The title might not be clear, but this is a conspiracy vid. The guy starts off by getting into MK Ultra, frequencies to control the brain, etc.

Edit: Not sure if this guy is legit or limited hang out bs. But looks like an interesting lecture.

I'm certainly inclined towards this explanation.

I think my question started from thinking about the Michelson Morley experiments which were later performed in vacuum by some people (so they say anyway). They say "hah, this still works in vacuum so the atmosphere did not effect it". But if their vacuum had millions of particles in each cm3, how do they know matter isn't what helped keep the light beam in phase with itself? Seems like they don't.

So then this comes down to the question of stationary vs rotating aether as well as rotating Earth.

I assume a rotating Earth is well established. So then, if MMX truly was tested in vacuum and produced no fringe pattern we'd have some sort of rotating aether medium that is carried along with earth much like the lower atmosphere. However, if MMX in vacuum didn't actually establish that, then perhaps we do have a stationary aether medium. But I'm still thinking of a third option. If we have no perfect vacuum absent even gas, how do we know for certain light doesn't propagate via matter, without the need for aether?

I'm just pondering these things.

But to Einstein and his supporters they are stating it as a real effect vs. an apparent effect. What you're describing is an apparent effect based on our observations needing to wait for light to travel to our eyes. If Einstein wanted to express this idea he could have done so explicitly (and should have if that is his intention). So if this is an omission it is intentional.

But specifically on this idea, I'm still not sure I follow it. I can think of a simple example of a training moving near the speed of light and we are observing it from rest. A light beam is sent from the back of the train to the front HOWEVER the train is filled with air and not a vacuum. Thus the light beam will be pushed forward via the General Sagnac effect.

As an observer the limitation of the speed of light reaching me (in order to observe the event) should only produce a delay in the first data point reaching my eye, as the beam first leaves the source. However anything after that should still convey to me the correct information about velocity, provided we limit the window we record data to when the train is about to pass us until it has just passed us. The small displacement of distance should not be sufficient to delay the light by any significant degree...

Think about a straight line coming in perpendicularly to the observer vs a line 1 degree off from that for the second measurement. The distance light travels to us in the second measurement is only L/cos(1 degree), which is a 0.02 percent change in distance traveled to reach us compared to the initial L of the first measurement. Thus no issue observing this increased speed of light in the train for that effect.

That's not separate realities though. You've described one reality and one person moves in it and calls it his "frame". So what?

Einstein's theory about relative simultaneity is from his imagination. No experiments confirm that claim. It also violates the basis of logic (objective reality). So rational people must discard it.

Can you prove there is such a real thing as a "frame"? I only see one reality.

That's not an argument. CERN's vacuum claims to be thinner than the "interstellar void" which is thinner than within our solar system. And yet matter is present in CERN's vacuum as I showed above.

Objective reality is the basis for reason. Without it you might as well abandon all logic and wander off into madness trying to create your own reality.

Also any philosophy claiming there is no truth can't be true, based on logical deduction. So SR can be thrown out on that alone.

disprove the reproducible observational effects

I already explained the failure of SR on one very important alleged observational effect. So on empirical data alone that's sufficient debunking. But the philosophical point is actually more important and more true.

To falsify a scientific theory you either present another theory that explains the observations better

No and absolutely not. That's pulled straight out of Uranus.

pseudo-philosophical arguments.

It's just logic to make sure something is consistent with reality. You can't predict mutually exclusive happenings as part of your results. Either something happened or it didn't. It can't "happen for one observer" but not the other in the same instant. If two light beams hit someone at different times physically, then that is all that happened.

Your comment is all over the place and not very focused. My focus is a criticism of the broken logic of relativity.

To answer your question, I've taken all the math classes required for physicists, but I'm not claiming to be a mathematician or physicist. I am a critic from outside the field.

But one doesn't need advanced math to apply critical logic to a theory. A detective doesn't need calculus to prove someone guilty, but he does need sound logical reasoning. Focus on what you can grasp and deal with that first. I'm not someone who can check Einstein's tensor equations for their mathematical validity, and that isn't necessary (or time efficient).

To show a theory is incorrect one does not need to provide a replacement for the theory. I've already demonstrated SR defies the basis of reason itself, the notion of objective reality.

I can explain many, but I actually don't need to. If I can show a theory is self contradictory and defies the very foundation of reasoning itself (that there is objective truth) then I've exposed it as horrendously flawed.

It's certainly possible to make some correct calculations from a horrible illogical theory. I could create math that assumes Earth accelerates upward and come up with some useful calculations for kinematics of falling objects, but then it will fail miserably elsewhere.

edit: Despite that valid disclaimer, I can show that SR doesn't work for time dilation. As Herbert Dingle and Ron Hatch have already illustrated , under SR there is no one sided time dilation which is found in GPS. So the apparent clock slowing on GPS satellites is only calculated by Lorentz (as Ron Hatch notes) and not Einstein (who requires two symmetrical equations).

