The MM experiment is wrong!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by tomtushey, May 3, 2022.

  1. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Yes, if i push a coin in a jackpot i can expect that the result can be different of the precedent result.
    If not three time, i begin to suppose the machine is broken.

    And yes i am proudly a sloth.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,659
    You spelt Troll incorrectly

    Physics dictated the value are you going to say it should be another value?

    If so will you have the mathematics and formulas which would confirm YOUR value?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Physics can not dictate anything.
    Physic is the human description of the real (the phenomenon).
    Human can not dictate how the reality should be.
    You should at least know this and not make the confusion between the physic and the phenomenon.

    You are very naive if you think every phenomenon can be described in physic by some formulas.

    This kind of phenomenon (expansion at every scale) can only be confirmed at large scale using complex simulation (so you need very powerfull computer to confirm it at the scale of some cluster of galaxy).
    The only thing you can do at the beginning (of the understanding) is to admit the phenomenon (i have briefly exposed above) and see that it is plausible.
    I have already give you the link to some study whose hypothsis is that photon act like a soliton (but if you never take in accound new knowledge you will stay stucked with your false physic understanding).
    Furthermore, regarding the pdescribed phenomenon, you can not see this directly if your intelligence is average in 3D modelisation and if you dont have some general skill in simulation of phenomenon (using your brain of course).

    But one might have some insight when he begin to admit that SR is only a mathematical description (like i have already told you) and dont give the physicaly underlying reasons of the phenomenon and that there are some strange behaviour that seem to occur (this apply also to QM).

    PS : Ah yes, and i forgot to mention that the simulation will confirm you that there is a relation between the Hubble constant (wich is not constant) and the speed of light
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,659
    Seems to be doing a good job so far COMPELLING even

    All atoms seem to be towing the line. Have not heard from any scientists who has found a disobedient atom

    OK??? Describe said phenomenon in your OWN manner and this naive Minion will try to keep pace

    I take from above you do not have a very powerfull computer but you do know one is needed to confirm it at the scale of some cluster of galaxy


    I forgot
    - No you didn't it's in the PS

    that the simulation will confirm

    Ummm if you know the simulation will confirm what whateves have you used which has lead you to conclude that?

    naive Minion awaiting future Nobel Prize winner pronouncements in shivering antisssssi--Pation

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    But this is exactly what you previously said...but you surely dont understand yourself the contradiction you are saying.

    You only dictate something to somebody which is not obedient.

    So try first to understand what physic is.
    https://books.google.fr/books?id=BP...his is not a pipe science fundamental&f=false
     
  9. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Physic is only a way to do some representation of "the reality".
    We dont kow what reality is but it is the source of our interaction with have with it and therefore the source of physic descripion
    Physisc is therefore some kind of "point of view" uppon reality.
    It dosent rule over reality, it is relying on reality.
     
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,607
    Since you have demonstrated a profound ignorance of physics, your opinion can safely be ignored.
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,931
    On the contrary, there's no point in trying to dictate to somebody who won't obey anyway. Dictation is for the obedient.
     
  12. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Oh yes, sure, and thats why people are scared about dictators...
    You are very stupid, but i am also sure you dont know it.
     
  13. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Hafele and Keating's experiment is not a repeat of Michelson Morley it is closer to an implementation of the twin paradox and Brillet and Hall was explained by Klauber and Chou et al doesn't claim anything inconsistent with relativity as far as I know (don't have access to that one). I expect you're misrepresenting the rest too.
     
