StudlyCaps wrote:You know the time cube guy, and Terry Davis, and all the free energy and pyramid power people, the gangstalking people? All those people see themselves the same way you see yourself.
Doesn't that give you any pause for thought?
Certainly; it leaves me wondering who the cube guy is and who gangstalking people are. I doubt google will find the former, but having just looked up the latter, it sounds like a psychologist friend of mine who sees people following him wherever he goes. He's bipolar.
Does none of this feel wrong to you? Does none of it say to you "maybe the reason I think I can trivially disprove scientific consensus, is because MY OWN understanding of the consensus is flawed in some way"?
I can look at the scientific consensus on a host of issues and see that in most other cases they appear to be right. Relativity is a very special case where they're clearly wrong, and I've shown how they're wrong in multiple ways, so the issue here is why no one else commenting in this thread is at all worried about a model which reduces the universe to zero size and zero duration. Does that bonkers aspect of the model not make you stop and think? And that isn't even one of the disproofs. The theory is built on magical thinking, but magical thinkers are apparently incapable of seeing the problem with that.
Even if you don't accept anything I'm saying, surely having a bulletproof understanding of the existing scientific consensus would help you to formulate your own arguments in such a way as to actually convince knowledgeable people?
I do have a bulletproof understanding of it, but the problem is that no two believers interpret the theory the same way due to all the places where it's ambiguous and contradictory, so it's exactly like discussing religions with believers.
People in the thread have pointed out ways that you argue against claims not made by special relativity,
No they haven't. What they've done is argue that STR doesn't make claims that it makes.
or that you define terms in ways contrary to the way the existing theory defines them.
When I use terms in ways not shackled by the ideology of STR, that doesn't make my usage of terms incorrect. Within the ideology they have warped interpretations, but when you're testing a theory for validity, you don't let it dictate the rules as to how you test it by restricting yourself to its incompetent usage of terms. For example, STR recognises no difference between acceleration and deceleration, but that's a consequence of its denial of absolute speeds, while absolute speeds demonstrably exist.
Surely you must accept that your theory might need to be refined or restated to counter these accusations?
My theory? What's that? I'm commenting on STR and GTR and they aren't mine. I'm analysing them using fundamental mathematics, and that isn't a theory. I've mentioned LET a number of times as it's a superior theory to STR+GTR due to it being rational where they are irrational, but that's a side issue.
You cannot, as a scientifically minded person, believe that your theory is beyond the capacity to ever be improved?
Well, the closest thing to my theory would be LET and I have done work that's advanced it, such as by pinning down the mechanism behind frame dragging. There's plenty of work still to be done.
___________________________________________________________
Gigasoft wrote:Nothing suspicious about it - I read between the lines in the way an autistic person would not do and I planted a subtle hint there to let them know that they were thinking down the wrong path.
So in other words, you attempted a distraction by planting a false lead, knowing very well that the evidence would point towards you being an autist.
A false lead? A subtle clue with nothing false about it which everyone would miss except for someone thinking about autism and thereby barking up the wrong tree (while the word had not been used in the thread up to that point). It was to save them from making the mistake of voicing that suggestion. As it happens, being an autist is now so fashionable that people are keen to claim the label if they think it fits them, and particularly when so many of them think it makes them more capable at a number of high-thinking tasks than neurotypicals, but having those abilities does not make you autistic. If I was autistic I would have no problem with saying so, but I happen not to be and it's important not to mislead people about that kind of thing.
One key thing about autistic people is obsession: they can focus on very narrow interests in ways that shut everything else out, and sometimes that's useful as it enables them to develop skills in a specialised area which go beyond those of their neurotypical rivals who spread their time much more widely, and some of my interests can be classed as obsessions, such as my interest in languages where I've worked through over a hundred language courses covering fifty languages. That's not normal in wider society, but it's considered normal in my family. Obsession isn't autism though: practically every boy I knew at school had major obsessions because it's normal. For a large number of them it was football, and they had an encyclopedic knowledge of the game. Most of them weren't autistic. There was one who could hear a car coming up the road behind him and name the make and model from the sound of its engine, and he wasn't autistic. I knew every bird in a European bird book and a number coding that could be used to represent it, but that isn't autism: it's just an interest where I noted down all the species I saw each day and used numbers instead of names to save space. I knew a boy who was actually autistic, and he spent years doing little more than hurling toy cars at the skirting board of his bedroom wall. He now runs a nuclear power station.
As you may recall, no one had brought up autism at that point.
Indeed, but I can read people like a book. I study thinking. I study how it's done well, and I study how it fails. I study how religious dogma traps people, and I study how scientific dogma can do the same thing by exploiting the exact same vulnerabilities. The faults in people's thinking there are mainstream.
You are no different from the countless people who just murdered their spouse and then proceed to send them text messages asking if they're okay, calling emergency services to report their body and a myriad of other things they think a guilty person would not do. It never works.
You're merely revealing your own broken thinking. What have I done here other than show a series of disproofs of a mad theory that's built on magic? What is astonishing is how you can't see that. Your model gives our universe zero size and zero duration and you think that's sane? You think I'm mad for not buying into such idiocy? But then, you're probably in denial about that aspect of the model because you haven't pushed it to the extremes to see if it's valid. I have though. You don't want to because you don't want to find out that it's broken. Everything you do is about making excuses for it instead of testing it to destruction where it falls to pieces.
You didn't specify how to make the measurements.
Any child should know by the top of primary school how to make the measurements. Some of them know how to make them by the start of primary school. Do you expect me to insult you by telling you how to do what everyone here should be able to do?
None of those measurements measured an absolute speed.
They are measurements of relative speeds. You then end up with the result that the light going one way round the ring passed the material of the ring at a higher average relative speed than the light going the opposite way round the ring, and that difference breaks relativity: it can only be higher one way than the other if there are absolute speeds. If there were no absolute speeds, the light would have to pass all that material at c relative to it and the timings for the trip past it all would be the same for both directions. The only reason you don't want to accept that is that you are determined that STR be right and you refuse to let yourself see that it isn't. It's theory-induced blindness. We had the same thing in the expanding space scenario with all those clocks where they reveal absolute speeds through non-symmetrical results, and again you were unable to accept the facts that mathematics provides about such a situation. If there's a disability in play, that disability affects your thinking, but it's a special kind of disability which is belief-specific: you are incapable of accepting results when they're heretical. That's the exact same disability that you can find with bonkers religious beliefs.
After conducting the experiment, no matter how many times, you are nowhere closer to pinpointing where "absolute rest" is.
There is no need to pin it down to show that absolute speeds must exist. That's an error in your thinking that's been programmed into you by propaganda. This is like a case where there's a long room like a corridor which takes two 90° turns, but there are no doors - no ways in or out at all. There's someone in the room and he wants to know if there's a dog in there with him. He goes along to one corner and looks to see if there's a dog hiding at that end. There isn't, so he goes to the other corner to see if there's a dog hiding round that one. There isn't. He then thinks, but it could be hiding round the other corner, so he goes back to that one to check, and of course there's no dog there, but again he isn't sure there's no dog in the room as he can't now see round the other corner, so he thinks he can't prove that there's no dog in the room because there's no place he can look from where he can see the whole room at the same time. He lacks the ability to make a more complex deduction. His thinking is affected by a disability. You're doing the same kind of thing here, but the difference is that you're refusing to make the deduction because the result is heretical. Your thinking is controlled by the theory.
If your experiment can't distinguish between setups travelling at different speeds, you have not shown the existence of absolute speeds.
A higher relative speed one way than the other shows that absolute speeds exist, and in this kind of experiment we don't have a symmetrical relationship with one frame showing a light pulse to be passing the material faster than the other light pulse while a different frame shows the latter light pulse passing the material faster than the former light pulse. In this kind of case, all frames have the same light pulse pass the material at a higher speed. The symmetry is broken, and STR breaks with it.
You're mixing results from two coordinate systems and pretending they're compatible.
