The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists

[Moronium]

The problem many people have when they claim such things as "X proves Y," is that they have no intelligent understanding of what "proof" even means, and they think "evidence" is proof.  Nor do they know what any particular "evidence" is evidence of, exactly.

 

Suppose, I say, for example:  "It has been proven that O. J. Simpson was in town the night his wife was murdered."

 

You ask:  "Yeah, so what?"

 

I say:  "So, that proves he killed her, can't you see?"

 

I don't think so.  Homey don't play dat.

 

That's the kind of "proof" that easily convinces those who have already made up their minds in advance, on the basis of nothing substantial.  But it aint proof, sorry.

 

For them, it might (and I should probably stress the word "might") present a problem if it could proven that O.J. was in New York the night his wife was killed in L.A., but since you've disproven that, well, then, what more is there to prove?

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Around this here joint, this seems to be sufficient "proof" that O.J. Simpson killed his wife...just shout:

 

"O. J. SIMPSON KILLED HIS WIFE, I TELLS YA!"

 

When that's your idea of proof, you have no damn business trying to tell a prosecuting attorney how to do his job, eh?

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Hmmm, how am I gunna prove my point?  I know!   I'll come on like a blustering, bombastic, belligerent, bellowing buffoon and shout out things with an air of utmost certainty.  Yeah, that's the ticket!  Those chumps will never see through my act.

 

"To be positive: To be mistaken at the top of one's voice."  (Ambrose Bierce)

 

 

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”  (Bertrand Russell)  

 

 

 

[A-wal]

I 'll grant you that your claims have been just as hollow as this tautology, but don't try to pretend that's "all" you've been saying,  A-Wal.

 

You have consistently and sophistically treated your taut as a proof.  In essence your claim has been:  "Because we know that SR is indubitably true, we therefore know that SR is indubitably true."

I've never claimed SR would hold if the speed of light weren't constant in all inertial frames. SR, like every other model, is built on the assumption that it's postulates are true. My claim has always been that we know SR is accurate because the speed of light has been shown to be frame invariant.

 

No experiment has ever shown that c IS the same in all inertial frames, A-Wal.  None.  Ever

 

You STILL can't make a distinction between a measurement and a distance, eh?  Here, let me remind you again for the 1001st time:

Measurements are how experiments are done. You want to ignore the experiments ans claim the measurements aren't true, that's what makes you such a nutjob. Velocity is defined as distance traveled over time. If the distance that light travels over a certain amount of time is the same in two different inertial frames after time dilation and length contraction are taken into account then that's a constant speed of light, not a variable speed of light. Are you seriously too stupid to understand that?

 

Nobel prize winner Geo Smoot (physics professor at Berkeley), who I have quoted for you, and virtually every other theoretical physicist alive today, disagrees with you, JM.

 

Maybe you should go school them all, eh?

You're insane! Either that or a just really desperate liar. A preferred frame has never been shown exist and is certainly not the most widely accepted model amoung theoretical physicists.

 

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 the CMB is a preferred frame is ludicrous, and I find this claim frequently made by those that are proponents of PFT.  The CMB is simply an artifact of the history of our universe, and it is no more a preferred frame than your inertial frame is.  It is simply a frame that is more easily referenced than your frame.  When you are giving someone instructions on how to get to a place, it would be silly to give instructions based on where you are, instead you give instructions based on mutually recognizable landmarks.  The CMB is the best we can get to a mutually recognizable landmark.  It is not, and there is no reason to expect it to be, a preferred reference frame, as nothing that we understand to describe physics requires such a thing.  You are claiming otherwise.

It can't be proven there's no preferred frame for the same reason it's impossible to prove that there's no god. The ones making the claim are the ones need to show their evidence to support their claim. In the case of a preferred frame how could light or anything else care about some arbitrary frame? It requires some hypothetical substance that defines that frame and the speed of light through it. The CMB is radiation, it can't define any kind of preferred frame but I think the argument is that the CBM distribution is defined by this made up ether substance.

