What if relativistic symmetry is only an approximation?

Agreed..be sure to tell Schmelzer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most silly invalidated alternaive hypothesis threads do...check out chinglu's one about time dilation...probably holds the record until it was cesspooled.
You see people are obligated to refute your nonsense for the good of the community.
Which makes you the idiot...although I'm too polite to call you that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Keep it up, and you'll continue to be looked on as a crank by most here, and remain a nothing and a "never was".

Bullshit?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure Donald...all our qualified University Professors are like that.
But forgetting about your fairy tale world for a minute, and invoking Occam's Razor, the most realistic likely cause of your continued confusion is delusions of grandeur.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"This question is central to my research, and already contains an important difference between me and the "typical ether theorist", which usually claims that there is something wrong with relativistic symmetry. The very question implies that I accept that there is relativistic symmetry - the point is that I think this symmetry is only an approximate one."

I don't see any cosmology here, paddoboy.

Relativistic symmetry: After any accelerations necessary to reach different FoRs, it is impossible to distinguish what one observer sees from the other.

Start with both observers at rest in the same FoR. One of the observers is accelerated to a new FoR by an impulse (force acting over a time interval). Is there any observable difference between the two observers? There IS. Here's why:

Take one of paddoboy's black holes, or something nearly as massive as one before it collapses. Set it at some distance from the two observers in the different FoRs that we put in motion before. Whichever observer hits the black hole or gravitating mass with more/ less kinetic energy than would be the case if it started from rest, is the one that was accelerated.

One observer could have nearly attained the speed of light in a vacuum. We don't care. Because it is more likely that the massive black hole is closer to a state that is at rest relative to the quantum field that is at rest relative to virtual particles created or destroyed in the vacuum, you can actually make use of that fact to determine that relativity does not have perfect symmetry. All matter in the universe that is not subject to a force will be moving at a speed that is between that state of rest, and a speed of c with respect to a state of rest with respect to the aforementioned quantum field.

Even quantum field effects must be relative, so there must be two quantum fields in order for the 'speed' of light to make any sense. One of the quantum fields is at rest. The other field moves at the speed of light, in every direction, from every point through which virtual energy may propagate. Notice I made no mention of the concept of "space", because strictly speaking it doesn't exist, and relativity is the reason.

A quantum field through which virtual (and real) energy propagates at c, and also one that is at rest with respect to the FoR in which that virtual energy is created both exist. Euclidean space does not. Relativistic space does not exist at all (or is flat) for energy that propagates at a speed of c in any direction.

I couldn't care less what happened during the BB. I'm only interested in the way physics works right now. Today. I don't care about the BB because mainstream cosmology is the most speculative branch of the observational science of astronomy. As such, it does not affect our lives today, or even a few billion years ago. The past is gone, and we'll never see it again, much like Russell's orbiting teapot. If you believe that BB cosmology explains the contents of that teapot, that's fine by me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy has trashed the thread, as usual.

 

Both of you are throwing personal insults around far too often. When you do so it says more about you than your target.

Have you seen any of the professors polled using that kind of insult to make any point?

Both of you are contributing to a degradation of discussion and the forum overall!

We all slip on occasion letting an emotional response slip into how we respond in a post, but an occasional slip is not the same as constantly attacking the person rather than the science or opinion.

I am starting to think you both need a vacation.

 

Quit trolling Farsight.

 

Is Farsight right though ? brucep ?

 

Statistics is always been apart of the scientific thinking

 

Obviously you are correct OnlyMe. But just as obviously you realise the nature of the beast we are dealing with here.
This is primarily a science forum, and any student of science that so far has taken part with the present alternative hypothesis pushers we have, have at times been less then diplomatic with them. Yourself included from memory.
I don't want to go back and retrieve any examples of that, as it isn't that important, but if I am wrong just say so. I'll take your word for it.

Finally, as someone whom I do generally respect, despite sometimes disagreeing with you, I will try and contain myself to more dipolmatic replies.
I hope all participants do the same.

 

:shrug:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, why tell me? Tell the initiator of the thread.

?? One of paddoboy's BHs?? Strange comment.
BHs are simply a prediction of GR and that is supported by observational evidence.
If your are just attempting some weird form of sarcasm and don't believe BHs exist, then all you need to do is come up with another explanation explaining what we see, and get it peer reviewed.

And while you are at it, get that bit peer reviewed also.

That's nice.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Quite emotional although totally wrong but nice.
*wipes a tear from my eye*

 

Are you sure? Actually what I view as trash, is your past claim that you have a TOE.......Or was that just an emotive response after other nonsensical statements by you were shown to be false?

 

Well he claims to have a TOE...Something that the scientific world has been after for the last 50 years or so.
If he really had a TOE, do you think he would be here?
Or are you now going to go into conspiracy mode and start making excuses for him and all our other alternative hypothesis pushers, that have nowhere else to go to tickle failing egos?

 

Why is it that the people who are defending Rajesh are the ones with reputations for being cranks?

 

"cranks of a feather............"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Right about what? Somebody trashing this thread? These threads are trashed by everybody to some degree. Cranks like Farsight a whole bunch of trashing going on. Trolling in this case.

 

You're pretty much an idiot wind in my estimation. Crank. That's why I quit reading your posts. I never made any such claim about gravitational mass and GR. You don't even know who you're pissed off at.

 

Exactly. I had missed your post. It should have ended this tread.

 

And just to add, his interpretation of what I interpreted in the final paragraph of Einstein's leyden address is also way off, and specifically since I emphasised it was said near a 100 years ago.

 

It should, but it won't.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Our alternative cranks, "cranks of a feather" will continue railing against mainstream science on this forum, as it is the only place they have to boost their failing inflated egos.

 

I think given the way this thread has derailed (in a manner almost as terrifyingly spectacular as the recent Amtrak derailing in Philadelphia), now seems as good a time as ever for:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!