Jump to content
Science Forums

JMJones0424

Members
  • Content Count

    1,251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    78

JMJones0424 last won the day on May 23 2018

JMJones0424 had the most liked content!

About JMJones0424

  • Rank
    412.63 ppm

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Despite the fact that this source directly contradicts your previous claims? I will read again, but if you are changing your claims, then you should do me the courtesy to say so. BTW, I do not understand your insistence that Lorentzian Relativity is a thing that is different than Special Relativity. But again, I am not schooled in this area and you have already shown a propensity to rely on falsehoods to support your claims, so I am wary. You have not yet answered my question, "What experiment do you propose to test your claim?" My screaming is only a futile attempt to get you to addres
  2. You claim two things that are demonstrably false to be true. You are a liar. Your claim is falsified. What experiment do you propose to test your claim?
  3. **** off with your bullshit. Don't tell me what I don't understand when you claim two things to be true that are observably false. It is false to claim that two syncronized accurate clocks will measure the same time if they move at different velocities It is false to claim that the speed of light has not been shown to be invariant regardless of the velocity of the one making the measurement. Your entire premise rests on lies. Despite my idiocy, I can see this. You have yet to describe, as Popper would require, a test that could falsify your claims. You have, however, lied about ever
  4. Holy **** if you aren't an idiot then you are a charlatan. You are most certainly a liar, and you continue to lie. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light Constancy of the speed of light[edit] Interferometers, resonators[edit] Michelson-Morley experiment with cryogenic optical resonators of a form such as was used by Müller et al. (2003), see Recent optical resonator experimentsSee also: Recent Michelson-Morley experiments and Recent Kennedy–Thorndike experimentsModern variants of Michelson-Morley and Kennedy–Thorndike experiments
  5. What experiment do you propose to test the claim that there is a preferred frame? Here's a hint. If you read the last wikipedia citation, then you should be able to come up with a few.
  6. Read the gd citation idiot. You made a claim that was false. I cited a source that claimed it to be false.
  7. This is a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light I have read through all twelve pages of crap, moron. I am not a physicist, and readily admit that you may be more knowledgable than I am. However, I do not resort to lies to support a claim. I have found that there is more literature than I expected regarding the idea of a preferred frame. However, like you, the proponents seem to be unable to provide any evidence that supports their claim. As you know, the claim that there is no preferred frame is unfalsifiable. The claim that th
  8. Walls don't work. They didn't work in an age where the height of technology was being able to fire arrows accurately while riding on a horse. Once the invention artillery came in to play, walls were useless stationary targets and were replaced with trenches. History has shown that defensive trenches aren't reliable either, especially now that rockets and vertical envelopment exists. If your goal is to provide for the security of your country, then there is reason to believe that in spite of how well you target your enemy, selectively killing the enemy is not conducive to peace. Regardles
  9. OK, a preferred frame theory is not something I am familiar with, as my understanding is that there can be no preferred frame. The claim that simultaneity is absolute rather than relative contradicts everything I've learned, but if you're willing to explain your point then I won't interrupt.
  10. No. Instead, Israel should determine a path that would ensure its security. Your rhetoric is not helping.
  11. My idea of a PFT is a physical fitness test, but I will readily admit that I am not a mainstream physicist. Again, I will readily admit ignorance. How does "lorentzian relativity" differ from "special relativity"? Also, because I don't want to waste your time drawing out questions, why is it that you suppose the CMB is a cosmic rest frame? This is not a conclusion that I am familiar with, but if you can provide convincing evidence, I am willing to change my mind. It seems to me that while the CMB is a useful reference, there is no reason at all to define the CMB as a universal rest fram
  12. First of all, thank you for pointing me directly to the posts in question. HOLY **** WE HAVE A BREAKTHROUGH! For goodness sake, you have here clearly identified why the invariant speed of light must mean that distance is variable. The only thing you are missing here is that both observers measure their yardstick to be 36" long, but because they are not in the same inertial frame, and because the speed of light is invariant, and because the speed of light is distance over time, then something has to give. The ruler is what gives. It is absolutely plausible that observer A observes that
  13. I don't care. You may be an excellent historian. This is irrelevant to the question at hand. If your argument is that local time is true time, then the distinction between the two is kinda moot. My point is that there can only be local time, as suggested by SR. The idea that there exists a time by which all can compare their times is silly. This is the aether. There is no universal time. There is no "true time". I make this claim regardless of who made claims previous to me. I make this falsifiable claim simply because I understand the consequence of the invariant speed of light. Th
  14. We've already established that your idea of true time has been shown to be false. Do you need me to cite those sources again, or are you willing to concede that there is no such thing as "true time"? Please, allow me to state it another way. The falsifiable claim that there is a "true time" has been shown to be false. I have already shown you how this claim was falsified, but do you need me to repeat my justification? Here's a hint, it's the reason I first started calling you a liar.
×
×
  • Create New...