Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

See the problem Moronium is, that it really matters whether a theory suits experimental backup. The fact it doesn't agree with you, is a serious problem. 

 

 

All you're doing is proving the point I just made, Dubbo, to wit:

 

Yet anyone with even a casual knowledge of the topic would know that the vast majority, if not all, of the professional theoretical physicists alive today reject such a naive view.

 

I guess that's "frustrating" for those who wish to remain ignorant, uninformed, and cocksure of their own opinions.

 

[Moronium]

Posted Today, 01:03 PM

See the problem Moronium is, that it really matters whether a theory suits experimental backup. The fact it doesn't agree with you, is a serious problem.

 

Your typical assertion of a "fact," which is false, eh?

 

Name one piece of empirical evidence which you claim "confirms" SR which doesn't also "confirm" a preferred frame theory.  You can't.  For at least two reasons:

 

1.  You don't know the difference between the theories, their implications, and their predictions to begin with.

 

2.  No such evidence exists.  Every prominent theoretical physicist since Einstein, including Einstein himself, has freely admitted that all the empirical evidence is perfectly consistent with a preferred frame theory.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

I want it closed because it is false information that Moronium is posting that may confuse people that don't know any better, The replies and how he handles them are also well beyond non scientific, moronium has just been posting random stuff that has nothing to do with the subject this thread should have been locked long ago due to way off topic.

[Moronium]

I want it closed because it is false information that Moronium is posting that may confuse people that don't know any better, The replies and how he handles them are also well beyond non scientific, moronium has just been posting random stuff that has nothing to do with the subject this thread should have been locked long ago due to way off topic.

 

 

I disagree with your conclusions here, obviously.  But you want Sanctus to act as the ultimate arbiter of all difference of opinion about scientific theory, that the idea?

 

I don't know his scientific credentials, but I'm confident that if he knows the topic and the relevant arguments on both sides, he will conclude that there's nothing "non-scientific" in anything I've said in this thread. 

 

But even so, I don't think it's up to him to make that decision, even if it was in my favor.   Any person can come to their own conclusions, and I can't see where they would have to have a moderator at a chat forum tell them what they're allowed to hear or discuss.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In any event, Vic, I've already posted your position on this issue for Sanctus to see.  Here it is again:

 

Posted 20 July 2018 - 05:22 PM

VictorMedvil, on 20 Jul 2018 - 5:20 PM, said:

I am sick of debating this, Buffy can you lock this Thread SR is correct...that theory is correct and his arguments are invalid.

 

 

This also reinforces the point I made here:  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/32241-yes-you-can-go-faster-than-speed-of-light/?p=362700

 

As a general observation, it has been my experience that those who are the most intolerant of opinions inconsistent with their own are generally the very same people who are unable to present much in the way of rational argument in support of the opinions they hold and cherish.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Many people still think it's a complete refutation of a preferred frame theory to mock the concept of the aether and claim it's been disproven.  Perhaps you're one of them, Vic, I can't remember.  

 

But they overlook (i.e, don't know) the fact that Einstein himself completely changed his position and later said the theory of general relativity would be "unthinkable" without an aether.  Of course an aether, as conceived by Lorentz, is in no way essential to a Neo-Lorentzian theory of relativity in any event.

 

Here's an excerpt from wiki on the topic:

 

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...It turns out that such matter exists...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."

 

 

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

 

But, of course, some uninformed person shouting "Einstein proved there is no aether!" is just one of many ways in which shallow posters think they have completely refuted the viability of a preferred frame theory.  Once they say that, they tell you they have "already covered" anything said in response.

 

Of course, they often add that anyone who disputes them is a damn fool who doesn't know anything about science, ya know?

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

We just expect some kind of reasonable response to cogent and logical objections to his unsupported assertions. 

 

 

Your idea of a "reasonable response" is determined by one thing, and only one thing, i.e.:   "Does it agree with my understanding?"

 

That is your sole criterion, to the ridiculous extent that you declare that a Nobel prize-winning physicist, and the vast majority of other physicists who agree with him, are "wrong" if they don't accept your half-baked understanding, eh?

 

Posted Yesterday, 12:08 PM

There is no such frame,Smoot is definitely wrong. The aether is not fundamentally a frame either.... If there is an aether, it is not stationary. And if it is, it goes against my undertstanding of spacetime and its fluidity. 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/32241-yes-you-can-go-faster-than-speed-of-light/?p=362605  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/32241-yes-you-can-go-faster-than-speed-of-light/?p=362609

Edited July 26, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Strong emotions, like HATE, demand strong remedial measures, no doubt, Vic.

 

I posted the SR was right because of experimental evidence, I have tried to explain this to you like I dunno about 5 times...that is why I want this thread locked... I hate people like you honestly....

Edited July 26, 2018 by Moronium

[sanctus]

Since my post yesterday,  I see how this thread is going: lot of insults from all sides, some (pseudo-?) science here and there.

I close this thread and since you guys (or some of you) wonder why and the reasons here they go:
 

1. It is not censorship, rather forcing you guys to a fresh start. I do not believe that there was only one topic of discussion in 80 pages...so if worried you were censored, just try creating a new thread with a subtopic of this one.
2. People seem more pissed at each other here rather than discuss, so what exactly is the point?
3.  Or might be subpoint 1.1: forces people to get back to discuss science and personalities of others.

Enjoy! :-)