Search results

Can you put the reason you believe that SR is fatalistic into your own words? Summarise it for me, if you think I got it wrong. (I must have missed you recalling your 'brain dead' comments about posters who disagreed with you. :wave: )

Will you take back your comments about people being brain dead for disagreeing with you? You haven't taken the precaution of actually understanding the theories you are trying to critique. You are woefully ignorant of even the most basic physics principles (Newton's laws of motion, for...

The plane is not flying at am absolute speed of 600mph, but at that speed relative to the air. It is an airplane after all. And the air rotates with the earth, unless you have rejected Newton's First Law of Motion along with the rest of modern physics.

A bullet spins around is long axis which points at the target, so the air flow is symmetrical with no sideways forces, A curve ball spins around an axis at right angles to its path, which drags air around it asymmetrically to produce different air pressure on different sides, which makes it...

I gave a technical reason why those philosophers were wrong about the predeterminism of SR Care to comment? Or are you just posting third person opinions without understanding?

Dave was using the term predeterminism in the sense of fatalism. Fatalism implies a higher power, which SR doesn't imply. SR is deterministic, in the same sense that virtually all scientific theories are (quantum theories excepted), but Dave said (wrongly) that to accept SR was to accept...

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics, isn't it? What has that to do with Special Relativity? And predetermination is not part of SR, so you have got that wrong. SR is about the relationships between time and space (viz Lorentz transformations). The speed of light is a...

NASA does not control all of science. And science is done in the open, which you'd know if you paid attention to the news. For example, the Bicep2 project, run by a whole load of different universities from several countries, announced they had seen this B-mode light. But after publishing, the...

It is real science, but it is unknown if Chaotic Inflation (the theory that produces different regions with different physical laws, that you are calling multiverses) is correct. It is science because the theory makes specific predictions about how the universe that we can see. The prediction...

Your nice image and commentary is about another theory, General Relativity. Our discussion was about another theory entirely. This does prove, however, that you haven't fine your due diligence during this discussion - you freely should read a Special Relativity primer to avoid making silly...

No, they don't. Special Relativity explains why you cannot definitively determine an absolute speed through the universe, such that all speeds have to be made relative to another object. The various predictions and assumptions of relativity have all been tested rigorously. For example, the...

Can you find a single experiment that gives results other that those predicted precisely by Einstein's Relativity theories? Just one to sorry your argument that the theory is false? One actual experiment will be sufficient, since you brought up experimental support.

Pretty much everything you have said is untrue. You have absolutely no understanding of relativity and do nor even see the distinction between source and observer. And how can you not understand the key feature of relativity, that all measurements of the speed of light are the same for each...

Hi Dave. I watched the video, but the narrator makes claims about relativity that are not true in order to claim that Sagnac's experiment proves an aether exists. He is mistaken about relativity so his conclusions are wrong. (He said specifically that in relativity that light always moves at the...

Your conclusion is not consistent with observations of stellar aberration, so it is wrong. The conclusion that is consistent with both experiments is Einstein's special relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

Can you explain to me how the MM experiments tell us the earth isn't rotating, please? My guess is that I understand the details of these two experiments better than either of you.

Yes, when it is windy the air moves at a slightly different speed.

You have mixed up some different ideas. The atmosphere generally rotates with the Earth due to friction and gravity effects, but there are complications which caused you to reject the whole idea, whereas you only need a more nuanced understanding. For an aircraft in the air, to the first order...

You seem very sure of that without any evidence. And since you appealed for a proper debate, don't you think that name calling rather undermines you? For your information, planes do have to adjust for a rotating earth to the tune of maybe half a degree of turn on a five minute landing run. The...

Yup, they're no true Scotsmen.