Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JMJones0424

  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.
  15. I don't understand your claim that local time equals true time. If anything, Einstein argued that because local times can not be the same, there can be no such thing as true time. Instead, time, like dimension, was a relative measure. True time sounds pretty aether like to me. What do you suppose true time is? Time, like velocity and position, can only be relative. Regardless of the beliefs of Poincare or Lorentz, SR does, in fact, describe physical reality pretty well outside of gravitational influences. GR makes up the difference there. I don't give a crap what you think they though
  16. i am a moron. Point me to the place where you magnificently incorporate the invariant speed of light with the solipsism of SR and determine that your explanation of reality is correct.
  17. I will make a falsifiable claim, a la Popper. The speed of light in a vacuum is measured to be the same, regardless of the relative velocity of the observer. This is a claim that can be shown to be false, and yet it has not been. This is the claim that Special Relativity is based upon. Falsify this claim, and by extension, you will falsify SR. You needn't rely on bad arguments of misunderstood philosophical ideas of solipsism to show this claim to be false. All you need to do is point to one experiment that shows that the speed of light is variant depending upon one's velocity. Deduct
  18. I will rave on. Name one experiment that disproves the universal constancy of the speed of light. Otherwise, take your smug ignorance and choke on it.
  19. YES!!!!!!! This is the single reason why SR exists. Every measurement we have made shows this to be accurate. Nothing shows this claim to be false.
  20. **** off with your bullshit. You have exhibited, at best, a child's understanding of SR, and every claim you've made so far has been laughably wrong. Point me to some evidence that you know what you're talking about, otherwise you can shove your claim that SR is not physics straight back were it came from.
  21. You can hide in your solipsistic cave and start by understanding relativity, which is the claim that physical measurements that you make should be similar to others in similar circumstances, if they existed. This is the notion of relativity that survived until the discovery that time is not constant because the measured speed of light is constant, and since speed is distance/time, and since the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative velocity of the observer, then distance and time must be variable. Again, this would hold true even if you were the only observer that existed in
  22. Relativity is still internally consistent if you assume a solipsistic worldview, but relativity is not dependent nor does it necessitate a solipsistic worldview. Again, I don't think you know what the f you are talking about, and it is clear that you haven't seriously considered your argument, as it is stupidly easy to contradict. This thread is a long string of you arguing crap with others that are trying to argue you out of your belief in crap. i am not going to read 10 pages of ****. You've already displayed your proud ignorance. If you want to correct your understanding, then you ca
  23. I am steeped in nothing other than the fact that you are demonstrably wrong about basic physics.
  • Create New...