Theory of Special Relativity is wrong

Thabiguy

Muse
T
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
814
This thread has been created to allow the poster GMB to debate his claims with willing forum members, without disturbing other threads.

The title has been taken straight from one of GMB's posts:

GMB said:
Since the question cannot be answered the theory of special relativity is wrong. Simple as that. I can see you are holding back a lot of non-falsifiable garbage.
Click to expand...

I will not quote the messages that GMB posted prior to his suspension, but to get the discussion started, I will quote some of the messages that he posted after he had returned, which reiterate his position and claims:

GMB said:
The appeal to "frame of reference" is a perpetual series of spoon-bender distractions. There is only one relevant "frame of reference" and that frame of reference is REALITY.

Always when we see the phrase "frame of reference" we are asked to take seriously appeals to pseudo-science since in all such cases no evidence is ever offered or yet even capable of being offered.

We need to follow the example of the Amazing Randi and chase out every last bit of voodoo from academic life and not merely from stage acts.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

"Relativity of simultaneity means that two events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another. "

This is rubbish and there is no such thing. Yet people are prattling on failing to distinguish between their version of what the theory says, and what would happen in reality. To interpret this theory as if it were revealed truth is to make a stooge of oneself. If something is simultaneous it is simultaneous IN REALITY and this reality is not dependent on this "frame of reference" sleight of hand.

In fact there can never be anything such as time dilation. Since there is no time to dilate. Time being merely a derived concept, derived from simultaneity and regular motion.

Its really very rude for people to prattle on in the vain when they know they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for these spoon-bending absurdities. If two events are simultaneous they are simultaneous no matter what. No evidence exists otherwise or ever could exist otherwise. Everything that happens simultaneous happens at the same time everywhere. And in that last sentence the word time is a redundancy since time itself is derived from this simultaneity.

Note that spoon-bender-central could not make up its mind about the Dingle refutation. The official story about the clocks running slower than eachother was a committee decision and not something that the theory originally resolved. But our spoon-benders came out with at least 3 different answers anyway. Since we have had at least three versions of which clock ticks slower. The twins refutation IS the clocks refutation. They are the same refutation. They are the very same story. Notions to do with the aging of cells under acceleration are speculative. But notions to do with this same matter under different velocities are not. Since velocity is a relative concept. Hence it is ACCELERATION that we need to investigate as to its effect on this or that. Not velocity.
Click to expand...

GMB said:
"Except that it's been experimentally observed. Small fly in your ointment there, pal."

No it hasn't. There is no such thing as time dilation. Any effect so observed may be related to acceleration. But all this spoon-bender talk, to the contrary notwithstanding, it has not been observed with regard to velocity and never could be.

Lets hope that from now on, spoon-benders-united, can word things, so as to differentiate between reality and their own personal version of this failed and self-contradictory theory.

The problem is that the priesthood has been taken over by maths-boy 101. Its as if they chased out the natural philosophers and brought in Rainman. In fact the maths-barrier is the only reason the spoon-benders have been able to prevail in this area. In economics its the pull of parasitism. Here its the shield of advanced maths.

Being as the clocks and twins refutation are the self-same refutation spoon-benders everywhere might want to contemplate how three or more answers to the same refutation were possible. I'm not sure I want to know your explanations actually. It will be the same nonsense and "look over there!!!!" distractions.

But there can be no doubt about it that the refutation stands. At least it stands while any skeptics are still in the room while the spoon-bender goes to work. What we are not going to see is people scrambling over each-other to prove that this nonsense has been experimentally observed.

Directly below what do we see? A clarification of which answer to the clocks refutation spoon-benders are going to keep a united front on? I don't THINK!!!so. Well perhaps we see the evidence forthcoming for the wrong notion that time dilation has been experimentally verified? No thats not what we see directly below either.

Instead what we see is spoon-bender-central asking skeptics to leave the room. All skeptics must leave the room. Only the credulous and other spoon-benders need apply to stay on. Hurts their aura does this skepticism. Makes their powers weak.
Click to expand...

Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
GMB said:
Always when we see the phrase "frame of reference" we are asked to take seriously appeals to pseudo-science since in all such cases no evidence is ever offered or yet even capable of being offered.
Click to expand...
How could special relativity be asking us to take pseudo-science seriously, when the frames of reference could be calculated, and so far, experiments to test its calculations have been independently verified, all over the world?
 
GMB said:
Instead what we see is spoon-bender-central asking skeptics to leave the room. All skeptics must leave the room.
Click to expand...

You weren't asked to leave the room: you were given the microphone and spotlight.

The stage is yours.
 
Relativity is just a theory. I dispute it in favor of the Discovery Institute's "Intelligent Absolute Frame of Reference."
 
skbuncks said:
Im at a loss. I thought that the theories of GR and SR were implicit in the operation of GPS systems. You know, being used constantly 24/7. Thankyou GMB for pointing out the errors in my thinking....

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

....or maybe not

skb
Click to expand...

Your link is not in favour of special relativity. Your link is sticking up for an augmented Lorentz relativity. I've got no cause to be suspicious of this Lorentz relativity. There is nothing voodoo about it that I can see. It ought to be the default position at the moment until the whole deal can be reworked. It ought to have precedence over special relativity from first principles. No Dingle question needs to be refuted under this alternative to my knowledge.

Notice that when push came to shove Sol Invictus sort of retreated to the Lorentzian core of the issue. That part of relativity where he knew he was on firm ground.
 
GMB said:
Notice that when push came to shove Sol Invictus sort of retreated to the Lorentzian core of the issue. That part of relativity where he knew he was on firm ground.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the meaning of the words you're using.

Let's try something: GMB, do you agree that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames? In other words, do you agree that inside a sealed laboratory in interstellar space, there is no experiment one can do to determine at which velocity the laboratory is moving?
 
sol invictus said:
GMB, do you agree that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames?
Click to expand...

Speak English. I know what you mean but you are not saying what you mean. The fact is that the laws of physics are the same no matter what.

Say what you mean. The laity does not know that you are sloganising when you make that dopey cliched statement. Thats a mantra. A stupid mantra.

The laws of physics are the same no matter what. This is not the same subject as what you are trying to put about I know. Now you say what you mean in direct English. So that the average person can see what claims it is you are making.
 
Last edited:
GMB said:
Speak English. I know what you mean but you are not saying what you mean. The fact is that the laws of physics are the same no matter what.

Say what you mean. The laity does not know that you are sloganising when you make that dopey cliched statement. Thats a mantra. A stupid mantra.

The laws of physics are the same no matter what. This is not the same subject as what you are trying to put about I know. Now you say what you mean in direct English. So that the average person can see what claims it is you are making.
Click to expand...


I can't wait for sol to answer. Can you restate what me means, in plain English, please?
 
GMB, imagine you are in a plane flying along but you can't see out the windows or anything. The plane is travelling REALLY fast, but it is a perfectly smooth ride. So you can't feel how fast the plane is travelling. Got that?

Now imagine a fly hovering in front of your face in the plane. Is that fly (1) not moving at all? (2) travelling at the same speed as the plane is? (3) travelling at some huge speed around the sun? (4) travelling at some ginormous speed around the galaxy?

Having made your choice, prove it is not one of the other choices.
 
You know, I am neither all that smart nor highley educated, yet I know enough to clearly understand what Sol was aking.

GMB isn't, but thinks he is smart enough to contradict Einstein, and all the reasearchers who have verified his work.

Amazing...
 
"do you agree that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames?"

This is an incredible bait-and-switch. Unbecoming of a physicist. But this is how bad things have gotten. What happens here is that the heretic is supposed to agree to something that is not what it appears to be. Sol Invictus is quite capable of making his overly strong claim specific rather than couching it in a mantra.

No-one needed to invent the idea that the laws of physics were the same anywhere. No prior view of physics, certainly not Newtonian physics, claimed that the laws of physics were arbitrary and that they changed from time to time and place to place. So why use such a stupid phrase to describe something else entirely.

