(Notice that it was you who thought I was foolish to call E=mc² the mass/energy equivalence equation!)
Where did I say that? Link with citation please.
I find that it is absolutely unacceptable behavior to open a forum that is apparently meant to provide open discussion and yet limit the conversation only to debunking the outsiders while simultaneously eliminating potentially good counterarguments for their own views.
I have brought many factual arguments against your ideas. Yes, that is debunking weird ideas. But I always have given grounds, based on methodologically established physics.
I’m an all-around skeptic which includes science, as well.
Being a skeptic does not mean criticising empirically proven established theories without having logical arguments or new empirical evidence. Repeating endlessly that your logic is impeccable does not make it so. Skepticism means in this case: if you have extraordinary claims, then you need extraordinary evidence.You have none, except abstruse chains of thought that you call ‘logical’.
Instead of pointing to the errors in my presentation, you’ve spent most of your time with simple declarations of my lack of credentials, or knowledge due to the accusation that if what I’m saying is true, all of scientific discovery is false and useless.
I pointed to your errors several times, but your only answer is that your logic is impeccable. But see below.
Try addressing, for instance, why you and others feel that the premises of Einstein’s theory still stand against my arguments. In Post 103, is where I explicitly address these.
Yes, that is true, I did not react on it. It is so void of meaning and understanding what relativity is about that it makes nearly no sense to react on it.
As I can see you have only one reaction on each postulate of special relativity:
On the relativity postulate:
Your flood of words boils down to the statement that the relativity principle is unclear. However if you would look how it is used, you would see that it has a very precise meaning, and is used technically in a totally unambiguous way. Your criticism should be aimed at the precise meaning as it is used in the theory, not in your wild speculations what the principle could mean for you or any other relativity-illiterates.
On the constancy of light postulate:
You state that the light for the two different observers is not the same: for one observer it is blue- or red-shifted compared to the other. That is true, and special relativity gives you the correct formula for it. However, as basis for special relativity the only fact used is that the speed of light is constant. As long as you are not able to show that this is not true your criticism beats just air.
Try addressing how in post #1 and the inserts that I’ve added in post #72-75 that demonstrate how a signal from two different sources show that the speed of the program which represents a wavelength of light altering as well as its speed contradicts that just any meaning of light must be measured at the same speed. How do you not distinguish a difference between light from a source within an inertial frame and one from outside of it?
I did that extendedly here. Your error is that you look at the situation only from the frame of reference of the Earth-Moon system. From that frame it looks like that the rocket must see the program coming with a velocity of c - v from behind, and c + v from the front. But you do not take into account that for the rocket crew both programs come with velocity c. I showed you the correct calculations in the posting referenced above.
That you then sometimes refer to the ‘cosmological principle’ in this context is absolutely meaningless.
For the rest you did not react on the following points:
- my criticism that your derivation of E=mc² just makes some fuzzy, illogical derivation of something that looks like kinetic energy, not the rest mass/energy of objects
- that you did not give us a clue about why clocks would disintegrate when nearing the speed of light, and why heavy nuclei that are already accelerated to velocities close to the speed of light did not disintegrate.
- a consideration about the rocket accelerating with g (9.81 m/s²) for more than a year: what does the rocket crew observe, what do people on the earth observe (and why the rocket would disintegrate?)
- an explanation why GPS works that without the use of special and general relativity would not work in the precision we nowadays have.
- you did not give an account of why the scientific community choose for Einstein’s foundation of special relativity, and not for Lorentz’s or Poincaré‘s, who both still assumed an ether and/or some absolute frame of reference.