# Thread: Discussion of Thomas' ideas

1. Originally Posted by Thomas
No, this exactly not so. You should have read the first part of the post you are quoting here as well
I did, and that does not change that you are generalizing your interpretation of your own experience.
Unfortunately for you, if your rejected papers have the low quality of your webpage:
Originally Posted by Thomas
Basically, you blame the referees and editors for rejecting your papers " just because the author does not use mainstream views, terminology and references", while in reality it is because you do not accept or understand that your own work is flawed

From the webpage:
Originally Posted by Thomas
[Einstein] considers the 'equations of motion' of a light signal in the unprimed and primed frame:
(1) x - ct = 0
(2) x' - ct' = 0
and correspondingly for a light signal travelling along the negative x-axis:
(1a) x + ct = 0
(2a) x' + ct' = 0

From these equations, he concludes then:
(3) x' - ct' = lambda (x - ct)
(4) x' + ct' = mu (x + ct)
and by adding and subtracting Eqs.(3) and (4) he gets the formal Lorentz transformation
(5a) x' = ax - bct
(5b) ct' = act - bx
where
(6) a = (lambda + mu)/2
(7) b = (lambda - mu)/2

Now without actually having to bother about the nature of the constants 'a' and 'b' (which Einstein tries to determine subsequently), it is clear already at this point that the derivation is algebraically inconsistent.
First of all, it is already apparent from Eqs.(1)and (1a) for instance that they can hold only for x=0 and t=0 (as is evident by adding and subtracting the equations).
Since Eqs. (1) and (1a) do not form a system of equations, why would you do that?
After all, they are equations of motion for two different signals, so x and t in Eq. (1) are not the same as in Eq. (1a) and they do not have to solve both equations at the same time.

Originally Posted by Thomas
Einstein simply ignores this algebraic error by making another mistake, namely restricting the constants lambda and mu (and hence 'a' and 'b') to a specific value (whereas from Eqs. (3) and (4) it follows that lambda and mu must be arbitrary given the fact that both sides of the equations are identically zero in view of Eqs.(1),(2),(1a),(2a)).
And where did Einstein restrict the values of lambda and mu?
Right, he did not!
He simply defined a and b in terms of lambda and mu, with no restriction on them (you say that Einstein will determine a and b later).

Originally Posted by Thomas
Einstein's mathematical error was that he did not care about the consistency of the individual Eqs.(5a) and (5b) with regard to the constraints given by Eqs.(1)-(2a), but only about the consistency of the difference of the equations.
By allowing the constant 'b' to be different from zero, he violated in fact the constraints, as in Eq.(5a) the reversal of the sign of x would not result in the reversal of the sign of x' (as required by the principle of the invariance of the speed of light (as given by Eqs.(1)-(2a)).
And why would you expect a reversal in the sign of x'?
After all, the two coordinate systems do not have coinciding origins all the time: the two frames move with respect to each other.

2. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Thomas
I just wonder who nowadays still considers publication in peer-reviewed journals as a criterion for scientific relevance and quality? In my opinion only those who want to be patronized in making up their own judgement. If you want to make a qualified judgment you have to work through the article yourself and it doesn't matter then if it has been published in a peer reviewed journal or somewhere on the web.

Peer reviewed publication is not only very slow but also unjust as the number of papers accepted are dictated by the printing and publishing capabilities but not scientific quality (most journals have fixed percentages for the manuscripts that are being accepted for publication).

Besides, the scientific quality of papers has become rather secondary now. The standing of a scientist is very much determined by the sheer number of articles published (this is what determines monetary funding). Most papers published are thus scientifically worthless and redundant.

Even if non-mainstream theories are being published in peer reviewed journals, they may not be taken seriously or being ignored completely (like for instance my own paper regarding the Scattering of Radio Waves by High Atomic Rydberg States which, although being quite revolutionary in its claims, received zero response as far as I am aware).

So I would say forget about peer reviewed publication. It is a thing of the past which was in place largely due to practical considerations associated with print publications, but looks quite out of date now. Online publications don't need to be refereed in any way as everybody sufficiently competent should be able to make up their own mind about it.

I must confess that I did not read the paper you are listing above (looks like you published it 13 years ago and since then nothing). I read instead :

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lorentz.htm

and this:

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#michelson

and it was enough, the number of errors and misconceptions piled up at an astonishing pace. Your claims relative to relativity (excuse the pun) are dead wrong. Judging by the fact that you may be so wrong on some very well understood and established subjects, do you think that it might be possible that the peers at the journals you've submitted to have found the above cited paper to be wrong? Have you tried multiple publications? If you get the same result from multiple publications this should tell you something.

Looking further at:

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/discu...ivity3.htm#jan

shows that even after some well intentioned people try to help you, you will argue even in the context of having been proven wrong. Generally this type of attitude does not wash with reviewers.

3. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
I split these posts from the Thomas on ATM and peer review, a discussion thread.

Thomas introduced a link to his website (see first post), and two members took the trouble to check it out (papageno and clj4).

As this is the ATM section within BAUT, as Thomas is a BAUT member, and as he introduced his ideas here in this section, I think it appropriate to discuss those ideas. It should also be quite interesting.

I do hope that Thomas will take the time to defend his ideas.

4. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
How can Thomas answer? he's been banned. This should not be misconstrued as my lobbying to reinstate him.

5. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Originally Posted by clj4
How can Thomas answer? he's been banned. This should not be misconstrued as my lobbying to reinstate him.
He can't (that happened after I created this thread).