Absolute Velocity?

(This post was no longer relevant by the time I posted it, so I deleted it.)
 
Last edited:
"The responses to your "Dingle question" were quite good and conclusive."

Conclusive hey? Conclusive? So what is your answer then? Its only dishonesty that keeps this voodoo in the air in 2008. Its ok to admit you are wrong. And the kids have to understand when it is that there arguments are a contradiction and when it is that they are wrong.

Its getting like people no longer understand when their argument is comprehensively beaten.
 
Look I know its stupid to be taking that particular velocity, taking an absolutist position on this particular velocity, and start treating this velocity as if it were effectively the top velocity of the universe and indeed in many ways infinite velocity.

But thats what these velocity-absolutists do. So get used to it cuddles. And quit with the insults. You are not supposed to be provoking people from your frame of reference as a moderator.

These velocity absolutists are explicit about this. They often claim that faster than light speed is impossible on the grounds that it would reverse cause and effect. Thats ludicrous. But it proves my point of their treatment of this velocity as if it were INFINITE VELOCITY.
 
Last edited:
GMB said:
"You're a totally irrelevant internet blowhard. The rest of us are busy living real lives. Bye now."
Well how about this hey? Sol Invictus. Totally beaten. Does a runner.


"As I said, I already told you. That you chose to ignore that is not my problem."

If you were fair dinkum you would just repeat your claim. But you thought to try and send me on a wild goose chase instead.

Anyway read this and learn:

THE THEORY OF VELOCITY-ABSOLUTISM ..... PART II.


The theory of relativity is untenable. It is a theory of velocity absolutism. Not only in its basic nature. But now its become an absolutist theory in the way its defended.

...snipped GMB 's ignorance of the theory of relativity and lack of citations...
Well its bulls manure.

And its a scary thing.

It has to be the most threatening advent imagineable in the culture. That many of the kids have been educated to go on pretending they are right when their case has been comprehensively and totally defeated.
Click to expand...
Please read something about Special Relativity before embarrassing yourself and us with your ignorance.
Science is not wrong just because it's "bull manure" scares you. That is your own personal phobia.

SR is a theory of velocity relativism.

The speed of light is just a speed. It has nothing to do with infinite velocity.
The postulate that the speed of light is constant in different reference frames leads to certain physical consequences. These consequences have been verified experimentally. Basically if the speed of light was not constant (and so SR wrong) every high energy experiment in particle physics would fail. There are literally trillions of high energy collisions that have been recorded over that the last half century. That is trillions of confirmations of SR. And then there are the experiments that scientists have done to actually test SR.
 
GMB said:
Look I know its stupid to be taking that particular velocity, taking an absolutist position on this particular velocity, and start treating this velocity as if it were effectively the top velocity of the universe and indeed in many ways infinite velocity.
Click to expand...
OK, how about about citing one way it's treated as an infinite velocity? (What name would we call modern physicists if they treated c as infinite?)
 
I think that this is an INFANTILE idea myself. But I'm not the one following this idea. I say that velocity is relative. Special relativity is a theory of velocity-absolutism. The two are entirely incompatible. No room at the Inn for both. The velocity-absolutism must go. And from here on in science workers must understand that they are not exempt from the laws of logic.
 
Last edited:
GMB said:
I think that this is an INFANTILE idea myself. But I'm not the one following this idea. I say that velocity is relative. Special relativity is a theory of velocity-absolutism. The two are entirely incompatible. No room at the Inn for both. The velocity-absolutism must go. And from here on in science workers must understand that they are not exempt from the laws of logic.
Click to expand...
Everyone agrees that velocity is relative.
You should read something about Special Relativity sometime. It is derived logically from 2 postulates:
  • The Principle of Relativity - The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.
  • The Principle of Invariant Light Speed - Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source.
Neither postulate states that velocity is absolute.
 
Reality Check said:
[*]The Principle of Relativity - The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.
Click to expand...

Right. These two postulates are actually a misrepresentation of the theory proper. The first one is in violation of the relativity of velocity. The first postulate isn't in fact a single postulate. Rather its a series of wild claims.

Which is why I tried in vain to get Sol Invictus to translate it into proper and full English. But he wasn't going to get caught out being transparent with his nonsense.
 
GMB said:
Right. These two postulates are actually a misrepresentation of the theory proper. The first one is in violation of the relativity of velocity. The first postulate isn't in fact a single postulate. Rather its a series of wild claims.

Which is why I tried in vain to get Sol Invictus to translate it into proper and full English. But he wasn't going to get caught out being transparent with his nonsense.
Click to expand...

No - they are the actual postulates of special relativity that Einstein used to logically derive SR.

The first postulate is simple enough - no matter what velocity you are travelling at the laws of physics are the same. For example if you do an experiment using Maxwell's equations then it does not matter what your velocity is.

Perhaps you can give us the full list of the "series of wild claims"?
 
Reality Check said:
The first postulate is simple enough - no matter what velocity you are travelling at the laws of physics are the same.
Click to expand...

