics incorrectly. When your defining equations are correct, then what they predict must also be correct. It has been accepted for more than 100 years that the Lorentz transformation defines Special Relativity. I have just proved above by using mathematics correctly that if this is the case, the time on a "moving" clock does not dilate relative to the time on a "stationary clock". Thus if this is not the case the Lorentz transformation must be wrong, Special Relativity must be wrong and so must be Minkowski and Poincare.

Scenario:
You use basic equations that describe phenomena related to electrons, and you end up in situation where the electron density increases to infinity
Math based thinking: Since equations say that electron density increases to infinity, they must increase to infinity,

Only an idiot like YOU will reason in this manner.

Physics concepts based thinking: Almost all basic equations describing electron related phenomena are based on electron gas assumption,

So you believe there are “free electrons” forming a free electron gas in a metal? Again it proves that you know NOTHING about physics. An electron that bonds atoms together CANNOT be a free electron since its total energy is LESS than its rest mass energy. The charge-carriers within in a metal are wave-packets (also called pseudo-electrons) which are generated by the superposition of stationary standing waves when an electric field is applied to the metal. When there is no electric field there are no wave-packets except for those that are generated by temperature fluctuations.

thus not taking into account electron-electron scattering.

Scattering of these wave packets are caused by the vibrating atoms

This ideal gas assumption can lead to ideal metal results,

Correct, since it is physical nonsense to assume an “ideal electron gas”. The heat capacity of the valence electrons within a metal PROVES that the charge-carriers DO NOT FORM AN IDEAL GAS. You can only have a “free electron gas” when each electron in the gas has an energy E that is larger than the rest mass energy m*c^2 of an electron. The valence electrons causing chemical bonding must have less than the rest mass energy, or else the atoms forming the metal will not be bonded together. I wish you will stop talking about matters which you will obviously NEVER understand. Accept it that you just do not have the mental capacity to even ask questions about physics.

[johanfprins]

You apparently hope that casual readers of this thread will simply accept your games and dismiss Prins and/or Sachs as frauds before getting around to actually reading the details.

You also seem to have a serious "disinformation" agenda, to discredit the Prins superconduction theory by any means. Is someone paying you to do this?
Perhaps the "men who stare at goats"? Are you a disruptive-technology disruptor? What's your agenda with Woodward?

Well said DeltaV

Let me also remind you, I labored for months to find investors for Johan so that he could provide the world with evidence

I see no evidence that you labored in that regard for even one nanosecond. Are we just supposed to take your word for it? Psychotic delusions of grandeur?

Thanks DeltaV. Ron Stahl did contact me with such an offer. I took the e-mail to my sister who is psychic and who can sum up the intention within a written letter very well. She advised me NOT to accept any offered help from him since he is obviously a mentally disturbed crook. I thus did NOT appoint him to "labor" for me and I do not think that he did anyjthing. Why should he if I did not agree with his offer?

BTW: Ron Stahl (AKA GIThruster) kept on pestering me so much and became so abusive that I had to blacklist his e-mail messages. It is clear that he is in dire nead of psychiatric help.