what do you expect given the incredible belief in a flawed system or model. Your posts indicate the intensity of your fear that just possibly you are all wrong and all your hard work is wasted. Making such an incredible investment of time and energy into something that fails to reflect reality must be so dis-appointing.
Special relativity is the most successful theory of physics.
Every test it's been put under in the last century it's passed. Also, it easily unites with quantum mechanics to provide quantum field theory, which is another enormously tested area of physics.
My vitriolic posting style is not because I fear your ignorant BS about SR is right, I am 101% certain you're talking nonsense. It's vitriolic because I get tired of listening to idiots who know nothing about a topic proclaim they have some amazing insight.
The fear of being mistaken is so strong there is NO reference available for me to link to. People simply do not question something that they have so much belief in....[similar to a religious zealot] and burn any one who dares to question such a belief.
So you keep saying "Relativity says....." but you cannot provide a single book, paper or other reference where someone points out that 'Relativity says.....' ? And given you have not read any relativity and are unable to do any relativity, it would seem that there's absolutely zero reason to think what you claim about relativity is true.
So burn me! 'Cause I am a questioning......
You aren't 'questioning', you're making up lies and then trying to pass them off as what physicists say without reference or justification. That isn't 'I'm asking a few open minded questions', that's 'I've got a biased agenda and I'm sticking to it'.
semantic crap... if you can prove distance exists at t=0 [across vacant space [ eath / moon as an example] with hard evidence then your point stands.
Resonance of matter across zero distance space...makes a lot of sense if you bother to open your mind to possibility. Light is an effect of inertia.
I've already given how to compute the distance between two objects at any moment in time. The fact you're unable to understand metrics and curved manifolds doesn't mean I haven't told you the answer, it just means you are too ignorant to grasp it and too dishonest to admit it.
so you admit that the only way to detect a photon is with objects that reflect them, matter. So tell me how do you know it is a photon effect or simply a matter effect?
By definition 'detect' means that the particle does something to a 'detector'. You don't have to absorb the photon or reflect it. In
general relativity a beam of photons affects space-time and so, given a sensitive enough detector you could measure the space-time deformation produced by a photon without having to actually see the photon itself.
Resorting to flaming type statements is simply a waste of time...deal with the issue rationally if you can. I know you must find it extremely difficult given your fav. theory is theatened.
That's the thing, if you
actually gave me reason to pause and think "****, he makes a good point" I'd be
less aggressive. What annoys me is your attitude. You don't know any SR, you don't read any SR, you don't back up your statements, you don't know any 'beyond high school physics', you refuse to believe anyone else might know such physics and despite asking for 'evidence' and proclaiming things about open minded, you ignore any and all replies you get which show you're wrong. You know nothing but you believe you know everything,
better than the people who can (and have) proven they know some SR.
You are categorically
no threat to SR. I dislike you because you're a swaggering ignorant dip****.
If I'm wrong in my views, explain why anyone should listen to you, given you don't read or do any special relativity and (as I've demonstrated) you repeatedly show you fail to understand even something concepts in physics.
Cranks always seem to think they get told to F off because they are 'close to the truth'. No, cranks are generally ignorant spewers of BS.
no photon no SR .....end of story and you know it.
I wouldn't really say so. It's not the only light speed particle. It's just 'light' is used in the discussions of relativity because it was the simplest and most understood force in the late 1800s. If the photon didn't exist it wouldn't make SR wrong. Null vectors are null vectors, they don't require light to exist.
See, this is an example of you making claims you can't and don't back up. You don't grasp the construction of relativity and so you make your own assumptions about it then proclaim those assumptions as truth. And then you refuse to listen when corrected by people who do know the construction of relativity.
belief in an unprovable object is the same as belief in a religious icon. And you know it.
Simply denying the existence of light doesn't make you right. Infact, given the very obvious evidence for the existence of light, your disbelief in it goes beyond religious and into the delusional.
Prove I have something real to read about namely the existance of a photon and I will read it. [ and btw I know a great deal more about SRT than you probably think I do... as I had to self derive it by my self and used forums like this one to confirm the correlationships. So I know how the fraud has been perpetrated and sustained. I started with the Jupiter recordings of Rømer, 1676 and worked from there.
It is the same with reading the Bible or the Koran etc ...why would I waste my time unless it is for the poetry and some wisdoms offered?
I see no proof of a photon so SRT would be a waste of energy taking too seriously. I do however see evidence of an effect but this in no way proves the reality of a mythical photon. [ The light model only attempts to describe the causation of the effect and that model has yet to be proved correct in fact the existence of the universal constant of gravity proves it to be incorrect.]
You keep saying " Relativity says......" and now you're admitting you refuse to read any relativity because you know it's wrong. So where are you getting your information from which makes you say "Relativity says.....". If you don't read relativity because you know it's wrong, how do you know what it says?
Basically you'd just admitted to being dishonest, closed minded and willfully ignorant. You assume relativity is wrong so you won't read it. You won't read it so you don't know what it says. You don't know what it says so you make up what it says. What you assume it says you don't accept so you don't read it. It's a close minded cycle of ignorant and lies.
You talk about me not being open minded but you are admitting to
lying.
and you still haven't dealt with the primary issue have you...and claim I am being dishonest....
Well given you've basically just admitted to being dishonest it would seem my views of you were vindicated.