 

The weird thing about this claim is that it wouldn't explain any kind of observations or simplify any physics. SR is far simpler than than any proposed preferred frame model, in SR there's no need for any hypothetical preferred frame defining substance because all inertial frames are equivalent. SR objections aren't based on any observations or simplifications, only on dosy idiots who find it counter-intuitive and think that their intuitions are more likely to lead to the correct model than the simplest explanation for the observed evidence.

[Moronium]

I've never claimed SR would hold if the speed of light weren't constant in all inertial frames. SR, like every other model, is built on the assumption that it's postulates are true. My claim has always been that we know SR is accurate because the speed of light has been shown to be frame invariant.

 

"we know SR is accurate"  Heh, yeah, that's right.  You KNOW!!!!!

 

 

Measurements are how experiments are done. You want to ignore the experiments ans claim the measurements aren't true, that's what makes you such a nutjob. Velocity is defined as distance traveled over time. If the distance that light travels over a certain amount of time is the same in two different inertial frames after time dilation and length contraction are taken into account then that's a constant speed of light, not a variable speed of light. Are you seriously too stupid to understand that?

 

You're a broken record, and just continue to prove your complete ignorance with every post.

 

You're insane! Either that or a just really desperate liar. A preferred frame has never been shown exist and is certainly not the most widely accepted model amoung theoretical physicists.

 

Fool.  How many millions of times do you want to display your ignorance.  See below.

 

It can't be proven there's no preferred frame for the same reason it's impossible to prove that there's no god. The ones making the claim are the ones need to show their evidence to support their claim. In the case of a preferred frame how could light or anything else care about some arbitrary frame? It requires some hypothetical substance that defines that frame and the speed of light through it. The CMB is radiation, it can't define any kind of preferred frame but I think the argument is that the CBM distribution is defined by this made up ether substance.

 

After we've gone through this 5-10 times already, you STILL don't know what a preferred frame is.  You're completely hopeless

 

The weird thing about this claim is that it wouldn't explain any kind of observations or simplify any physics. SR is far simpler than than any proposed preferred frame model, in SR there's no need for any hypothetical preferred frame defining substance because all inertial frames are equivalent. SR objections aren't based on any observations or simplifications, only on dosy idiots who find it counter-intuitive and think that their intuitions are more likely to lead to the correct model than the simplest explanation for the observed evidence.

 

Bask in your solipsism.  Good luck.

 

 

Here's just one website, from Cambridge University There's a million more like it, if you ever care to educate yourself:

 

 

 

Question:  

 

Is there proof that the whole Galaxy (the earth, sun, moon everything) also travels with a certain amount of speed? 

 

 

Answer:

 

There is indeed evidence that the whole galaxy, and indeed the whole of the Local Group of galaxies (the small cluster of galaxies that the Milky Way is part of) is moving relative to the rest of the universe.  What we use is the Cosmic Microwave Background.  This is radiation left over from the very early universe and is very smooth (the variations are less than 1 part in 100,000).  Since it comes to us from everywhere on the sky equally it makes a good reference to measure our speed against, and since it is very smooth you can see even quite small velocities.  If you look at this image the big gradient that you can see is due to our motion through the Universe, the radiation seems slightly hotter in the direction we are moving towards and slightly cooler in the opposite direction due to the Doppler effect.  Now of course Earth is orbiting the Sun, and the whole Solar system orbits the centre of the galaxy, but we know what these motions are and they don't account for all of the motion in that image, so the Milky Way must also be moving

 

.

 

https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/public/ask/2531

 

Do you even know what absolute motion is?  Do you know what it takes to determine it?  Hint:  A preferred frame.  The CMB has been used  as a preferred frame by astro-physicists and cosmologists to determine absolute motion for many decades.  I've quoted experts for you on this topic repeatedly.  You just call all those prominent physicists "highly stupid."