Its actually the pattern with the special relativity apologists. They claim to be advocating a system where velocity is relative. For all of prior history we already knew that velocity was relative. But then special relativity comes out with its outrageous velocity-absolutism. So this is a theology that is the opposite of what it pretends to be. Its in no way a doctrine of velocity relativity. It is the opposite of such a doctrine.

And likewise we have the same sort of double-talk when it comes to the behavior of light. Sol Invictus, if he chose to speak English, would almost definitely be talking about a property of light. Why he would bring the phrase "inertial frames" he will have to explain to you. Since he will then have to explain why he thinks that the laws of physics otherwise always change.

So supposing I said no. Supposing I said that I don't agree. This is a verbal trick he would be using to deceive third parties. But the laws of physics are the same everywhere as far as anyone knows. And there is no point talking about frames. Its a daft idea. We ought to talk about realty. Not try and frame little chunks of reality off as if reality isn't an holistic whole.

On the other thread the voodoo claim was made that simultaneity itself was relative. Which is utter nonsense. And a confession of the absolutism of the speed of light in this doctrine. Only when you take an absolutist view to velocity do you have to proclaim anything so absurd as the idea that simultaneity is relative.
 
GMB said:
Your link is not in favour of special relativity. Your link is sticking up for an augmented Lorentz relativity. I've got no cause to be suspicious of this Lorentz relativity. There is nothing voodoo about it that I can see. It ought to be the default position at the moment until the whole deal can be reworked. It ought to have precedence over special relativity from first principles. No Dingle question needs to be refuted under this alternative to my knowledge.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. General relativity contains all the "weirdness" of special relativity and then some.

I'd like to ask you a question. If you think the Dingle argument is a total refutation of special relativity, then why do you think all the physicists disagree with him? Do you think phycisists are too stupid to understand an extremely simple argument like that? Or do you think that thousands of physicists around the world have agreed to keep Dingle's refutation of relativity a secret? Why would they all agree to join this enormous conspiracy? Who's behind the consipiracy? Is it the jews or the shape-shifting aliens?
 
Last edited:
Zep said:
GMB, imagine you are in a plane flying along but you can't see out the windows or anything. The plane is travelling REALLY fast, but it is a perfectly smooth ride. So you can't feel how fast the plane is travelling. Got that?

Now imagine a fly hovering in front of your face in the plane. Is that fly (1) not moving at all? (2) travelling at the same speed as the plane is? (3) travelling at some huge speed around the sun? (4) travelling at some ginormous speed around the galaxy?

Having made your choice, prove it is not one of the other choices.
Click to expand...

Zep what an incredibly stupid question. Velocity is relative. Only special relativity disputes this. You really have the wrong end of the stick here. Special relativity is a doctrine of velocity-absolutism.
 
Fredrik said:
You're wrong. General relativity contains all the "weirdness" of special relativity and then some.
Click to expand...

No its you that are wrong. Yes its true that general relativity is built on special relativity. But I didn't mention general relativity once. So it was you that was wrong. Your reading comprehension was a complete failure. And everything I said that you quoted stands. Lorentz relativity doesn't contain the voodoo of the Einstein version. Thats what I said. How handicapped do you people have to be to respond to something entirely different to what I said.

Go back and read. Do better next time.
 
"I'd like to ask you a question. If you think the Dingle argument is a total refutation of special relativity, then why do you think all the physicists disagree with him?


THEY DON'T. AND THE DINGLE REFUTATION IS TOTAL INDEPENDENT OF WHAT I SAY ABOUT IT. THIS IS CLEAR IN TERMS OF STRAIGHT LOGIC.

"Do you think phycisists are too stupid to understand an extremely simple argument like that?"

PLENTY OF PHYSICISTS WOULD HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT ITS A TOTAL REFUTATION.

"Or do you think that thousands of physicists around the world have agreed to keep Dingle's refutation of relativity a secret? "

NONE OF THEM TREAT IT AS A SECRET. GIVE ME SOMETHING TO WORK WITH FOR PETES SAKES.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom