My Thread Just Disappeared. Anyone Know Why?

[DaveC426913]

As to your question:  Yes, it make perfect sense to say SR is "unproven."  Every scientific theory is "unproven" in the strict sense.  As far as SR goes, it's underlying premises are, upon analysis, especially dubious, if you ask me (and many others, for that matter).

That is not the thing being claimed. No one claims SR is "proven".

 

What they claim is that it predicts observations with astonishingly and utterly unfailingly correct results. That is the gold standard of good theories.

 

When you challenge a theory that has been tested and verified more than almost any other theory in science, you can't simply toss up an alternate idea as if it has similar weight. Your theory must first undo the century of positive results already established, and show that your theory actually predicts observations as good as or better.

 

I leave it to the reader to calculate how many lifetimes of a single person it would take to perform as many tests on their own theory as has been done on SR.

[hazelm]

Dave, I think it is I using the wrong word.  Moronion is correcting that in his way by saying that nothing in science is "proven".  I have had more than one person remind me of that until I should be able to avoid the word.  But it comes so handy.  I shall work on that.

[Moronium]

That is not the thing being claimed. No one claims SR is "proven".

 

What they claim is that it predicts observations with astonishingly and utterly unfailingly correct results. That is the gold standard of good theories.

 

When you challenge a theory that has been tested and verified more than almost any other theory in science, you can't simply toss up an alternate idea as if it has similar weight. Your theory must first undo the century of positive results already established, and show that your theory actually predicts observations as good as or better.

 

I leave it to the reader to calculate how many lifetimes of a single person it would take to perform as many tests on their own theory as has been done on SR.

  

 

1.  I just answered a question, I didn't say anything about what anyone claimed.

 

2. As to the rest of your claims, I have addressed those in great detail in the thread that was moved (and/or several others), and won't  try to repeat it all here.  In brief, time dilation has been tested, but that is not a test of SR per se and such tests "confirm" other theories of motion as well.  

 

As the GPS, the H-K experiment, and many other empirical observations and experiments show, SR has failed certain tests which other theories have passed (in addition to passing ALL the tests which purportedly "confirm" SR). If you want to dispute this, why don't you do it in the threads which address it?

 

Just to intrigue you, I will add this.  You claim:

 

[sR] predicts observations with astonishingly and utterly unfailingly correct results

 

I categorically deny this inaccurate (not to mention hyperbolic) claim and have stated my grounds and reasons for doing so in other threads.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Buffy]

Honestly, You're kinda lucky we've only moved it to Alternative Theories.
 

2. As to the rest of your claims, I have addressed those in great detail in the thread that was moved (and/or several others), and won't  try to repeat it all here.  In brief, time dilation has been tested, but that is not a test of SR per se and such tests "confirm" other theories of motion as well.

 

As stated previously SR is well tested and yes, time dilation is a key prediction, and thus such tests are indeed confirmatory, regardless of whether you think so or not. 

 

As the GPS, the H-K experiment, and many other empirical observations and experiments show, SR has failed certain tests which other theories have passed (in addition to passing ALL the tests which purportedly "confirm" SR). If you want to dispute this, why don't you do it in the threads which address it?

Actually, if you'd Google a little harder, you'd find that these "disproofs" of SR, have, themselves, been disproven. It's unfortunately easy to find sites with such "scientific conspiracy" arguments, and at the same time, a little harder to find the explanation of their weaknesses, not to speak of the effort and motivation to avoid the easy Confirmation Bias trap if you're predisposed to liking such things.
 

Just to intrigue you, I will add this.  You claim:

[sR] predicts observations with astonishingly and utterly unfailingly correct results

 
I categorically deny this inaccurate (not to mention hyperbolic) claim and have stated my grounds and reasons for doing so in other threads.

 

We know you deny it, but in the referenced thread (and others I haven't all tracked down yet), you seem to rely heavily on repeating something to the effect that it's obvious that it doesn't make sense, and referencing sites that present arguments in isolation that as I say, have been extensively debunked.

 

Now *all* of us believe that science is dynamic, and all these theories are works in progress, and if you'd like to read up on a more recent argument about how SR is "wrong"--really, that it's totally right, but adding a few postulates makes it even *more* right--check out this very interesting paper on GPS Evidence and Quantum Gravity Architecture of the Discrete Field Model.

 

One of the annoying aspects of science is that yes, there is a hegemony of the conventional wisdom that comes from years of the weight of confirmatory evidence, along with far too many ill-educated charlatans with wild and poorly thought out "new theories" that wear out folks who know a bit about what they're talking about.

 

So to be clear, no implication here that you're one of those people, but as we say in our rules "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You're welcome to present proof of your ideas here, but it's important to realize that none of us are under the obligation to educate you, and we're not really even a debating society. You'll notice there are a lot of threads here with claims of all types and kinds that don't have responses, because people get tired of teaching Physics 101 to people, especially those who are starting out with a very strong bias that "everything the physicists say is wrong!"

 

It's really tiresome.

 

So I'd suggest you are on a horse that is at least 25 hands tall, and you might want to start with something smaller.

 

Enjoy your stay.

 

 

For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill, :phones:

Buffy

[Moronium]

Buffy, there's nothing extraordinary (it's all rather trivial, really) about the difference between relative simultaneity and absolute simultaneity.

 

SR posits relative simultaneity.