  14. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Wow looks like Tushey's going to get pushed out of this thread because he writes crap so much more slowly than Dicart.
     
    sideshowbob and exchemist like this.
  15. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    I welcome your comments, your points are forward-looking and will further help to clarify positions. Your position is sympathetic, but perhaps you have not gotten to the end of your train of thought. I hope it ends up the same as what I have written and below.
    I would like to elaborate a little on the question you quoted. We have others tell about 5 physics professors that they understand relativity. They let this honorific title stay on them, as it is a job occupation and a justified good salary, prestige, and unverifiable claim. "The more sincere say that I cultivate relativity theory as an official occupation. Do not they ask me if I understand? In my judgment, I understand it for 15 days of the year, but not the rest of the year, but I work hard at it." When I try to corner him with a question, he deftly dodges the answer.
    The reason I asked you to search and post is to find a specialist here in England who is also a recognized and highly qualified specialist, so his opinion carries weight. On the other hand, he has maximum knowledge of the subject and claims that relativity theory is OK and can be based on it. I think not. It is internally contradictory logically and mathematically. Not to mention that nature itself refutes it from many sides. This is MY opinion, and I would like to make everyone accept it. It is true that this can only be done if you accept the ether as the all-filling and all-determining substance. I am aware that acceptance will be terribly difficult, it is a paradigm shift.
     
  16. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    What you wrote above could also apply to me. Consider my text to Dicart, my comment, as being addressed to you. I hope it will help you to understand my position on relativity. I ask you to formulate your own position succinctly, as I have done.
     
  17. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    I will ask my secretaries to help me translate into English the small essay where the text refers to the Michaelson experiment. I would ask you for a little patience.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,370
    You have not been able, despite being asked, to give us even one example of an observation of nature that contradicts relativity.

    So we have no reason to take your opinions seriously.

    Anti-relativity cranks are all over the internet. Usually they are retired engineers who can’t face dealing with non-Newtonian physics. None of these people has any credibility.
     
  19. tomtushey Registered Member

    Messages:
    79
    The debate on relativity has been going on for 100 years, it should not now be accelerated to horse-race speed. I ask you Ssss to please stop the personalities and opinion terrorism. You Ssss is far from the standard of scientific debate.
     
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,607
    OK. I agree with Special and General Relativity. Succinct enough?
    Nope, it has been settled long ago. Do you know that relativity is taught in EVERY reputable institution of learning. There is no debate, except for loonies on the internet.
     
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,931
    People aren't scared about dictators. People love dictators. That's why there are so many of them.
    I leave it to other people to decide how stupid I am. I tend to go by consensus - and I like to think yours is a minority opinion.

    I'm with the majority on YOUR intelligence/stupidity.
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,370
    Relativity is a supreme example of settled science. There has been no scientific debate about it since some of the more stupid nazis tried to disparage it as Jewish science.
     
  23. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Who says this? Let me guess the answer you'll give because it's the same as every other conspiracy nut that loads of senior people have told you personally in confidence that they don't believe X but they have to pretend to because "They" will hound them out of a job if they break ranks. X can be moon landing conspiracies or evolution or relativity or chemtrails or whatever it is you don't believe in and it's a lie for every one.
    Are you talking about me? What question have I dodged apart from your irrelevant Dyson sphere stuff?
    For you to say this you must either be able to provide a worked example showing relativity leading to two different conclusions using two different correct applications of relativity or else be a liar. In the 62 posts you've made so far you have shown nothing so I think you know you have no justification for this claim that would stand up to any scrutiny.
    You say this a lot but you never provide evidence to back this up so it really looks as if you don't have any evidence.
    Why? You never provide any evidence to support your opinion.
    Wait what? I don't care about what you write just copy paste the paragraph from the paper.
    No mate. The debate on relativity versus ether was settled nearly a century ago and ether theories were falsified except Lorentz's version that's got nothing in common with your rubbish.
    I was just amused by the possibility of your crap being crapflooded out of your thread by a more prolific writer of crap but he seems to have stopped.
    I gave you three criticisms of your "theory". You admitted that you were relying on Einstein's maths and therefore accepting the invariance of the speed of light and therefore contradicting yourself. You admitted that you had no maths and were therefore unable to make predictions from your theory. My third criticism which you have completely ignored is that dragged ether was falsified by astronomical observations over a century ago. None of this is about "personality" and I don't even know what "opinion terrorism" is.
    You contradict yourself and you have incredibly low standards of rigour in your thinking and you ignore criticism and try to change the topic to avoid it and you want to talk to me about scientific debate? Wow.
     

Share This Page