Absolute Velocity?

[Reality Check]

Obviously its not velocity since velocity is a relative concept. So you have to test any such effect on the basis that it must be due to some other factor. Failing to do so is not science but toadying to the status quo.

You missed out citing your evidence that I am part of the we.

Also: What do you think "relativity" in Special Relativity refers to?

 

[Reality Check]

We want to stay focused here. We want to stay away from soothsaying and spoon-bending and either be finding evidence that overturns the Dingle refutation, which heretofore has proved total, or alternatively you could just admit that special relativity is total nonsense.

Then I guess matters would fall back to the Lorentz inner core. Which seems to be pretty good stuff.

The only one "soothsaying and spoon-bending" seems to be you since you have not given any evidence that velocity has nothing to do with Special Relativity.

Do you have any idea what Lorentz has to do with SR?

ETA: Here is the Wikipedia article on Herbert Dingle and the last sentence in the Controversies section:

The consensus in the physics community is that Dingle's objections to the logical consistency of special relativity were unfounded.

 

[GMB]

Well since velocity is a relative concept, no object is entitled to be considered to be at rest and another moving. So the effects that we allegedly see cannot be ascribed to that. Hence it is mega-important that "scientists" eliminate experimentally all other possibilities. But you see with these maths-boy 101 types there doesn't appear to be much in the way of oversight. So rather then try and re-rank paradigms as to their plausibility they wind up in effect switching the light on again and again as if evidence were merely additive and as if it wasn't convergent evidence we were after.

 

[Reality Check]

Well since velocity is a relative concept, no object is entitled to be considered to be at rest and another moving. So the effects that we allegedly see cannot be ascribed to that. Hence it is mega-important that "scientists" eliminate experimentally all other possibilities. But you see with these maths-boy 101 types there doesn't appear to be much in the way of oversight. So rather then try and re-rank paradigms as to their plausibility they wind up in effect switching the light on again and again as if evidence were merely additive and as if it wasn't convergent evidence we were after.

Wrong: Velocity is relative. If we have 2 objects with different velocities (v and w) then we can always treat one object to be at rest (velocity = v - v = 0) and the other to be moving (velocity = w - v).

 

[sol invictus]

Well since velocity is a relative concept, no object is entitled to be considered to be at rest and another moving. So the effects that we allegedly see cannot be ascribed to that.

And they're not, as you would know if you understood even the most basic facts about relativity - like the name.

The effects are due precisely to the relative velocity. That's why it's called relativity.

Sorry if that's too complicated.

 

[nathan]

By the way Nathan? What was your interpretation? Which clock runs slower? And what is your evidence for that interpretation? You have been holding out on us.

Thanks for providing more evidence that you're not paying attention to the responses that have been posted.

 

[GMB]

People something strange has happened and it happens all the time in this argument. Thats where one of those who are opposing the physics-rationalist suddenly takes on his point of view and pretends that the physics-rationalist always had that point of view.

REALITY-CHECK SEZ:

"Wrong: Velocity is relative. If we have 2 objects with different velocities (v and w) then we can always treat one object to be at rest (velocity = v - v = 0) and the other to be moving (velocity = w - v)"

Did you see that? What do you make of it? I tell you the truth it happens often. He really has convinced himself that he was arguing for my side of the argument and that I was arguing for his. Mentally deficient? Well I'm not going to let him off that easily:



Why did you say "WRONG"? Reality check why did you say "WRONG"?

You told me I was wrong and then you restated my argument as if it were your own!

Thats one of the most blatantly dishonest things I've ever seen anyone do. It wasn't just leftist projection. It was a full-blown LEFTIST-REVERSAL.

Lets have that retraction champ. Lets have that retraction or perhaps you can get off the hook claiming you just made a stupid mistake.

 

[GMB]

Thanks for providing more evidence that you're not paying attention to the responses that have been posted.

No I'm paying attention. You just never say anything worthwhile. All promise but no delivery. All hat and no cattle. What is your answer to the Dingle refutation? Which clock runs slower?

 

[GMB]

Special relativity is the theory of velocity-absolutism.

And they're not, as you would know if you understood even the most basic facts about relativity - like the name.

The effects are due precisely to the relative velocity. That's why it's called relativity.
.

No you are totally wrong. And its very hard to believe you are not lying. The reason is that SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS A THEORY OF VELOCITY ABSOLUTISM.

Thats the key feature of special relativity. Its a tendentious piece of work, whose starting premise is that everything works back from the absolutism of the speed of light.

I don't know if you and Reality Check co-ordinated this fraudulent gear-change in your argument. But heretofore it is me and me alone that has emphasized the relative nature of velocity. But special relativity is not a theory of relative velocity. Rather its a theory of VELOCITY ABSOLUTISM.

The velocity that we hold to be the speed of light in a vacuum is treated as though it were INFINITE SPEED. And then everything is worked backwards from that wrong conclusion. Thats just a fact.

Now this is no way to do science. But what was good about this tendentiousness is that it produced a template for pretty good calculations. But it was never valid scientific methodology.

 

[nathan]

No I'm paying attention. You just never say anything worthwhile. All promise but no delivery. All hat and no cattle. What is your answer to the Dingle refutation? Which clock runs slower?

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

 

[sol invictus]

Well since velocity is a relative concept, no object is entitled to be considered to be at rest and another moving.

we can always treat one object to be at rest

Why did you say "WRONG"? Reality check why did you say "WRONG"?

You told me I was wrong and then you restated my argument as if it were your own!

No, he directly contradicted you.

Thats one of the most blatantly dishonest things I've ever seen anyone do. It wasn't just leftist projection. It was a full-blown LEFTIST-REVERSAL.

Leftist?? What nonsense.

 

[sol invictus]

No you are totally wrong. And its very hard to believe you are not lying. The reason is that SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS A THEORY OF VELOCITY ABSOLUTISM.

Repeating statements that are false by definition in all caps really isn't going to get you very far.

I don't know if you and Reality Check co-ordinated this fraudulent gear-change in your argument. But heretofore it is me and me alone that has emphasized the relative nature of velocity. But special relativity is not a theory of relative velocity. Rather its a theory of VELOCITY ABSOLUTISM.

I told you - repeating obvious lies doesn't get you anywhere, even in all caps.

The velocity that we hold to be the speed of light in a vacuum is treated as though it were INFINITE SPEED. And then everything is worked backwards from that wrong conclusion. Thats just a fact.

No, it's utter nonsense.

Now this is no way to do science. But what was good about this tendentiousness is that it produced a template for pretty good calculations. But it was never valid scientific methodology.

You're a totally irrelevant internet blowhard. The rest of us are busy living real lives. Bye now.

 

[GMB]

No no. You are lying. And everything I said above it true. Special Relativity is a theory of VELOCITY ABSOLUTISM. Thats the theory. The speed of light is held to be akin to infinite speed. And you just work backwards from that wrong and unnecessary proposition. In order to make the maths work he of course played fast and loose with a bunch of other things. But it all was worked backwards from an absolutist view to the speed of light.

If you didn't figure that out your own self well I'm sorry you had to hear it from me.

 

[GMB]

Has anyone else ever realized that Special Relativity was a tendentious theory of VELOCITY-ABSOLUTISM? I'm sure there are many of you who have realized that one time or another and simply forgotten that thought. Come forth and tell us your story.

 

[GMB]

"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.

We can see that it cannot work by the way gravity propagates. Gravity propagates much faster then the speed of light although it is not supposed to.

“We know, for example, that the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible Sun — that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun.

Its light comes to us from one direction, its “pull” from a slightly different direction.

This implies different propagation speeds for light and gravity.”

Now its important that you all shake down your Professors on this matter and force them to face the truth.

Everybody loves Albert. And making arbitrary assumptions is fine when you are making a model of best fit. But unfortunately the physics academy has proved inadequate for the task of going back and finding alternate models, which make predictions as sound but without the arbitrary assumptions.

Lorentz-relativity has been updated and can now serve as a predictive model to replace the Einstein model for the time being or be given equal billing with it. But neither ought Lorentz relativity be considered revealed truth.

But its important because Lorentz-relativity contains no light-speed limit nor does it assume that mass goes asymptotically to infinity as velocity approaches the speed of light.

Both assumptions which must now be considered to be untenable.

Now we find that most of modern cosmology and physics, as well as the belief in the Big Bang, one way or another, has been built on Special relativity.

What this means is its back to the drawing board and these very ridiculous models…….. but also very brilliant PREDICTIVE models must now be reworked. Because the fact that a model makes great predictions doesn’t mean that it is true.

These last 50 years or so, modern physics and cosmology have become bogged-down, stuck, and have become in nature as to a medieval priesthood.

The fault comes from it being an Occams Lockout. They’ve locked out Occam. They've locked Occam out.

They will no longer apply Occams Razor or laser if it is to be done in such a way as to undermine the priesthood. They keep building on arbitrary assumptions and they no longer know what a reduction to absurdity is.

In fact all physicists know that light-speed has been beaten. They all know this. These are very well-known experiments.

But they lie about this. And they seem to have set up a caste system where you can only mention this, if you are in doing so, attempting to shore up the priesthood.

But if you are not expect the lying…. the putdowns and the general unreason to start.

There is no doubt that relativity is comprehensively disproven.

So watch as the stupid arguments unroll.

They will start pretending that it wasn’t about speed but information conveyance. Thats a gyp. Then the next thing is that they may use the Tachyon diversion…. thats a gyp also.

If they’ve fillibustered long enough they will start saying that the speed of light has been TRIVIALLY exceeded. This is a gyp because if its been exceeded its been beaten and most of modern physics has to be systematically reworked.

Now some things come up in this modern idiocy. And one of them is these guys believe that Hubbles constant means that the Universe is expanding…. accelerating in its expansion… and that far-flung galaxies are racing away from us faster then the speed of light.

Now when you point out this obvious contradiction they will claim that these things aren’t moving away faster then the speed of light. Rather that the space in between is being created.

This is just idiocy.

Imagine trying that idiocy in court.

“Yes your Worship. You see I’ve been accused of snatching her bag and running away. But that didn’t happen. You see what really happened is she was showing me her new bag….. I took it in my hand… And the space between us started being created”

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.

 

[GMB]

The OP means that when we see CMB, it represents what it was like at t=300,000 years. So about 13.4 Billion years ago? As to the velocity question, I'll leave that to others. I got a headache this morning trying to explain that the universe's expansion is an expansion OF space...

Historically speaking, thats just one of a number of pathetic excuses. And its totally presumptuous to imagine that background radiation is attached to some sort of big explosion. Thats a daft idea right there.

 

[Perpetual Student]

GMB, if you have a bases to refute relativity or other aspects of modern physics, why don't you simply demonstrate it or a least state what that basis is from the perspective of experiments or physical evidence. All that bombast, name calling and posturing simply makes you appear to be a fool. If you do indeed have something intelligent to contribute, make an attempt to do so.
If, however, this is some kind of spoof -- give up, it's not very interesting or humorous.

 

[GMB]

I"ve already refuted it. Have you not seen the Dingle question? And the fact that no-one could answer it with evidence. They came up with muons and if indeed that was evidence it was contrary evidence to the committee decision on the Dingle question.

So its a done deal and obviously so.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I"ve already refuted it. Have you not seen the Dingle question? And the fact that no-one could answer it with evidence. They came up with muons and if indeed that was evidence it was contrary evidence to the committee decision on the Dingle question.

So its a done deal and obviously so.

The responses to your "Dingle question" were quite good and conclusive. It appears that you made no attempt to understand them. Perhaps you are delusional or suffer from some type of narcissistic disorder.

 

[GMB]

No they weren't. They were contradictory and irrational. And the muons thing is evidence that they didn't have any evidence of a direct and macroscopic nature. Perhaps you are just an idiot and suffer from being a dim bulb.

By the way. Which clock do YOU reckon runs slower? Not that your input matters but it will highlight your evasiveness me merely asking the question.