 

The GPS, astrophysicists, etc., employ an absolute simultaneity (preferred frame) model.  Do you dispute this?  Do you know the difference?  Unfortunately, many "scientists" have taken to calling what are PFT's (preferred frame theories) "special relativity" when it is actually antithetical to SR.  Or they call it "relativistic." implying that it is SR they're talking about when it isn't, whether they know it or not. They seem unable to understand that SR is NOT the Lorentz transforms.  Furthermore, they seem unable to comprehend that what is sometimes call "neo-lorentzian relativity" is also "relativistic" and also utilizes the Lorentz transforms (in fact, that where Einstein got the LT from).

 

I am perusing the paper you cited.  A few excerpts:

 

1.  Einstein commented on the M&M null result in 1952; “H. A. Lorentz showed that the result obtained at least does not contradict the theory of an aether at rest."

 

 

Quite true, then and now, whether you see the significance or not.  How did Lorentz "show" this?  By inventing the Lorentz transformation formulas, that's how.

 

2.  "The Keating experiment with atomic clocks on planes was expected to show no difference between the east and west bound clocks, but did not.."

 

 

This is a crucial failing of SR's prediction, which assumes that "relative" velocity is what determines time dilation. I have previously shown how the positing of a preferred frame was required by Keating, et al, to explain the  actual clock readings (which were not the ones predicted by SR, obviously).  Do you undertstand why this is the case?  I tend to doubt that you do.

 

3.  If you don't, then this paper which you have been kind enough to authoritatively cite, goes on to explain it, as I have, viz:

 

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.

 

 

 

Italics in original.  So much for the ludicrous SR claim that time dilation is "reciprocal" rather than unidirectional.  That was empirically disproven many decades ago by Hafele and Keating (as it is disproven daily by the GPS)

 

Note that ABSOLUTE, NOT RELATIVE, motion was required to explain it.  That's all I have been saying, yet you come on in an extremely smug and condescending fashion insinuating that I'm some kind of idiot.

 

.

 

Thanks for providing the reinforcement for my posts via your citation, eh, Buffy!?

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

..you seem to rely heavily on repeating something to the effect that it's obvious that it doesn't make sense, and referencing sites that present arguments in isolation that as I say, have been extensively debunked.

 

 

Can you cite, in detail, a single specific example of what you are referring to here, Buffy?

 

I ask, because I'm sure no such example exists, but maybe you know something I don't, eh?

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Honestly, You're kinda lucky we've only moved it to Alternative Theories.

 

As stated previously SR is well tested and yes, time dilation is a key prediction, and thus such tests are indeed confirmatory, regardless of whether you think so or not.

 

 

As I have repeatedly stated, the existing evidence does indeed confirm the accuracy of the LT to an extremely high degree.

 

But that is NOT the equivalent of confirming SR.

 

I notice that, for some strange reason, you don't claim that this very same evidence "confirms" lorentzian relativity to the exact same extent (if any) that it confirms SR (if you want to talk about confirmation of "theories").

 

Why is that?  Because you're ignorant of it, or because you deliberately want to ignore it?

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Buffy said:

 

 if you'd like to read up on a more recent argument about how SR is "wrong"--really, that it's totally right, but adding a few postulates makes it even *more* right--check out this very interesting paper on GPS Evidence and Quantum Gravity Architecture of the Discrete Field Model.

 

 

 

Heh, I see.  SR is "totally right" if you abandon it as a model, eh? 

 

 

In point of fact, that's pretty much been done, as a practical matter.  They have now taken to calling a theory with premises/postulates which are diametrically opposed to SR "special relativity."  Neat trick:  change the theory, but keep the name, and then insist it's still the "same theory" which, of course has been tested 25 gazillion times, which every blowhard and his brother will tell you 24/7.

 

Another excerpt or two from the paper you cite, Buffy:

 

GPS time scale is defined in the satellites inertial system but observations are processed in a 'co-rotating Earth centred/Earth fixed' (ECEF) system...

 

 

The ECEF is, in fact, a preferred frame of the type strictly forbidden by the premises of SR, know what I'm sayin?  If not, ponder on what it meant when they say "but observations are processed in" for a spell, eh?  If it's still not clear, read one of my posts on the topic.

 

 

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...

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 you seem to rely heavily on repeating something to the effect that it's obvious that it doesn't make sense, 

 

  

 

Guilty. I confess.  You got me.  I do in fact tend to rely on logic when making an argument for or against any particular proposition.

 

I say, for example, that it makes no sense (and is in fact logically impossible), to claim that each of two clocks actually runs slower than the other at the same time.

 

Einstein himself said as much, as does every prominent physicist who I have ever seen address the question.

 

If you want to abandon all pretense to logical consistency, and senselessly call this an "argument from incredulity," then I will simply counter that you are arguing from an extreme form of solipsistic naivete and gullibility.  But at least I will still be logical, eh?

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Buffy]

Sigh.

 

It's not my job to educate you, dear. I do give you credit for reading the paper which I picked precisely to see if you'd attack it out of hand or find that it "agreed" with your position.

 

Unfortunately, you've just kind of shown that you latch on to "inconsistencies" for which SR must totally be to blame, and at the same time dismiss any proof of SR as not being relevant.

 

That's the crux of people's annoyance with you. 

 

Are there "inconsistencies" from what is "expected" in tests that *interpret* SR? You betcha. Are we learning more and coming up with more refined theories like "frame-dragging" to explain what we see? Of course.

 

Do such refinements constitute "abandon(ing) it as a model?" Most assuredly not.

 

And that's your problem. 

 

Now, I'm buried in getting a new release out the door and don't have time to play with you, but honestly, even if I did, your annoying, haughty and dismissive attitude is the real problem here. Along with not being able to see the forest for the trees.

 

An official reminder that one of our top rules is against "annoying our members." So, a reminder not to be a Noying. It will not serve you well here or in real life.

 

 

Some people are immune to good advice, :phones:

Buffy