Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1357 replies to this topic

#1344 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1198 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 11:41 AM

The "substance" of the virtually all the supposedly "scientific" argument made in here boils down to this:

 

1.  The special relativity theory is right, and therefore

 

2.  No alternative theory of relative motion could possibly be right--no argument against it is needed.

 

Yet anyone with even a casual knowledge of the topic would know that the vast majority, if not all, of the professional theoretical physicists alive today reject such a naive view.

 

I guess that's "frustrating" for those who wish to remain ignorant, uninformed, and cocksure of their own opinions.


Edited by Moronium, 25 July 2018 - 12:11 PM.


#1345 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1696 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 11:44 AM

See? This is a perfect example of how you never listened, because there was far more substance than what you even honestly admit to.



#1346 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1198 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 11:50 AM

See? This is a perfect example of how you never listened, because there was far more substance than what you even honestly admit to.

 

 

Heh, Dubbo, "substance" like you screaming, ad nauseum, slogans like "There are no preferred frames!,"  All motion is relative!," and, "All the evidence supports special relativity!," ya mean?

 

Nice try.

 

Your statements repeatedly demonstrate the fact that you can't even distinguish a preferred frame theory from SR, let alone intelligently discuss the basis of the theoretical differences.  You are not even interested in bona fide theoretical discussion.  As you repeatedly disclose, your only interest is in changing the opinions of others to conform to the ones you harbor.

 

Unfortunately, the methods you employ in an attempt to effectuate that goal are not of the type which carry any "persuasive" value.


Edited by Moronium, 25 July 2018 - 12:01 PM.


#1347 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1696 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 12:03 PM

See the problem Moronium is, that it really matters whether a theory suits experimental backup. The fact it doesn't agree with you, is a serious problem. But.. keep your head in the sand, try and lure more posters in just to give them the run around. 



#1348 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1198 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 12:17 PM

See the problem Moronium is, that it really matters whether a theory suits experimental backup. The fact it doesn't agree with you, is a serious problem. 

 

 

All you're doing is proving the point I just made, Dubbo, to wit:

 

Yet anyone with even a casual knowledge of the topic would know that the vast majority, if not all, of the professional theoretical physicists alive today reject such a naive view.

 

I guess that's "frustrating" for those who wish to remain ignorant, uninformed, and cocksure of their own opinions.

 



#1349 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1198 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 12:24 PM

Posted Today, 01:03 PM

See the problem Moronium is, that it really matters whether a theory suits experimental backup. The fact it doesn't agree with you, is a serious problem.

 

Your typical assertion of a "fact," which is false, eh?

 

Name one piece of empirical evidence which you claim "confirms" SR which doesn't also "confirm" a preferred frame theory.  You can't.  For at least two reasons:

 

1.  You don't know the difference between the theories, their implications, and their predictions to begin with.

 

2.  No such evidence exists.  Every prominent theoretical physicist since Einstein, including Einstein himself, has freely admitted that all the empirical evidence is perfectly consistent with a preferred frame theory.


Edited by Moronium, 25 July 2018 - 03:10 PM.


#1350 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 433 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 03:55 PM

I want it closed because it is false information that Moronium is posting that may confuse people that don't know any better, The replies and how he handles them are also well beyond non scientific, moronium has just been posting random stuff that has nothing to do with the subject this thread should have been locked long ago due to way off topic.



#1351 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1198 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 04:13 PM

I want it closed because it is false information that Moronium is posting that may confuse people that don't know any better, The replies and how he handles them are also well beyond non scientific, moronium has just been posting random stuff that has nothing to do with the subject this thread should have been locked long ago due to way off topic.

 

 

I disagree with your conclusions here, obviously.  But you want Sanctus to act as the ultimate arbiter of all difference of opinion about scientific theory, that the idea?

 

I don't know his scientific credentials, but I'm confident that if he knows the topic and the relevant arguments on both sides, he will conclude that there's nothing "non-scientific" in anything I've said in this thread. 

 

But even so, I don't think it's up to him to make that decision, even if it was in my favor.   Any person can come to their own conclusions, and I can't see where they would have to have a moderator at a chat forum tell them what they're allowed to hear or discuss.


Edited by Moronium, 25 July 2018 - 05:22 PM.


#1352 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1198 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 04:24 PM

In any event, Vic, I've already posted your position on this issue for Sanctus to see.  Here it is again:

 

Posted 20 July 2018 - 05:22 PM

VictorMedvil, on 20 Jul 2018 - 5:20 PM, said:

I am sick of debating this, Buffy can you lock this Thread SR is correct...that theory is correct and his arguments are invalid.

 

 

This also reinforces the point I made here:  http://www.sciencefo...light/?p=362700

 

As a general observation, it has been my experience that those who are the most intolerant of opinions inconsistent with their own are generally the very same people who are unable to present much in the way of rational argument in support of the opinions they hold and cherish.


Edited by Moronium, 25 July 2018 - 04:34 PM.


