Is the Lorentz transformations really true?

geocities.com/udenizyar

I have send this paper to the editors of the galilean electrodynamics
journal, but could not get any response. Some other journals require a
charge for publishing. I could not upload it to the arxiv.org website,
because they require endorsement. To find an author that may endorse
my paper, I have searched the papers about the Lorentz transformations
and see that no paper in arxiv.org has an opinion that the Lorentz
transformations may be wrong. So I decide to construct my own web page
to publish it. I hope it will be useful to make physics more
consistent.

Ufuk Denizyar

"udenizyar" <uden...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:19cc8cce-ef83-433d...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

...

They are wrong for non-inertial frames, and when gravitation
applies.

That paper doesn't do it. Your top margins are messed up
starting with page 2.

The second postulate is unnecessary, since as you point out,
Maxwell (as one of the laws of physics) dervies a constant c as a
*result*.

The twin paradox is not a paradox, and acceleration is not
necessary within the duration of the experiment to show it. A
stationary, B moving at 0.866c, C moving wrt A at 0.866c but
opposite direction to B and so many light months away, B
synchronizes with A in passing, C synchronizes with B in passing.
The "stay at home twin" does not have to be living on any
gravitating body, and for special relativity to apply, must occur
in empty space, with all observers and their ships to have
negligible mass.

The aether you refer to has been disproven since before 1900.
Your aether is medium for light, but not light-bound-matter. MMX
shows that there is no difference in the medium that light and
matter propagate through. Stellar aberration shows that aether
is not dragged. This leaves the Lorentz aether, where lengths
are truly contracted. Since you use the Lorentz transform, guess
which aether you are forced to attack? Since the Lorentz
transforms correctly describe experimental results, guess why you
cannot find someone to back your efforts?

Because you have difficulty in explaining the paradoxes brought
about by "frame jumping", does not mean that everyone does. I'd
recommend these:

http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/
http://www.motionmountain.net/detailedcontents.html
... Second Part, 12Mb

They key is that you cannot combine measurements in two different
frames without getting a "paradox". If you make a trip to and
from the store taking two different routes, you would not be
surprised that different "distances" had elapsed on both the
odometer and the clock. But the crow that flies back and forth
between those two points, agrees with none of your figures, and
thinks you are "inconsistent".

There are thousands of web pages that show their authors don't
understand special relativity, and yours is just one more.

David A. Smith

You mean, you couldn't convince even the idiots at Galilean
Electrodynamics? Tsk,tsk!

So sad. If you think the Lorentz transformation cn be empirically
falsified, propose an experiment whose falsification does not
contradict prior observation.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Automatically wrong. Not even worth reading.

Since the Lorentz transformation can be shown to be related to
ordinary rotations in the plane, I guess that means they're
inconsistent too. Oops. I just rotated my coordinate system by an
arbitrary angle, proving that your idea is very silly indeed.

Unfortunately, you have fallen victim to the most common trap of the
crank.
"I do not understand special relativity, so there must be something
wrong with it."

The twin paradox is not a paradox. It is a teaching puzzle, designed
to bring out and correct misconceptions that arise from a shallow
understanding of relativity. If you fail to see how the twin puzzle is
not really a paradox at all, then it has failed to teach you what it
is aimed to teach you. You may need to find a better instructor.

Above all things, do not bother publishing to vanity journals like
Galilean Electrodynamics. Some of these scam games charge you fees to
publish in them up front. Others publish for free and then they hit
you up endlessly to buy a subscription or "reprints", appealing to
your vanity that tempts you to see your own name in print.

You're better off posting to a blog and being done with it.

PD

BULLSHIT!
Explain where the time went dingleberry.
Where was the travelign twin for all the missing time
the "at home" twin says he was gone for.

It is a paradox and only fools like you think it is a "teaching tool".
The only thing it teaches are who the morons are that don't ask
Where did the dang missing time go?
:)

It should be used correctly.
It is a perfect teaching tool to show that clock malfunctioned
and the on board twin did not know and could not tell.

You should stop teaching that it is not a paradox PD,
It is very bad scientific teaching.
In fact.. it is not "scientific" at all.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman

Ufuk Denizyar

No, the file was sufficienly readable.

I read part of it.

In section 2, I found some typing errors in the algebra (which I'm
sure you can find when you carefully go over the w's and the v's
in section 2.3), but other than that this section is pretty correct,
although you could have saved a lot of algebra in section (2.2)
by working with the *inverse* transformation, and stating that
t_0 = t_1
immediately implies that
X_1 - X_0 = (x_1-x_0) / b(v).
and thus
x_1 - x_0 = (X_1-X_0) b(v) = Dx b(v)
Your reasoning and algebra are correct but needlessly complicated.

Then I started reading section 3, and having reached the end of
3.2.1, decided not to comment.
This is really hopeless. Sorry.

Oh, no I definitely do not - I'm not like that :-)

Dirk Vdm

But much of it is. And your "logical leap" from your personally
finding the LT "inconsistent" despite your errors in implementing
them, is yet another classic.

Wrong.

You apparently did not read my comment.

> Not very surprise indeed.

Your response is no surprise indeed. There are many here that have
built large structures of their own words to defend early mistakes
they have made, and completely ignore any attempts to help them out of
their morass.

So you write to confuse people who don't know any better, so that you
will have company in your ignorance? They call these people
"religious leaders".

David A. Smith

Hey, Spaceshit. If you and I both drive from one place to another, and
you drive directly there while I tour the countryside, and my trip is
much longer, where did all your missing distance go? Explain where the
distance went!

If two infant twin girls get separated, and one goes flying through the
galaxy while the other stays put, and they meet to find that one is a
beautiful young lady pregnant with her first child (I guess she has some
companionship) while the other is an old crone who looks about 80, whose
clock "malfunctioned"?

The two trips have different distances to begin with.
No missing distance at all.
The clocks are supposed to be "keeping" the same rate of time.
They don't.
If you can not tell the difference between missing time and missing
distance, you are lost in spacetime and will never be back.
I feel sorry for you.

Poor idiot.
The one that goes into space will lose all bone marrow way
before the one that stayed home did and therefore will "seem"
a lot older. not younger.
You are a freakin moron.
A gullible dingeberry that thinks twins can age differently even if
both are the same revolutions of Earth wrt The Sun old no matter
where they go, nor what the clocks state.
Learn how a clock works asshole, then you might be allowed
back in science.
:)

Yes, this paper draws out the Einstein Dingleberries who do not
understand SR at all but think they do and accuse the ones who do that
they don’t. Ahahaha...

Any reasonable scholars would just toss the Lorentz transform into the
trashbin just like Voigt did in 1887. Einstein Dingleberries, on the
other hand, would do anything to lick up the last drop of Einstein’s
fermented diarrhea. Ahahahaha...

These Einstein Dingleberries are so pathetically stupid that they do
not even know so. That is OK because a mushroom does not know how
stupid it is as well. Ahahahaha...

Thanks for the badly needed entertainment in these very bad economical
conditions. We are heading into another great depression.

Why didn't you just post

http://www.geocities.com/udenizyar/lt2.pdf

I suppose you mean "Galilean Electrodynamics" journal at

http://www.galileanelectrodynamics.com/

If so, then your paper isn't bashing Einstein enough for them. They
are against anything resembling Relativity.

Actually it doesn't make physics more consistent. You assume in the
paper that distance can be defined in terms of absolute time. However,
that would entail a speed of light in a vacuum that is observer-dependent
and that would be inconsistent with experiment.

Then you go and try to explain some of the results that are unique to
Relativity, like the twin paradox, in terms of your results, despite
the fact that oddly enough, those results are consequences of the
correctness of the very Lorentz transformation that you are trying to
prove wrong. So your paper is self-contradictory and thus not very
scientific.

Add in some of the mispellings:

"affect" instead of "effect" (page 2)
"Let" instead of "Let's" (page 2)
"standart" instead of "standard" (page 3)
...and others

and you can see why no scientist wants to endorse your paper.

--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!

Ufuk Denizyar

The TimeLord yazdı:

no comment!

Thanks for the corrections.

Ufuk Denizyar

Ok, you are partly right. It seems that my assumption about the
responses is wrong. However, most of the answers is about the twin
paradox and it is only a small part of the paper. Another think is
that my aim of publishing this paper is to contribute to physics not
to discuss twin clock experiment. You may accept or reject the ideas
in the paper. I will try to answer, but unless point out any logical
or mathematical errors or any other type of thing that makes the paper
not readable or understandable or make a contribution, the discussion
of them here with me is worthless as I beleive that all the things
that I can say about them is already there.

Ufuk Denizyar

Ufuk Denizyar

Smiffy is an ignorant bigot, Ufuk old chap, he is not even partly right.

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Your answer goes here:

________________________________________________________

Other answers have been:

According to Ian Parker:

"We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory." -- Idiot Ian Parker.
______________________________________________________

According to cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch

"Easy: he did NOT say that."
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.

______________________________________________________

According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
______________________________________________________

According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
______________________________________________________

According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:

" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."

According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
______________________________________________________

According to Dork Bruere
"I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
______________________________________________________

According to Spirit of Truth:

that math is correct but WRONG
______________________________________________________
According to constipated Eric Gisse
"I don't give a shit (fill in the blank ____________)."

______________________________________________________

According to insane Einstein dingleberry Dave Burr
"No, that's utterly wrong."
According to the insane Dave Burr, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.

______________________________________________________

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

And in the twin paradox, the two twins travel different distances through
spacetime. No missing time at all.

I know this blows your little mind, but there you are.

They keep proper time in their own frames.

We already know by giving atomic clocks worldwide tours on airliners,
the travelling clock keeps less time. You attribute this to "clock
malfunctioning" but seem to admit it happens. I'm just stating take the
known effect and do it at a much higher level, so much so that one twin
ages appreciably less than the other.

Whose clock "malfunctioned" ? Where is this clock?

Don't try to derail the discussion by cosmic ray effects or whatever it is
that you mean by mentioning bone marrow.

Speaking of cosmic rays, explain how muons from cosmic rays manage to reach
earth's surface, experiencing time at about 1/9th the rate it "should",
according to their halflife. Where is their "malfunctioning" clock?

The travelling twin will see fewer earth revolutions.

It is you who is anti-science. Name just one experiment that disproves
SR. You can't!

No moron,
They travel different distances and exist for the same amount of
time and the traveling twins clock malfunctioned according to
the "at home" clock and the Entire Universe.
No missing time is correct but the clock has malfunctioned
fixes that problem.

In your silly world, the "at home" twin says the traveling twin
has been gone for the amout of time on the "at home" twins
clock.
You still have a paradox in your stupidity "spacetime" world.
You truly do not know the difference between space and
time huh?
Skipped classical physics completely didn't ya?
Sheesh.

What blows my mind is how stupid people like you are,
and how easily you have been brainwashed to think so
illogically.

No they don't.
If such was true, I can spin a pendulum clock around my head til
it does not tick anymore and that means time stopped for
it's "frame of reference" and the pendulum clock did not
malfunction.
You are a brainwashed moron that never learned how clocks
work, and also never learned the history of "time" or that it is
an "abstract" dimension, not a physical dimension.
Proof yet again, you skipped classical physics completely.

Life of a contained particle can not be compared to life of a natural
particle.
Just like any life "contained" will cause a difference compared to
any "free and natural" life.
You truly are lost in rubber ruler land.
If I put you in a cage and did not feed you or let you roam
in your natural habitat, you would not live longer either.
Does that mean you traveled slower in time because you
were "contained"?
Sheesh!

Brainwashed beyond repair and it is all because you must
have skipped classical physics completely and never learned
what "time" actually is.

No it will not.
Earth revolutions wrt the Sun are "absolute" to all frames.

Name one experiment that proves green flying elephants
do not exist.
You can't!

But I have posted experiments that prove SR is wrong.
But of course you have been too brainwashed to grasp
such simple physical facts.

Dear Spaceman: Again... :-) ! — NoEinstein —

Dear Koobee: Once again (from years ago): Way to go! :-) —
NoEinstein —

What you have done is to describe a few (thought) experiments,
and guessed what the Lorentz transform would predict for them.
You are guessing that the predictions would be self contradictory
(different predictions for the same observation).

In all of you "experiments", the real predictions of
the Lorentz transform can quite easily be calculated.
Why didn't you do that?
Then you would see that your guesses based on loose speculations
(and faulty logic) are simply wrong.

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

There you go, with your brake cleaner-addled mind unable to wrap itself
around time dilation in SR. You can only understand the normal experience
of constant time so you extrapolate that to everywhere and all conditions,
even though science has long ago shown us SR is correct.

Correct.

Only if you insert incorrect assumptions.

Obviously you don't understand how they relate.

I know classical physics just fine. I also know that it is an
approximation of SR, at low (nonrelativistic) velocities.

Get with it. This is the 21st century! At least catch up to the 20th
century!!

It's amazing how logical SR is, when all steps are followed.

Learn the difference between a clock and time. Stopping a clock does
not stop time. The fact I can manually turn the hands on an analog
clock doesn't make time advance at the rate of 10 minutes per second.

^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^

More evidence you dont't know the difference between clocks and time.

There you go again, trying to deflect away from the problem stated.
First you try to deflect with something about bone marrow damage, now
something about lack of food. You have it exactly backwards, anyway, since
in the twin "paradox" the travelling twin (supposedly "contained") is the
one who ages _less_, not more!

Learn the difference between proving the nonexistence of something and
disproving a scientific claim. Disproving a scientific claim is easy -
provide _one_ example where it is wrong! _Proving_ there is no such
thing as green flying elephants is impossible, while _disproving_ that
claim is "easy" - show just one green flying elephant!

Show one. I mean an actual, reproduceable experiment. I don't mean
something where you start to describe an experiment and suddenly jump
to a preconceived conclusion. An actual experiment.

You are really good at posting tons of meaningless drivel Mike.
It is funny how you can ignore how a clock works and the difference
between an abstract and a physical dimension in order to support
your religion.

The one second of light experiment was posted.
Neither time dilation, nor length contraction could
save the experiment from proving lightspeed is not constant
to all frames and is only constant to "at rest" frames.

If you can not grasp the simplicity of the experiment,
Try stepping into the 21st century where we finally figured
out how clocks work "AGAIN".
Sheesh.
Poor Mike still refuses to learn how clocks work.
LOL

Dear Michael: Next time you go somewhere on a jetliner, notice that
you seem to be walking up hill when going to the "cramped facility",
and downhill when going back to your seat. This is after the pilot
has told you that the plane is at cruising speed at, say, 40,000
feet. That jetliner is side impacting the ether (gravity) that is
flowing down toward the Earth. A portion of that ether flows through
the plane and pushes against people or clocks. Clocks of any kind,
even biological, will run slower when subjected to a higher
gravitational force. Einstein's SR has nothing to do with it! As I
keep saying, every observation that purports to 'uphold' Einstein's
theories can be correctly explained as: Varying ether density and
flow. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein wrote:

Maybe you are on to something here. Time always seems to go slower
when I am walking back to the restroom. It then speeds up when I
am on my way back to my seat. I do have a question though. How
does your ether (should be aether, not the chemical) know whether
the restroom is in the front or back of the plane?

Spaceman wrote:

So, in other words, you cannot point to any experiment.
We all, except you, know how clocks work.
Try something else.

I don't have to point to an experiment,
I posted a complete experiment on this group.
Why would I bother pointing at another when only a single
one is needed?

Spaceman wrote:

You posted what you thought an experiment would show. You
started out by assuming what you wanted to prove.
An experiment involves actually doing something. Just
throwing out some words that you claim prove what you say
is not an experiment.
What you are saying is that no experiment supports you so
you have to imagine one and hope that noone notices that it
is not real. You will have to do better than that.

I posted an experiment that proves lightspeed is not constant
to all frames and the experiment posted also is immune
to length contraction and time dilation will only make relativity
more wrong about the speed of c beign constant to all.
lightspeed is constant only to "at rest" frames.
Why you like to be a moron is a better experiment to
conduct now.
:)

You did no such thing. You posted a hypothetical situation and then
said "This is what WILL happen" in that hypothetical situation. A
scientist does not do that. He sets it up and then looks to see what
really does happen. You don't bother looking. You don't really want to
look.

:>)
When was the last time you were on a jetliner? Did the pilot give you
a pair of plastic wings to pin onto your Oshkoshes?

Spaceman wrote:

You have no idea what an experiment is. You did not post an
experiment. You thus have no experimental results to show
and can say nothing about the results of any experiment.
To get results from an experiment, you have to actually
do it.

I posted the setup for the experiment.
An experiment that is simple to do and the data will speak on it's
own.
You don't understand the experiment so you of course do not agree
on the outcome.
But as usual you are wrong.

You poor fool,
An experiment is the setup,
the results of the experiment are the outcome.
I posted an experiment and you are the clueless one.
It is a simple experiment and the results are simple enough
to come to without even performing it but of course you are
too brainwashed to realize such facts about the results.
:)

Yes you did. And then you said what the outcome would be without
actually setting it up.

You're clairvoyant!

(Look it up.)

I gave a general prediction of the basic outcome based upon the most
simple physics known to mankind..
Nothing wrong with that at all.
I see you still don't get it because it is too simple for you.
:)

Ah, a prediction is fine. Now it needs to be tested.
Science is full of experiments where the outcome came out to be
completely different than what was expected. That's what makes it
interesting.

Spaceman wrote:

It does not matter what setup you posted, you have not done the
experiment and thus do not know the result. You know what you want
the experiment to show so you just proclaim that it shows what
you want. That is not how real science works.

Spaceman wrote:

You live in a very bizarre world. You posted a proposed
experiment which is worth nothing until it is done.
You did not do it so you cannot claim any results from
it.

In science, you actually have to do the experiments if you
want to use the result to prove something. Noeinstein knows
nothing about physics but at least he attempted to do an
experiment so he certainly rates higher than you do.

Spaceman wrote:

You are free to predict the answer but you cannot claim that is what
it is until you have done the experiment. You are just trying to
fool yourself. No one else is fooled.

It does matter dingleberry.
In fact, the setup for an experiment is the most important
part.
Sheesh you are freakin' clueless about science.

I live in a wonderful world, you are the one living in a
rubber ruler world full of malfunctioning clocks and twins
that age different just because they move around.
LOL
You are one sad ass dingleberry.
Brainwashed beyond help, or .. just a troll that is clueless
about anything to do with physics.

The only fool here is people like you that can not even think
about the experiment itself and come up with a conclusion
on your own before the physical experiment is actually done.

Uh, no. The *results* are the most important part.
Duh.
LOL.
Sheesh.
Whatever.

This is called "fantasizing".

I realize that the word "physics" also starts with the "f-f-f" sound,
and so perhaps you got confused between the two.

PD

Spaceman wrote:

No, the most important part is the results. You have no
results to show since you did not do any experiment.
Thus you can make no claims about the experiment.

Spaceman wrote:

So what you are saying is that you still have no results
from any exeriment to present. No results = no conclusions.

Spaceman wrote:

In science, this is called lying. You actually have to do exeriments
if you want to claim anything other than that given by accepted
theories. You have done nothing, you have nothing to show.

I know you posted a description of a *proposed* experiment. That's why
I made sure to specify I did *not* mean something where you "describe an
experiment and jump to a preconceived conclusion". When I wrote 'an
actual experiment' (twice!) I meant an actual experiment that was actually
performed, with the results checked against the prediction. The history
of science is *full* of experiments that did *not* produce the expected
results. Michelson-Morley for one. They expected to come up with a speed
and direction of the aether wind. They did not know the speed or direction
before performing the experiment, but they "knew" there was one. They did
*not* expect a result that indicated no aether at all!

I repeat: Show me an actual, repeatable experiment *THAT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY
PERFORMED* with actual RESULTS that prove ANY of your stupid claims!

If you screw up the setup, the results are not worth shit.
Try getting a clue about experimentation some century PD.
You are proving you are totally clueless.

And Yet another moron proves he is clueless,
The results are not worth shit if the experiment is not
setup correctly.
the setup is the most important part and ifthe setup
is not done properly you will nto get the results
that would match another properly setup experiment
trying to support the data to begin with.
Sheesh
You also need to get a clue some century.

Spaceman wrote:

We did not want to tell you that you screwed that up too.
You still have no results and are just assuming what you
want to show. That is not science. That is trolling.

You still have not shown that you have any idea how cesium
clocks work.

I have posted the setup.
If you are afraid of the results, It is not my fault.
:)

You must be one of the con men trying to get another
grant huh?

As I said dingleberry,
I proposed an experiment that would show the results of the speed
of light not being constant to all frames.
I posted such because not one experiment setup like such
has ever been done.
Every single stupid ass experiment done so far have been
"at rest" or have used the stupid ass "percieved wavelength" times frequency
instead of the "physical wavelength times frequency " measurement for speed
And only fools or con men can think the percieved wavelength times frequency
is actually measuring the "relative" speed.

What kind of freakin drugs are you on?
Or is it that you really are that freakin' stupid?
Or is it you are just a sad ass troll?
I aksed you.
What is being counted in the dang cesium clock asshole?
non motion?
You are a freakin dipwad dingleberry with no hope
of ever understanding physics.

Spaceman wrote:

So you have not done any experiment and are just assuming the answer and
hoping no one will notice the attempt at scientific fraud. Sorry but
there are people here who actually understand physics to call out your
nonsense.

>

I never said I have done the experiment,
I stated I posted how to actually find the relative speed
of light.
If you are too ignorant to understand how it would work
and show such.
You only prove you are clueless about science and physics
simultaneously.

> What you have done is to describe a few (thought) experiments,
> and guessed what the Lorentz transform would predict for them.
> You are guessing that the predictions would be self contradictory
> (different predictions for the same observation).

There is no need to guess. The Lorentz transform manifests the
stupidity of the twins’ paradox, it is absurd right from the start.
<shrug> The twins’ paradox has no resolutions but fudging lies of
resolution.

> In all of you "experiments", the real predictions of
> the Lorentz transform can quite easily be calculated.

What do you mean “real Lorentz transform” as if there is a “fake
Lorentz transform”?

> Why didn't you do that?

Because it is absurd to apply the Lorentz transform to the real-
world. It is utterly stupid. <shrug>

> Then you would see that your guesses based on loose speculations
> (and faulty logic) are simply wrong.

There should be no guesses. The Lorentz transform manifests the
twins’ paradox and is utterly wrong right from the start. <shrug>

> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html

You are an amateur mathemaGician despite being a professor at an
obscure Norwegian university. Is that a 2-year community college like
we have over here for the high-school drop-outs in the US to have a
second chance of learning what they should have learnt in high school
in the first place?

Of course, you and all the priests of SR and GR can just toss the
garbage of resolution to the twins’ paradox at me where each one is
contradictory to the others. It is no different from a chimpanzee
throwing his own excrement at the zoo-keepers. <shrug> Oh, well.
<:-)>

It doesn't matter at all, KW, if you insist on sticking your fingers
in your ears and hollering, "NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA! I don't believe you
and you can't MAKE me!"

PD

Agreed. But a setup without results is useless from the start.
It's your idea. Do it.
Need both -- setup AND results -- for either to have any value
whatsoever.
So do it.
What you've provided so far is worthless.

Not if it is the experiment that gets the facts out.
Again, I see you would never know that part either.
Apparently all experiments are useless since none of them
have actual results before they are setup.
You really should stop proving you are clueless about
experimentation.

So, you have NO results on which to base your claim! That's what I've
been stating repeatedly. NO results at all! Show me JUST ONE experiment
(proper setup AND RESULTS!) that disprove SR. Remember, showing just one
green flying elephant disproves the claim "there are no green flying
elephants".

ACTUALLY PERFORMED* with actual RESULTS that disprove ANY part of SR.

Since, by your own admission, your proposed experiment has NEVER been
done, we don't know its results!

What if Rutherford, with his gold foil/alpha experiment, simply proposed
the setup and stated "the alphas all will go straight through the foil
and will be deflected a tiny angle at most." without ever performing it?
We'd not know of the atomic nucleus and would still be taught the raisin
pudding model of the atom.

The experiment is there.
But of course, you are afraid to try it, and if I had the
equipment I would try it immediately.
So it must be you are either afraid or you also do not
have the equipment?
What is it?
Are you afraid or is it you also have no equipment
to do such an experiment so instead you cry foul?
:)

I wonder if Spaceman equates "experiment" with "high-school lab exercise"
where the goal is to produce a predicted result.

--John Park

Actually, no.
That is what they all want to do, they want to ignore a new
experiment and just do another old one that has nothing to do
with the new experiment.
In short they want to do repetition of science classwork, instead of
actual science all on thier own.
:)

Spaceman wrote:

It is even worse. He thinks that proposing an experiment is all the
proof he needs since he feels he knows the results of the experiment.
Actually doing it is unimportant to him. That way he will not be
shown to be wrong. Noeinstein tried an experiment which showed
he did not understand how to do experiments so he is left to
bluster and yell to try to get people to accept his answer anyway.

>

I never said doing the experiment is not important.
It is nice how you always seem to make up such wondeful
lies about what I think.
It is also nice to see you are not able to think about the results
and are afraid to try the experiment if you could at all and would
rather just stay a clueless moron and worship the religion you have
chosen.
:)

There are no results to think about. You have not done the
experiment. It is your experiment. You claim it will show something
interesting but you seem to feel it is everyone else's responsibility
to do your bidding. You have done nothing and you can say nothing
about the results. Bluster is not a substitute for doing something.

So you can not think of results with a proposed experiment?
Wow.
You poor thing.
It must be impossible for you to make any experiment on
your own then since you can not think about what reults
you would want to test for to begin with.
LOL
You love to prove you are clueless about experimentaion.
That is wonderful.
:)

That's right, experiments are useless until the setup is complete AND
the results are measured.
You didn't know that?

Spaceman wrote:

You really are a coward, you snipped the part about your responsibility.
Here was the comment:
---

---
You have no results to show because you have done nothing. There are
no results to think about. It is that simple. You have done nothing.
You want to change the world without any evidence. Science does not
work that way. Try again or try something else.

>

You still don't get anything as simple as the experiment setup

The results always come after the setup and if the setup is
not done as stated the results are useless to the experiment
given since it would not actually be the same experiment at all.
Again, you prove you are clueless about experimentation
on your own and all you can do is copy only the experiments
you wish to since other experiments may violate your religion
of relativity.
LOL

Spaceman wrote:

Not only have you not done the experiment, you have not set it up
either. You are several stages away from having done anything.
You have no intention of doing anything. All you want to do is
to bluster.