GR works with an arbitrary geometry only because gravitation is very slow. But it's time we learned the finer points about the realities of inertia itself, both linear and rotational, and that's not going to happen with a geometry that is only an approximation. GR's success is largely based in its assumptions of no aether, and its strict adherence to relativistically constrained geometries. I grow weary of the fallacy of populist arguments. Eat excrement. A billion or more flies and dung beetles can't be wrong. They're probably not wrong, so if you think it is tasteful, by all means, have at it. For the record, I received a grade of D in the freshman physics course taught by a minion of Minkowski. I was pretty bummed about it at the time, and this instructor probably knew that failure might have meant both forfeiture of my scholarship and deployment to the jungles of Vietnam. I still have PTSS from my first college physics course however. I wouldn't have made it without Miriam's help. But I received an A+ the following semester with a better instructor in the same course without so much as cracking open the textbook. I kept my scholarship, and graduated with a BS in physics from College Park three years later. That was fun. Let's do it again some time.
That SR and GR are insanely successful in their applications is not a populist argument, it is an account of the wealth of evidence for them, even if they are only very, very accurate approximations. This is real evidence that the assumptions made by these theories are supported. That you don't like these these theories or their assumptions, or that you haven't figured out how to use them properly, is not the problem of the theories or their assumptions. If you want to defeat these theories, you have to produce a theory that is a serious rival to these theories. That means developing something that can describe the world as well and gather evidence from actual observations as well. You have made no attempt to do this.
And with the current attitude the physics community has copped about retired engineers, this will never happen. I don't have another lifetime to invest in scientific research, and those who already are certainly should not be having second thoughts about what they were taught or how they are going about it. To tell the truth, I probably wouldn't either. I'm sure it's all for the best.
There is this popular crank imagination that there aren't serious academics out there taking a deep look at the assumptions and reasoning of contemporary physics. There is ample freely available evidence that there are such people engaged in such projects.
Thanks for your encouragement on some points as well as your discouragement on others. No complaints. I solicit both and appreciate them. One other random thought about the current state of incompatibility between the Standard Model and GR occurred to me as we were discussing various issues here. The Standard Model and the math that supports it, in common with the Wheeler-Dewitt equation, has in many instances jettisoned time as a variable and replaced it with probability in order to eliminate infinities. This has been a most successful technique, to say the least, and I do not criticize it. I applaud it as one of the best tradeoffs I have ever seen in mathematics. But if what I have presented here is correct, that light travel time is the only dimension which exists in this universe, then the technique of eliminating it has done something unintended. It has unintentionally jettisoned the concept of "space" from those equations along with it as well. Talk about tossing out the baby with the bathwater! If "space" has been inadvertently discarded from the Standard Model along with time, there is exactly zero chance anyone using it will understand the full dynamics of inertia, because as I have said, inertia is all about the linear or rotational confinement of energy or a lack thereof. Confinement is all about space. Space is all about light travel TIME. Without space (meters), ENERGY becomes FORCE, something quite different and distinct from inertia. So you can see how a technique for eliminating singularities involving time may have inadvertently eliminated a critical variable that was really needed in order to understand inertia. It was a long way to go to say this, but it had to be said. I apologize if anyone thinks it's just another crank idea for "the box".
So from the experiments show why light doesn't travel at c + v, when the experiments show logically c+v. I can build a house from mud and sticks and call it a "house" or I can use bricks and mortar. With enough effort and fudging you can make anything produce very accurate approximations. As scientists should you not be progressing to the facts and start dismissing the assumptions. Its real evidence that with enough fudging anything you can come up with will show approximations. Assumptions are the mother of all f ups. Thats why I will forever search for the classical mechanic explanation that obviously must exists. This is a well engineered machine. We are trying to build such, but always get interrupted by people like you once we start searching for new ways to do things. Telling us how good your theories are and blowing your trumpet to discourage the "cranks" from exposing your stupidity or coming up with other ways to do things. Yes take us for example and how do we know that your serious academics are any better analyzing and searching than we are? AN? you use the same coward tactics...
This seems spectacularly unhelpful, since it is impossible to identify a single video from this description. Do not kid yourself: you have not presented that light is the only dimension which exists in the universe. You have not given us a way to describe even the simplest toy system using this idea. It is till so vague that I don't think that even you have an idea on how this works.
Cool story, bro. I understand that you speak in ignorance, but all one can ever get in physics is approximations. It's the nature of our reality. And the history of science is looking at what assumptions one can get rid of. Getting rid of the assumptions of absolute simultaneity and absolute space lead not only to a leaner set of assumptions but also better accuracy in approximations. If you would rather have a less accurate science with assumptions that you prefer, you are welcome to it. Everyone else will continue to use computers and satellites while you return to technology from the beginning of the 2oth C. This is simply not true. If you can produce a coherent system of coordinates in which we can use your c+v ideas, then present it. Well, you could look at their work; it's often freely available. A crank doesn't want to know the truth or work with science. A crank wants to hold on to the idea that they are or have the one truth. It's a psychological thing, not a science thing.
It is quite a cool story... What do you know of the nature of reality? For all you know in future there might be a theory that doesn't include assumptions. It might be easier than you think. The future too I hope. You live in the past I understand that. You want to tell everyone who doesnt agree with you they dont know what they talking about, when the truth is nobody really does understand. Nope, I search for a theory that doesn't include assumptions. You know like using experiments to define the outcome and letting nature have the last say. This is a experiment to show the lines of which I search, thats that. A real scientist would understand that it take time to realise the potential of new information and where it could end up. Its an experiment I thought up to test theory and you dont like it, fine. It might be completely wrong and get trashed, so what? At least I tried and didn't do it hiding from your wrath. As are mine. nothing to hide. Let me fix that for you. A crank doesn't want to know the truth or work with NATURE. A crank wants to hold on to the idea that they are or have the one truth. It's a psychological thing, not a science thing. I dont have any truth thats why I search for it, but you on the other hand are the one whos got all the true theories, isn't it? You describe yourself spot on there. Ever wonder why the so called "scientists" are so good at spotting "cranks"? Its easy to describe yourself and takes one to know one. you know all those quack ideas you have and never tell anyone about, because you fear your peers. So does light travel at c + v or what?
Given any reasonable definition of "scientific theory", I am quite confident in saying a priori that they will have assumptions. And given the history of physics and how evidence is gathered, I am quite confident that any physical theory can, at best, produce approximations. I want to tell you that you don't understand. Because you don't understand. I don't care about everybody. Then you will fail. That is impossible. One can only use experiments in some context of understanding. OK. But what is your excuse for not trying to learn? It certainly doesn't appear to do so.
This is a surprisingly perceptive definition. It is exactly what you have been doing. This thread has been an opportunity for you to learn, and is certainly full of resource you could use to broaden your knowledge. But you reject expanding your knowledge, and instead circle around your truth, simply repeating it over and over like a mantra. Indeed you do. It is embodied in the thread title and repeated at least once or twice every page of the thread. It is strongly reminiscent of the mantras cult members use to drown out new thoughts: Bring the money. Stay awake. Stamp out Satan. Bring the money. Stay awake. Stamp out Satan. Light travels at c+v. Light travels at c+v.
logically explain why it "appears" not to. As I have logically explained why appears to from the experiment.
No. You are drawing a conclusion. It is a faulty one. No observer in any frame of reference ever measures the speed of light to be moving at anything other than c. Full stop. Look, if light were to travel at c+v then how could Alice set up an experiment with TWO lasers pointed in opposite directions, and still get c for both of them? Do you propose that, in the left setup, light is traveling at c+v, while in the right setup, two feet away, light is traveling at c-v?
While being totally true, this coincedently is what cranks, god botherers and anti science nuts quickly latch onto to attempt to add some credibility to the nonsense they propose. Agreed again, the real problem though that I see are the cranks that post their nonsense in the science sections to try and reflect an air of credibility.
Oh ok no proof needed just your word saying it is so...Whats faulty about saying there is no drift? We cant prove we are moving lmfao
Ah. You're now denying the very experiments you brought to the discussion. Remember your 'no drift' argments?
Address this: Look, if light were to travel at c+v then how could Alice set up an experiment with TWO lasers pointed in opposite directions, and still get c for both of them? Do you propose that, in the left setup, light is traveling at c+v, while in the right setup, two feet away, light is traveling at c-v?[/QUOTE]
Yes thats why there is no drift, because you are assuming that the + one is in the direction of propagation where that is not the case it can be to the left or right. And always in the same direction for both beams.
One beam is facing the direction of motion, the other beam is facing opposite the direction of motion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