#1353 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1198 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 05:00 PM

Many people still think it's a complete refutation of a preferred frame theory to mock the concept of the aether and claim it's been disproven.  Perhaps you're one of them, Vic, I can't remember.  

 

But they overlook (i.e, don't know) the fact that Einstein himself completely changed his position and later said the theory of general relativity would be "unthinkable" without an aether.  Of course an aether, as conceived by Lorentz, is in no way essential to a Neo-Lorentzian theory of relativity in any event.

 

Here's an excerpt from wiki on the topic:

 

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

 

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe...It turns out that such matter exists...The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...Aether_theories

 

But, of course, some uninformed person shouting "Einstein proved there is no aether!" is just one of many ways in which shallow posters think they have completely refuted the viability of a preferred frame theory.  Once they say that, they tell you they have "already covered" anything said in response.

 

Of course, they often add that anyone who disputes them is a damn fool who doesn't know anything about science, ya know?


Edited by Moronium, 25 July 2018 - 05:18 PM.


#1354 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1198 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 06:15 PM

We just expect some kind of reasonable response to cogent and logical objections to his unsupported assertions. 

 

 

Your idea of a "reasonable response" is determined by one thing, and only one thing, i.e.:   "Does it agree with my understanding?"

 

That is your sole criterion, to the ridiculous extent that you declare that a Nobel prize-winning physicist, and the vast majority of other physicists who agree with him, are "wrong" if they don't accept your half-baked understanding, eh?

 

Posted Yesterday, 12:08 PM

There is no such frame,Smoot is definitely wrong. The aether is not fundamentally a frame either.... If there is an aether, it is not stationary. And if it is, it goes against my undertstanding of spacetime and its fluidity. 

 

http://www.sciencefo...light/?p=362605  http://www.sciencefo...light/?p=362609


Edited by Moronium, 25 July 2018 - 06:31 PM.


#1355 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1198 posts

Posted 25 July 2018 - 07:53 PM

Strong emotions, like HATE, demand strong remedial measures, no doubt, Vic.

 

I posted the SR was right because of experimental evidence, I have tried to explain this to you like I dunno about 5 times...that is why I want this thread locked... I hate people like you honestly....


Edited by Moronium, 25 July 2018 - 07:59 PM.


#1356 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1696 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 04:29 AM

Your idea of a "reasonable response" is determined by one thing, and only one thing, i.e.:   "Does it agree with my understanding?"

 

That is your sole criterion, to the ridiculous extent that you declare that a Nobel prize-winning physicist, and the vast majority of other physicists who agree with him, are "wrong" if they don't accept your half-baked understanding, eh?

 

 

http://www.sciencefo...light/?p=362605  http://www.sciencefo...light/?p=362609

 

 

It doesn't matter, nobel prize winners even get things wrong - worse yet, many quotations you have used are badly out of date. The issue here is you ability to discern the importance of experimental results and modern theory agrees with Einstein. 

 

By the way, you keep saying ''half-baked'' - do you know what this means, it means that someone has not thought about something deep enough. You don't have a scientific background, you lack in math, everyone else with better knowledge than you have explained why you wrong, and it isn't enough.



#1357 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1696 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 04:31 AM

Many people still think it's a complete refutation of a preferred frame theory to mock the concept of the aether and claim it's been disproven.  Perhaps you're one of them, Vic, I can't remember.  

 

But they overlook (i.e, don't know) the fact that Einstein himself completely changed his position and later said the theory of general relativity would be "unthinkable" without an aether.  Of course an aether, as conceived by Lorentz, is in no way essential to a Neo-Lorentzian theory of relativity in any event.

 

Here's an excerpt from wiki on the topic:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...Aether_theories

 

But, of course, some uninformed person shouting "Einstein proved there is no aether!" is just one of many ways in which shallow posters think they have completely refuted the viability of a preferred frame theory.  Once they say that, they tell you they have "already covered" anything said in response.

 

Of course, they often add that anyone who disputes them is a damn fool who doesn't know anything about science, ya know?

 

 

Einstein has never proved there was no aether no more that the MM experiment proved the earth was stationary with relative to everything else. Remember that gem of an assumption you made?

 

On the contrary, Einstein's general theory does require an aether, but there are several classes of aether and most of them are outdated. Dirac also pointed out quantum mechanics and its fields was a type of aether. 


Edited by Dubbelosix, 26 July 2018 - 04:31 AM.


#1358 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4162 posts

Posted 26 July 2018 - 04:33 AM

Since my post yesterday,  I see how this thread is going: lot of insults from all sides, some (pseudo-?) science here and there.

I close this thread and since you guys (or some of you) wonder why and the reasons here they go:
 

  1. It is not censorship, rather forcing you guys to a fresh start. I do not believe that there was only one topic of discussion in 80 pages...so if worried you were censored, just try creating a new thread with a subtopic of this one.
  2. People seem more pissed at each other here rather than discuss, so what exactly is the point?
  3.  Or might be subpoint 1.1: forces people to get back to discuss science and personalities of others.

Enjoy! :-)