Yes, that's the point. It's the same thing you're doing.
I'm not doing that: mixing results from different frames is a mathematically illegal move which I never make, but you make it all the time because you don't understand frame mathematics correctly.
You can use s-frames to provide hyptheses as to what is actually happening in the wind tunnel. One of those can treat clock A as at rest in the air. Another can treat clock B as at rest in the air.
No, I can't. If a clock is at rest relative to the air in one frame, then it is also so in all other frames.
You appear to have missed the point. You don't know how the air is moving in the wind tunnel. You get results from the sound clocks with timings (though you don't get them in real time as you could cheat by using your c-governed watch to work out how slowed the ticking of any moving clocks are and thereby work out their actual speed relative to the air). You can use s-frames to speculate about what the air might be doing, and each s-frame represents a different speed of the wind in the tunnel.
We can actually have two wind tunnels side by side though with different wind speeds in each, so in one of them we have clock A1 at rest in the air while clock B1 is moving at 0.5s through the air, but in the other tunnel we can have clock B2 at rest in the air while clock A2 is moving through the air at 0.5s, or we could swap the wind speeds round so that it's the other way round. You aren't going to know, and you won't be able to tell from the measurements because what's going on in both wind tunnels will look identical to you when you study the data. And most importantly, sound pulse 1 (in tunnel 1) has an equivalent called sound pulse 2 (in tunnel 2), but they are moving at different speeds relative to each other. When we remove the air and use magic instead of a medium to govern the propagation of the sounds (and thereby use magic sounds that can operate within such a magical universe, just as you have light do in your medium-less space), you now have two identical systems but with the sound pulse moving at different speeds in each, and you can tell that they're moving at different speeds because they aren't comoving. Each frame provides a rival hypothesis about how the speed of the sound pulse is governed and they are fundamentally incompatible. That is where Einstein made a huge mistake in his thinking, and almost everyone else just blindly followed him down that path, making the same mistake due to their lack of ability to visualise what they were actually doing.
A frame is a coordinate system assigning sets of numerical values to points. It does not assign facts, such as what the air is doing.
A frame is a hypothesis. When we put in the actual medium, as soon as you try to put it in more than one frame and have the sound or light pulse move at s or c relative to it, you have two instatiations of that medium moving relative to each other. That's why you try to deny them, and yet in each frame the light pulse has it's propagation governed by a magic medium nonetheless while you stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't need one. Your theory actually depends on an infinite number of them, and even then it's generating an infinite number of contradictions which show up when the mad physicist in a rocket asserts in sequence, "the alarm has sounded at the clock", "the alarm hasn't sounded yet at the clock", "the alarm has sounded at the clock", "the alarm hasn't sounded yet at the clock". You don't think that mad physicist is mad though. Mathematics insists that half his claims are false, but he asserts equal validity for them, and so do you. Why do you do that to yourself? You're going against the most fundamental rules of mathematics, but you blind yourself to it, and all to back a broken theory which you are determined not to test to destruction but instead defend it like any religious zealot.
If one of them is moving at s relative to the air and the other is moving at ¬s relative to the air, they cannot be moving at the same speed as each other.
Yes, they can. I just provided an example where you have two frames both with the air at rest, yet the same sound pulse moves at -s in one and at +s in the other.
I have provided you with two wind tunnels side by side with each representing the air being at rest in a different frame, and the sound pulses are not comoving. They are manifestly not moving at the same speed as each other. Take away the air and use magic mediums instead while denying that they exist, but the two sound pulses are still not comoving. Ignoring the sound pulses, they're identical systems now that they run on Einstein's magic, so we can combine them, and when we put the combined sound pulse in there, what's it doing? It's moving at 0.5s relative to itself. It's really obvious when you work with s-frames that whenever you change to a different frame, you change the speed of the sound pulse relative to the objects, but also relative to itself. But Einstein never worked with s-frames, and nor did any of his followers. They never did understand correct frame mathematics, and they never noticed that every aspect of STR could be replicated in the sound-in-air system, including length contraction which shows up so clearly with standing waves, and apparent length contraction acting on stationary objects when observed by moving observers using sound-clock governed sonar. If that had been looked at before the Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out, the null result would have been unsurprising. Lorentz wasn't the sharpest tool in the box either, because even though he came up with a theory that accounted for it by adding length contraction, he never found the mechanism for it. It was only found in the last twenty years or so when LaFrenière found it after correcting a mistake in Иванов's work.