Relativity is contradiction after contradiction that its adherents paper over with bad and inconsistent logic. One relativist will give you one excuse to weasel out of a contradiction, compared to another relativist who provides another. Neither are valid. Specifically for the problem of asymmetry in Einstein's time dilation applied in GPS they have multiple excuses all of which are wrong.

1. "It involves acceleration, therefore is a non-intertial frame" The problem with this excuse is it means the phenomena is no longer governed by SR which does not account for acceleration.

2. "This is covered by GR which involves acceleration". No further detail is given and if asked for a derivation of this time dilation from GR using acceleration they cannot because it does not exist. SR is the basis for velocity based time dilation, using equations with constant velocity. But since they are bound by velocity being "relative" the effects must be symmetrical and only apparent.

It may be blue shifted but it will hit you first. Anything else creates two mutually exclusive realities which defies basic logic.

The time dilation occurs when you are under acceleration

Einstein's equations have no parameter for acceleration. So those who make this claim need to invoke a different theory. SR is based on inertial "frames" moving at constant velocities. No acceleration is invoked to derive the equations for "time dilation".

The beauty of Professor Dingle's fatal criticism of special relativity theory is its simplicity. Much like the innocent child in Andersen's story one need not be an expert to understand it (or a mathematician). Neither does one need more than an elementary understanding of physics. All one really needs is a mind capable of reason. Specifically, one needs a mind capable of knowing the difference between the impossible and the possible - not as a matter of subjective opinion, but as a matter of logical necessity.

It was Dingle's arguments (as well as Percival) that helped me see that our intuition is right, and this theory makes no fracking sense. It's like the midwit meme, on the ignorant side you're like "this makes no sense" in the middle you rationalize it with a bunch of arguments and on the adept side you say "this makes no sense"

I'm glad I never studied it much in college because I would have probably tried to convince myself of it.

The source of one of the beams of light and away from the source of the other. Assume both sources are at a fixed distance from each other.

According to Einstein

So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system

And all that from thought experiments with 0 citation of any published science. A few mentions of other people but not a proper citation in the entire paper. https://dn790004.ca.archive.org/0/items/einstein-1905-relativity/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf

Yet coincidentally he just so happens to work out a solution to the Michelson Morley issue that Lorentz already found. Though it's only a half baked solution which contradicts itself, we can ignore that because "must worship Einstein". And Lorentz's solution didn't contradict itself or require doing away with a basic foundation of objective reality.

Mark Dice, a true independent? Where is your discernment?

The dude shills Trump and got his start being featured on Alex Jones and mainstream media.

lol you'll make excuses for anything.

I remember the day in our little community when a classmate took his own life. I saw a friend of mine later that evening and could see he heard the news. He looked like he'd seen war, just total shell shock.

Yet these kids are so damn casual the same day someone was murdering their classmates right next to them. Ok.

"Don't worry you can turn it off instead" XD

That's cope dude. They may not all be "batshit" levels of crazy, but most took the jab and most still vote for either Biden or Trump.

I think that is probably in reference to the "muh Trump put kids in cages" scare mongering. Or she is just that evil.

Yeah it's one thing for a concept to be superficially unintuitive but there is a level of absurdity where people should start saying "no this cannot be right".

But I do see why many fall for it. There are many alleged "confirmations" of relativity that on the surface seem plausible, but on closer inspection don't hold up.

GPS uses the Lorentz transformation, which can be derived from SR, except on further inspection SR requires an equal and opposite Lorentz transformation for the other frame, which invalidates it's use.

Star light bending around the sun is another proof of relativity, but a NASA scientist came out and said they can only observe it in the photo-sphere through plasma, so not in empty space. Therefore it can just as easily be refraction through plasma.

But even without those experiments, it's best just to throw a theory out if it is internally inconsistent and illogical.

Such is life. It is as Jesus said it would be.

In this thought experiment (and that's all it is, is imagination) whether or not the light hitting the woman happens at the same time is up to YOU the observer.

A woman (observer A) is seated in the center of a rail car, with two flash lamps at opposite sides equidistant from her. Multiple light rays that are emitted from the flash lamps move towards observer A, as shown with arrows....

Observer A moves with the lamps on the rail car as the rail car moves towards the right of observer B. Observer B receives the light flashes simultaneously, and sees the bulbs as both having flashed at the same time. However, he sees observer A receive the flash from the right first... Simultaneity, or whether different events occur at the same instant, depends on the frame of reference of the observer.

https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/10-1-postulates-of-special-relativity

If your theory forces you to say such stupid things as this, you change the theory. How insane is the average person to let this stand for over 100 years?

But it's no wonder, if this was allowed to stand in physics of all places, that this idea made its way into social sciences and philosophy. Now your "truth" is the "truth", and it's a "sin" to say otherwise. We're just outside observers right? So how could we possibly know the truth from their "frame"? Maybe because God says what the truth is, not the individual observing it.

I listen to many Christian pastors and they don't preach easy believe-ism. I just watched a talk last night from pastors who you would call "Protestant" stressing how fundamental repentance is based on scripture, and they called out easy believe-ism teachings from false teachers.