 

For that matter, it has, for centuries, both before and after Einstein, been an accepted "fact" that the earth orbits the solar barycenter, and not vice versa.  This is based on calculations from a universally accepted preferred frame (for the solar system that is, i.e., the barycenter).  We're talking absolute motion here, not relative motion.  It's obvious that, despite throwing around the term constantly, and despite having had it repeatedly explained to you, you don't even know what "relative motion" means.

 

Talk about a crank.  You flatly ignore all evidence presented to you and just endlessly re-assert your woefully misinformed claims.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's a little "bonus" quote regarding the CMB from wiki.  Again, you will see the same at any reputable website;

 

The radiation is isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000: the root mean square variations are only 18 µK,^[8] after subtracting out a dipoleanisotropy from the Doppler shift of the background radiation. The latter is caused by the peculiar velocity of the Earth relative to the comoving cosmic rest frame as our planet moves at some 371 km/s towards the constellation Leo. The CMB dipole as well as aberration at higher multipoles have been measured, consistent with galactic motion.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

 

Those relativistic solipsists who captured you must have roughed you up so good that you came to believe they must be right, eh?  The old "Stockholm syndrome."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Do you even know what absolute motion is?  Do you know what it takes to determine it?  Hint:  A preferred frame.  The CMB has been used  as a preferred frame by astro-physicists and cosmologists to determine absolute motion for many decades.  

 

 

They not only know that the galaxy is moving, but also why

 

 

Our Earth is  not at rest.The Earth moves around the Sun. The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy orbits in the Local Group of Galaxies. The Local Group falls toward the Virgo Cluster of Galaxies....

 

Why are we moving so fast? What is out there?

 

Galaxies dot the sky like jewels in the direction of a mass so large it is known simply as the Great Attractor. ...The Great Attractor is a diffuse mass concentration fully 250 million light-years away, but so large it pulls our own Milky Way Galaxy and millions of other galaxies towards it. Many of the galaxies in ACO 3627 are slowly heading towards collisions with each other.

 

 

 

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap000104.html

 

Millions of galaxies, including our own, heading toward collisions with each other!?  Sounds kinda catastrophic, eh?

 

It's times like this that I wish SR were actually true.  Then none of the galaxies would be moving all all, and there would be no collisions, know what I'm sayin?  I mean, like, they could all just say they are at rest, and they would all be right, see?  If you don't believe it, just ask A-wal and JM. they know EVERYTHING when it comes to this kinda stuff.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

You can't understand that time dilation and length contraction don't lead to a variable speed of light and in fact the only way the speed of light can be the same in all inertial frames and you can't even understand the scientific definition of preferred. This (amoung other reason far too numerous to list) is why you're regarded as a complete joke.

 

A preferred frame is one that is not physically equivalent to other inertial frames. The CMB can be used to define a cosmic rest frame, sort of (the CMB isn't completely uniform), but this is in no way a preferred frame in the context of the scientific definition of the term 'preferred'.

[Moronium]

 

As always, you completely miss the point.  Substitute .5c for 100c.  Same difference.  Nobody moves if everybody is at rest.

 

 

 

 

''Substitute .5c for 100c, same difference''

 

is a statement akin to

 

''2 + 2 = 5''

 

or

 

''no = maybe''

 

it's just word salad - brain salad, insane in the membrane material 

 

 

Heh, that the best you can do?  Ya aint got much game, boy.

[Moronium]

 I did tell people to ignore your posts 

 

 

Ya don't say.  Who'd ya tell, eh?

 

I sho nuff aint no genius, but, then again, the one-eyed man is King in the land of the blind, eh?

 

 

"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." (Jonathan Swift)

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Quantum physics, alone, states there is no such thing as an absolute position and that motion is inherent even in the wrongly named ''rest frame.''

  

 

Yeah?  Where's it say that?  You talking about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

 

John Stuart Bell said the way to fix the conflict between Einstein and QM was to revert to a Lorentzian relativity with a preferred frame.   He was probably right.

 

I think it's a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things. But I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether - a preferred frame of reference - but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. (J.S. Bell)

 

 

 

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Also... no one is at absolute rest. Everyone is in relative motion. You need to get with the times. Einstein did not reign over Newton for no reason... yet you come here like the messiah of knowledge... trust me, you have totally misjudged the power of your knowledge of physics.

 

 Like I said, you have made it clear that you don't even know what relative motion means in the context of SR.

 

Btw, since inertial motion, according to you, cannot be distinguished from rest, how do YOU know that "everyone" is in motion?

 

Oh, I get it, now.  Nobody can tell EXCEPT YOU.  Figures.   You know it all.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Quantum physics, alone, states there is no such thing as an absolute position and that motion is inherent even in the wrongly named ''rest frame.''

 

 

A preferred frame is not necessarily (although it can be) "at rest."  To repeat:

 

Posted 21 May 2018 - 09:48 PM

A point need not be at absolute rest to serve as a highly reliable preferred frame in a given locality--generally this is the center of gravity of the prevailing gravitational force.

 

Using the solar barycenter, with respect to which everything else in the solar system is moving (even the sun revolves around it), as a preferred frame, Newton calculated the speeds, directions, and precise orbits of all the planets.

 

He said it might well be that the entire solar system was itself moving (turns out that it is), but that those motions were irrelevelant for his purposes because they were shared by everything in the system (and therefore changed nothing as far as they were inter-related amongst themselves).

 

 

  Post 190

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 no one is at absolute rest. 

 

And here I thought you understood SR, eh?  Aincha heard?  In SR everybody who is travelling inertially is at absolute rest.  Any and everything it the entire universe which is moving WITH RESPECT TO HIM is moving.  He aint.  Not one inch per 1,000 years, even.

[Moronium]

Since you wanted to bring up QM, consider this:

 

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

 

The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry...The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

 

 

Albert Einstein in 1920:

 

"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.

 

 

Paul Dirac wrote in 1951: 

 

 

"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of Aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the Aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an Aether.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

 

You said:

 

Einstein did not reign over Newton for no reason..

 

.

 

You're just a tad bit behind the times, eh, Six? In was 1905 when Einstein tried to claim that there was no ether.  But that aint what he was sayin 98 years ago, in 1920. Even Dirac's statement was made almost 70 years ago.  Get with the times, boy.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Get on board, Six, unless you want to be stuck in the 19th century, know what I'm sayin?  From a modern paper which Buffy cited:

 

 

"H. A. Lorentz showed that the (Michelson-Morley) result obtained at least does not contradict the theory of an aether at rest."  (Einstein, 1952)

 

In 1972 Richard Keating sent two atomic clocks around the planet on aeroplanes, one east, one west, and left one at home.  In SR slowing would depend entirely on the relative velocity of the clocks. It did not. Both clocks slowed, but the rate was dependent on their absolute velocity through space, i.e. the speed of the aeroplane plus or minus the speed of rotation of the planet.

 

Epilogue:

 

During proofing of this paper in Dec 2009, results from the NASA lunar laser ranging test were published.  The thorough analysis given shows that the predictions of the Discrete Field Model are met. Lorentz invariance of 'c' is broken by some 200ms, equating to the Sagnac effect from the 'speed of the observatory along the line of sight due to rotation during measurement'. It is made clear that the result is not consistent with SR as formulated, but must have a preferred frame...

 

 

 

https://www.academia.edu/3715923/GPS_Evidence_and_Quantum_Gravity_Architecture_of_the_Discrete_Field_Model?auto=download

Edited May 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 There is nothing in relativity, I wish to discuss with you.

 

 

That's probably a wise choice on your part, sho nuff.

 

Want to try some more insults?