Not because religious people were experts on anything, but because they were the ones in power.
To them, they were the scientists. Religion was their attempt to understand reality, and they were overconfident that they were right. Today's cult within physics is the same - Einstein's model runs on magical thinking and breaks fundamental rules of mathematics.
You are no Galiei or Haverbeck, you are simply a dude being wrong on the internet.
It doesn't matter who I am; issues should not be decided on the basis of the people involved in providing and examining the evidence. I provide disproofs of relativity and if you reject them, you're the one who's being wrong on the Internet.
You're saying that physicists can't do math after going through years of higher math education,
I've shown precisely where they've made their errors.
yet without the mathematicians, who are somehow able to do math after going through the same math education, ever noticing anything wrong.
A lot of mathematicians do notice a lot wrong with relativity. They don't speak out about it though because it causes trouble if they do, and the institutions where they work don't like that. That's why my uncle refused to discuss physics at all, even though his work on topology is used in GTR. Physics is toxic, and it's toxic because of a highly abusive cult that took it over.
You alone, as the only person in the world, are able to see through the incorrect physicist math that no one else does, while being unable to follow a couple of lines of derivation of a Lorentz-invariant space expanding metric. Does this sound right to you?
The problem there was the term Lorentz-invariant, because it isn't actually invariant when you're looking at the underlying reality and trying to support that in simulations, and that has led to me using the term in a wider way with a different meaning. But am I the only person in the world who can see through the incorrect maths? No: I've found lots of other people who can see it too, such as LaFrenière, although he died a decade ago with no recognition whatsoever for his work. What I do though is set it all out for anyone who wants to check it, and any rational person with a basic ability to do maths and who is not blinded by a theory acquired through brainwashing channels should be more than capable of recognising the faults in the model; the places where it goes against mathematics and runs instead on magic.
A scientist conducts experiments to identify and test hypotheses about the world. Since no experiment has shown the existence of a medium moving through space with a speed, there is no reason to assume that one exists.
And you are unable to tell if there's a dog in the room or not because you cannot make deductions.
________________________________________________________________
eekee wrote:DavidCooper wrote:They could also set it to do this for thousands of random values and show that none of them produce a result other than that the relative speeds are higher for the light going round the ring against its direction of rotation than for the light going the opposite way.
Here, you exactly contradict the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment which predates Einstein's theories.
Really? How? The only thing the MMX did was reveal length contraction. If you take a system of standing waves of light and move it at 0.866c, the nodes contract in the direction of travel to half their rest separation distance. We've never moved such a system that fast, but the MMX did the equivalent of that at much lower speeds, and they didn't measure any such contraction even though we know that such contraction must happen, and we predict that a stationary observer would observe such contraction - it's only an observer moving with the apparatus who fails to observe it because he and all his measuring apparatus is contracted to match, and the reason it's all contracted to match is that atoms maintain their separation distances by using wavelength to measure them. The MMX is 100% compatible with absolute speeds, so how do you think I'm contradicting its results?
Of this experiment, Albert Einstein wrote, "If the Michelson–Morley experiment had not brought us into serious embarrassment, no one would have regarded the relativity theory as a (halfway) redemption."
Which means, without this puzzling result (which has been accounted for by Fitzgerald and Lorentz), no one would have switched away from rational science to buy into a magical theory.
It is an embarrasment: light does not behave like any natural physical object we can discuss and reason about.
It behaves just like sound in air.
The complex and bizzarre theories of relativity would not exist without such horrible results as these: In every experiment, measurement, and use (i.e. GPS), the speed of light relative to the observer is always the same; it does not vary.
The same naive measurements have a sound pulse move at s relative to every observer.