That might be what it says. But thats a misrepresentation. The laws of physics are always the same. The first postulate is a wild series of claims. Its not a single postulate at all. Its a violation of the concept that velocity is relative.

Now don't lie to me. If you've got nothing decent to say don't be spamming me because you are beginning to get tiresome.

If you want to be in support of the first postulate, which is entirely wrong, spell it out in detailed and clear English and in your own words.

The laws of physics are always the same. This is not what the first postulate means at all. GET IT RIGHT.
 
GMB said:
That might be what it says. But thats a misrepresentation. The laws of physics are always the same. The first postulate is a wild series of claims. Its not a single postulate at all. Its a violation of the concept that velocity is relative.

Now don't lie to me. If you've got nothing decent to say don't be spamming me because you are beginning to get tiresome.

If you want to be in support of the first postulate, which is entirely wrong, spell it out in detailed and clear English and in your own words.

The laws of physics are always the same. This is not what the first postulate means at all. GET IT RIGHT.
Click to expand...
Read it again:
The Principle of Relativity - The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.
Click to expand...
So in my own words: You have a physical law that tells you how the state of a system changes. For example: Maxwell's equations tell you how an electromagnetic system changes. If you have 2 of these systems then the physical law will be the same if the 2 systems are moving relative to each other.

Why don't you "spell it out in detailed and clear English and in your own words" so we can see if you know what you are talking about?

In any case "The laws of physics are always the same" is the first postulate! Make up your mind :eye-poppi

Please list the items in "a wild series of claims" that make up the first postulate.
 
You are not being serious. In fact you are being incredibly evasive. The first postulate contains a whole constellation of incredible and fantastical claims about the behaviour of time, light, mass and so forth. And its expressed in truly misleading fashion. Its violates the principle of the relativity of velocity. And the laws of physics are always the same and yet its worded in such a way as to pretend that one is signing up for THIS proposition and not all this other JIVE.
 
GMB said:
You are not being serious. In fact you are being incredibly evasive. The first postulate contains a whole constellation of incredible and fantastical claims about the behaviour of time, light, mass and so forth. And its expressed in truly misleading fashion. Its violates the principle of the relativity of velocity. And the laws of physics are always the same and yet its worded in such a way as to pretend that one is signing up for THIS proposition and not all this other JIVE.
Click to expand...
List them.
 
Its your theory. You describe it in plain English the best you can. The first postulate contains an outrageous series of bizzare claims.

Like if the light is chasing me at 300 000 km per second and I'm moving at 200 000 km per second then its supposed to be catching me at 300 000 km per second. Which is a load of rubbish.
 
GMB said:
Its your theory. You describe it in plain English the best you can. The first postulate contains an outrageous series of bizzare claims.

Like if the light is chasing me at 300 000 km per second and I'm moving at 200 000 km per second then its supposed to be catching me at 300 000 km per second. Which is a load of rubbish.
Click to expand...
If you cannot handle the mathematics describing the real universe and the experiments that prove that the mathematics is right then I am afraid that that is your problem, not the universe's.

However it is your claim not mine (emphasis added):
GMB said:
You are not being serious. In fact you are being incredibly evasive. The first postulate contains a whole constellation of incredible and fantastical claims about the behaviour of time, light, mass and so forth. And its expressed in truly misleading fashion. Its violates the principle of the relativity of velocity. And the laws of physics are always the same and yet its worded in such a way as to pretend that one is signing up for THIS proposition and not all this other JIVE.
Click to expand...
Can you name say 10 stars in that constellation? I would accept 3? How about 2?

But you seem to be confused about the first postulate and logical consequence of it and the second postulate which gives us SR (the "behaviour of time, light, mass and so forth" bit).
The first postulate does not state anything about time, light, mass and so forth. It merely states that the laws of physics are always the same (to observers in inertial frames of reference). Previously you stated that laws of physics are always the same so you agree with the first postulate.
 
GMB said:
Its[sic] your theory. You describe it in plain English the best you can. The first postulate contains an outrageous series of bizzare claims.
Click to expand...

The postulate is a single claim. It leads to a number of extraordinary consequences. Those extraordinary consequences require extraordinary evidence to back them up. That extraordinary evidence is available (as others have pointed you to).

GMB said:
Like if the light is chasing me at 300 000 km per second and I'm moving at 200 000 km per second then its supposed to be catching me at 300 000 km per second.
Click to expand...

Hm, if the light is chasing you at 300,000km/s, then it's chasing you at 300,000km/s. Are you claiming that if it's chasing you at 300,000km/s it's chasing you at some different velocity? Perhaps you are using multiple reference frame, in that case you need to be specific about which reference frame each velocity is measured in.

GMB said:
Which is a load of rubbish.
Click to expand...
Arguments from incredulity are false.

Rather than provide the list of all the 'wild claims' you claim SR makes, how about just list the one you think is the most wild and we deal with that? Once that's done, we're done - no 'ah but what about this case'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom