SR Problem

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Aer, Aug 6, 2005.

  1. Anomalous Banned Banned

    I feel sorry for U MACM, Forgive them all, If you dont then I will feel pity for U, I told U before Channelize your energy, focus on your productivity , How old r U ? we have a short life and too much to do
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    MacM, do you understand what "implicitly", means?

    In any case, I have repeatedly shown your d=vt nonsense to be completely wrong (as has James R), and you've failed to make a comprehensive reply. Denying that I've done so does not make it any less true.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aer Registered Senior Member

    For the weak minded - I would imagine that is so.

    You cannot read as I clearly pointed out in RED (this time) that experiments done to measure any of those 3 results of special relatiivty would be different fromt he local ether theory. One must postulate the local ether theory if length contraction is shown to not be observed for example.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    I'm not here to play stupid insults games. If you don't want to talk physics then I have nothing to say to you other than to give back any BS you post regarding me.

    Thank you.
  8. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Forget Length contraction,relativity of simultaneity and reciprocity. No ether theory can afford that.

    It is you claimed :

    I am not interested in local ether theory piggy-bagging on experiments on SR. The priori for valid ether results needs to prove its existence first. Else you can replace "ether" with any imaginary "xyz".

  9. Aer Registered Senior Member

    Local ethers assume different results from relativity. Therefore experiments can be done to verify one or the other.

    And the different results are...

    Length Contraction

    Relativity of Simultaneity


    ... yep, the same ones you want to forget about.

    All I've ever claimed is that the local ether theory cannot be ruled out by any experiment ever done to date. But experiments are possible to be able to disprove it. These same experiments are possible to be able to disprove special relativity.

    I never said that I believe in one theory over the other - it is you who just wants to be able to stereotype people, so you make the wrong claim that I believe in the local ether theory and not the special relatiivty theory.

    When in reality, it is only YOU who believes in one of the theories over the other. (Presumably because you know nothing of the other theory - hell, not presumably, you've demonstrated that you know nothing about the other theory. But for some reason, you think you have the knowledge to debunk it).
  10. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    It seems that you don't have the habit of reading others' posts. Reading them would not be of much help to you anyway, that is different matter. But you should remember what you posted earlier or atleast read your current posts before or after hitting the submitt button.
  11. Aer Registered Senior Member

    You have a habit of not being able to comprehend what other people write in their posts. All of my posts have been consistent. In this thread AND IN EVERY OTHER THREAD.

    I do not claim special relativity has been 100% proven.

    I do not claim local ether theory is any more or less valid than special relativity.

    I do not subscribe to either as a "belief system".

    You are dense, I know. But this much should be clear to you by now.
  12. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Hmm.. not dense, but desperate of trying to drive through a thick brickwall of your ignorance.
  13. Aer Registered Senior Member

    NO! I believe you are quite dense.

    The following statement by you is just another example:
    And I need only quote previous statements by myself to prove it:

    The only one who has displayed any ignorance here is you.
  14. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    I am not dense, perhaps sarcastic or amusing or sometimes irritated at your blatant display of ignorance as a debating tool.
    Ether should stand on its own leg, for that all it requires is proving its existence first. If it is not done, any ether theory is a speculation and will have no equal footing with any scientific theory. This is as simple as i can put it.

    Your first statement is your well known assertion. For that matter no theory had been proven 100%.

    In second statement you are treating local ether theory at par with SR. The major difference between these 2 theories is, one is speculative, still requires a scientific proof for its own existence AND the other theory, SR, stands on scientific foundation.

    Your 3rd statement is a farce. Your treatment of local ether theory as having a scientific validity is nothing but belief.

    You don't realize or do refuse to accept your own contradications.
  15. Aer Registered Senior Member

    You are dense.

    Agreed. No problem here.

    Holy crap! When did I ever say it should have an equal footing in science? I only said you cannot dismiss it - not that it should be taught in physics courses! You are flat out dismissing it, which would only be appropriate if you had evidence to do so. You may have a personal dislike for it, but you shouldn't tell other people it is wrong just because you don't like it. You can only claim it is wrong if it is proven wrong. You apparently don't like the theory - so why are you here discussing it? Your ignorance has shown through so many times that you would have been better off if you had just walked away a long time ago. I am not going to accept that the local ether theory is flat out wrong unless I have a good reason to. Same applies to special relativity - I do not regard it as flat out wrong either! I may raise points about certain aspects that haven't been proven, but that is another matter which you fail to understand as well.

    That is why it is a theory. Laws are regarded as 100% proven so to speak. A theory can be quite accurate yet still have some fundamental flaw.

    I would argue that both require scientific proof. The problem is, you do not understand that length contraction has never been observed. Niether has the relativity of simultaneity or reciprocity.

    No, your belief that it has no scientific validity and that special relativity is the theory with any scientific validity is nothing but a belief! Personally, I do not regard the local ether theory any better than special relativity, but I know they are not the same.

    There are no contradictions on my part. Your feeble mind just can't comprehend the idea of considering two different theories at the same time. It's all or none with you - one or the other - no room for analysis.
  16. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    I am asking you for the evidence of ether's existence for the sake of not to dismiss it as you like, still more clear?

    I can stay clear of cranks as for as educating them is concerned. But it is my pleasure to expose them and walk away.

    obviously not an inch of deepshit is reduced still.

    See you next week for any improvement on your part.
  17. Aer Registered Senior Member

    No! You've already dismissed it and refer to it as crank (see below). I've already told you there is no evidence to confirm it. If there was such evidence - I wouldn't claim special relativity has any validity!

    See, you call me a crank because I do not dismiss the local ether theory! Too bad a crank is someone with their own theories that are different from mainstream physics and as such reject mainstream physics. I will note for you that the local ether theory is not mine and is not found on any crank websites.

    Yes, you are as dense as ever.

    I'll be here - hopefully you'll return with a clear mind and not be so cranky.

Share This Page