Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Shustaire]

They do not SUPPORT the premises of SR.  They merely assume the postulates are true, ab initio, and then put the necessary implications in symbolic form.

 

You can never prove, or support, a theory merely by presupposing that it's "true."  Mathematical consistency adds nothing, in itself.

 

no if an examination shows a theory incorrect even SR then it is overturned.  Regardless of the accuracy of the math. Observations can trump any theory if sufficient evidence.

 

Theories don't simply pop into peoples heads at random. Not successful ones. They always arise from a history of observation.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

no if an examination shows a theory incorrect even SR then it is overturned.  Regardless of the accuracy of the math. Observations can trump any theory if sufficient evidence

 

I am sick of debating this, Buffy can you lock this Thread SR is correct and Moronium has not put any evidence forward or enough evidence forward to prove it wrong, I am sick of watching this debate over sillyiness on this forum, Moronium your arguments are weak and SR still has more evidence that it is correct than evidence against it even with 58 pages of posts. Please stop feeding into Moronium's inability to learn or ever accept the truth of the matter that, that theory is correct and his arguments are invalid.

Edited July 20, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

I am sick of debating this, Buffy can you lock this Thread SR is correct and moronium has not put any evidence forward or enough evidence forward to prove it wrong, I am sick of watching this debate over sillyiness on this forum, Moronium your arguments are weak and SR still has more evidence that it is correct than evidence against it even with 58 pages of posts. Please stop feeding into moroniums inability to learn or ever accept the truth of the matter that, that theory is correct and his arguments are invalid.

 

hear hear with this I agree full heartedly

[Moronium]

You can assert, as a metaphysical proposition, that there is such a thing as "objective reality" (realism), and deny the metaphysical proposition that material bodies don't even exist (solipsism) without ever claiming to know exactly what that "objective reality" is.  Do you understand that?

[Vmedvil2]

hear hear with this I agree full heartedly

 

I know this is B.S. having to debate with Moronium and due to ignorance or completely missing the point of the posters that he is wrong, LOCK THIS THREAD BUFFY, Einstein is right and Moronium is wrong. He is making a completely mockery of this forum. It would be like 900+ posts of me saying that 1+1 = 2 is wrong and everyone disagreeing with me and me continuing the push that 1+ 1 = 0 and not 2.

Edited July 20, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Vmedvil2]

Yes I third that, close it please.

 

I will contact Buffy or you can to lock this crap,Dubbel, Message Sent to Buffy. Peer Reviewed as INCORRECT and Failed in peer view, Moronium. *Pulls out his sword and chops your theory* hopefully Buffy with Axe your thread, this is nonsense.

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

no if an examination shows a theory incorrect even SR then it is overturned.  Regardless of the accuracy of the math. Observations can trump any theory if sufficient evidence.

 

Theories don't simply pop into peoples heads at random. Not successful ones. They always arise from a history of observation.

 

 

Yes, but even Einstein admitted that his postulates were NOT dictated by the empirical evidence.  They were not a deduction from "fact" but a product of his own creativity and chosen by an act of free will, not "evidence" he said.  Unfortunately, very few of his disciples have even fraction of his philosophical insights, these days.

 

Of course that is the very nature of a scientific hypothesis (postulate).  It cannot be proven by evidence.

 

You're merely conceding my point:  "correct math" can never prove a theory.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Then what is the point of this discussion. Nothing in physics is ever 100% everyone agrees on that end of discussion case closed.

 

It cannot be proven by evidence.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Then what is the point of this discussion

 

The point is one which you have never understood.  The discussion is not about "proof," notwithstanding the widespread misconception by most posters here that it is.

 

The discussion really boils down to the question of what are plausible, persuasive, and acceptable philosophical views of ontology, not "science."

Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium

[Super Polymath]

The point is one which you have never understood.  The discussion is not about "proof," notwithstanding the widespread misconception by most posters here that it is.

 

The discussion really boils down to the question of what are plausible, persuasive, and acceptable philosophical views of ontology, not "science."

[Vmedvil2]

The point is one which you have never understood.  The discussion is not about "proof," notwithstanding the widespread misconception by most posters here that it is.

 

The discussion really boils down to the question of what are plausible, persuasive, and acceptable philosophical views of ontology, not "science."

 

Science is always about proof without proof your arguments are void, it was a nice try Moronium but in the end the peer view committee has voted to reject your theory, sorry, it is not plausible that SR is wrong.

[Shustaire]

The point is one which you have never understood.  The discussion is not about "proof," notwithstanding the widespread misconception by most posters here that it is.

 

The discussion really boils down to the question of what are plausible, persuasive, and acceptable philosophical views of ontology, not "science."

 

then its the wrong thread and wrong forum and belongs in philosophy so once again this thread should be locked. Not to mention thread hijack once again. Particularly since you won't accept the science of a science theory.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

then its the wrong thread and wrong forum and belongs in philosophy so once again this thread should be locked. Not to mention thread hijack once again. Particularly since you won't accept the science of a science theory.

 

 

You totally misrepresent my position about this.  Not really surprising.  Theoretical questions seem to be beyond your skillset.

 

You still have not even made an attempt to answer a simple question.  You are really not very capable of "discussing" anything, scientific or otherwise.  Like Dubbo, you simply want to make unsupported assertions, ad nauseum.

[Vmedvil2]

You totally misrepresent my position about this.  Not really surprising.  Theoretical questions seem to be beyond your skillset.

 

You still have not even made an attempt to answer a simple question.  You are really not very capable of "discussing" anything, scientific or otherwise.  Like Dubbo, you simply want to make unsupported assertions, ad nauseum.

Well, I can tell you I have been reading this thread quite a bit and I am willing to say as someone that does often make scientific inventions and models along with dubblel and polymath that your premise that SR is incorrect and does not accurately explain the universe is wrong and non-local going faster than the speed of light is impossible, Theory Rejected once again. I have had to do this to other threads and this has failed peer view.

Edited July 20, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

let me know when you present a valid one

 

You totally misrepresent my position about this.  Not really surprising.  Theoretical questions seem to be beyond your skillset.

 

 

[Vmedvil2]

Let's be honest, we're all just waiting on the closure of this thread. A bit of moderation will fix this nicely. Victor is right, we'd be giving Moronium the false premise that his thread is open because he doing a great job, when really he's at the hand of a ship that has already sank.

 

Yep, I tried to say this had failed peer view like a week ago, I know I am right. There is nothing he has said that would earth-shatteringly break SR or change the foundations of Modern Physics.

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

let me know when you present a valid one

 

 

Let me know if you're ever willing to discuss a simple theoretical question about "observation" versus inference, eh?

 

I won't hold my breath.

 

I extend the same invitation to any of those on the censorship crew.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium