In article ,
(Perfectly Innocent) writes:

Sam Wormley wrote in message
...
Has there ever been an experimental test of your alternative?
That's a yes or no.

Where there is empirical data, my theory is the same as SR.
Where there is no empirical data, my theory differs with SR.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

Eugene Shubert


That would be a 'no.'

Where there is no empirical data, there is no physics.

I should tell you I have a new theory: the Barn**** Doppler Subcutaneous
Theory.

It postulates that everything we know is actually wrong, we just can't see that
it is. In reality, we're all made of **** accelerating outwards from a fan at
2 pi over 7 times the speed of light, which is really not constant because it
depends on the density of bull**** in any particular local space.

Of course, like much in the bible, there's no proof for my theory, but my
theory asserts its own correctness, neatly demonstrating why it's impossible to
falsify, so it must be correct!

- Vae

"David Thomas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Perfectly Innocent) writes:

Sam Wormley wrote in message
...
Has there ever been an experimental test of your alternative?
That's a yes or no.

Where there is empirical data, my theory is the same as SR.
Where there is no empirical data, my theory differs with SR.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

Eugene Shubert


That would be a 'no.'

Where there is no empirical data, there is no physics.

I should tell you I have a new theory: the Barn**** Doppler Subcutaneous
Theory.

It postulates that everything we know is actually wrong, we just can't see
that
it is. In reality, we're all made of **** accelerating outwards from a
fan at
2 pi over 7 times the speed of light, which is really not constant because
it
depends on the density of bull**** in any particular local space.

Of course, like much in the bible, there's no proof for my theory, but my
theory asserts its own correctness, neatly demonstrating why it's
impossible to
falsify, so it must be correct!

- Vae

What universe do you live in? This is completely untrue and there has never
been any evidence to support this. In fact, I can think of tons of evidence
against this. All of modern physics is based on the opposite of this being
true.

Just kidding - this time.

"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...
spamo (David Thomas) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Perfectly Innocent) writes:

Sam Wormley wrote in message
...
Has there ever been an experimental test of your alternative?
That's a yes or no.

Where there is empirical data, my theory is the same as SR.
Where there is no empirical data, my theory differs with SR.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

Eugene Shubert

That would be a 'no.'

My answer was yes and no.

Where there is no empirical data, there is no physics.

Does that mean that relativists should stop hyping all the popular
nonsense about SR that has no direct experimental confirmation?
Statements like, "there is no absolute time order," "there is no
absolute frame of reference," "no object can move faster than light"
and "everything is relative."


I don't know where you've been for the past 80 years or so, but it that
time, tons of experimental data has been gathered, from measurements of time
dilations, to the curvature of light in a gravitational field (due to
effects described by GR, which neccessitates SR to work), to particle
collisions where the resulting mass is equal to the relativistic mass.
Hundreds upon hundreds of experiments have been done testing every aspect of
SR.

In article , "Mark Palenik"
writes:

Of course, like much in the bible, there's no proof for my theory, but my
theory asserts its own correctness, neatly demonstrating why it's
impossible to
falsify, so it must be correct!

- Vae

What universe do you live in? This is completely untrue and there has never
been any evidence to support this. In fact, I can think of tons of evidence
against this. All of modern physics is based on the opposite of this being
true.

Just kidding - this time.

Heh heh.

I'm thinking about adopting that 'All of modern physics is based on the
opposite of this being true' statement as a standard reply to kooks... but I'm
afraid they might take it too seriously.

- Vae