B Could Traveling at Near-Light Speed Create Black Holes?

[Dale]

Please get back on topic @Matt Fenwick Neither the discussion of Wikipedia nor the discussion of anyone's Nobel prize is relevant to this thread.

 

[Orodruin]

We just look at whether it makes accurate predictions.

And the myriad of following theories that build upon it that would be fundamentally misguided if it was not correct to high accuracy. In the case of SR, such theories include — among others — quantum electrodynamics which is one of the most (if not the most) numerically accurate theory to date. Arguing that relativity is fundamentally misguided is similar to arguing you can’t build a house with wood and stone.

 

[Matt Fenwick]

No, you are wrong. No one light clock should be any more or less valid than another.

As a professional scientist, I can tell you that this is wrong. I do get some of my information from Wikipedia. I also write information on Wikipedia for others to use. I also quote Wikipedia to people on the internet as an easily accessible resource for them to use, regardless of where I originally got the information.

You are misinformed on multiple points in this thread including the value of Wikipedia, the experimental confirmation of the Lorentz transforms, and the predictions of relativity.

See here for a list of experiments confirming the Lorentz transforms: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

 

[weirdoguy]

No, you are wrong

You came here to learn, or to argue with those who know way more than you?

 

[Ibix]

No one light clock should be any more or less valid than another.

Indeed. And this claim is incompatible with length contraction not existing - glad to see you starting to come round.

 

[Matt Fenwick]

And the myriad of following theories that build upon it that would be fundamentally misguided if it was not correct to high accuracy. In the case of SR, such theories include — among others — quantum electrodynamics which is one of the most (if not the most) numerically accurate theory to date. Arguing that relativity is fundamentally misguided is similar to arguing you can’t build a house with wood and stone.

S.R. is fundamentally misguided. And you are the first person I have ever heard say quantum theory is based on S.R. Seems you are fundamentally misguided. Einstein did not get the Nobel prize for S.R. Matter of fact many physicists rejected it.

 

[Ibix]

And you are the first person I have ever heard say quantum theory is based on S.R.

He said quantum electrodynamics, not quantum theory. Early quantum theory was non-relativistic, but quantum field theories (including quantum electrodynamics) are entirely based on a relativistic worldview.

 

[Nugatory]

This thread is closed for moderation.
In the meantime @Matt Fenwick should give https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~mark/ms-qft-DRAFT.pdf (this because it is online and free and the errors in draft are inconsequential for present purposes) a try to understand the relation between quantum electrodynamics and SR - QED is fundamentally based on SR, just as Orodruin says.

 

[berkeman]

It looks like the OP has left the building, so this thread will remain closed. Thanks all for trying to straighten out the OP's misconceptions.