B Can we measure absolute motion of Earth and Sun?

[weirdoguy]

So @zasvitim you're not here to learn, you're here to push you very basic misunderstandings.

can not be peer reviewed unless "agrees with everything".

Physics is an experimental science! Why all of people accusing physicists of some sort of conspiracies forget that? Absolute motion is refuted by milions of experiments and observations. Really, take your time to analise that, instead of wasting your (and ours) time. This is elementary and high-school physics, nothing advanced. Really.

 

[zasvitim]

So @zasvitim you're not here to learn, you're here to push you very basic misunderstandings.



Physics is an experimental science! Why all of people accusing physicists of some sort of conspiracies forget that? Absolute motion is refuted by milions of experiments and observations. Really, take your time to analise that, instead of wasting your (and ours) time. This is elementary and high-school physics, nothing advanced. Really.

How am I not to learn if I accepted being wrong? I've accepted that, thank you.
Absolute motion is confirmed by directional light existence. And can be confirmed in experiment that will generate slow photons.

 

[weirdoguy]

Absolute motion is confirmed by directional light existence.

Nonsense.

 

[zasvitim]

Nonsense.

Is this experimental science?

 

[Ibix]

Is this experimental science?

Yes. See the aforementioned failure to detect violation of Lorentz covariance.

 

[zasvitim]

Yes. See the aforementioned failure to detect violation of Lorentz covariance.

Lorentz covariance could have absolutely different nature and have nothing to do with light.
For example it could be about mutually exclusive events:

Imagine that you are playing a game in which you have a sack of red and blue stones. You take a random stone out of the sack. If you get a red stone, you move to the right. If you get a blue stone, you draw a dash on a piece of paper. After that you put the stone back in the sack and mix the stones. You repeat this operation N times. At the end of the game, you measure how many steps you have taken and divide by the number of dashes. You call the result "speed".Let's say during the first game session you have 50 red stones and 50 blue stones in the sack. The probability of getting red and blue stones is the same, therefore the speed equals one.We put one additional red stone to the sack and play again. The probability of getting a red stone is now 51/101.At the same time, the probability of getting a blue stone has decreased. No it's 50/101. Thus, at the end of the game, we will not only take more steps to the right, but also find fewer dashes on the sheet. We divide the number of steps by the number of dashes and see that the dependence is not linear, but quadratic.We get Lorentz transformations.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread is now closed. Thanks for everyone who tried to help.

 

[Dale]

And cannot be posted "unless peer reviewed" and can not be peer reviewed unless "agrees with everything".

I know this thread is closed, but I wanted to respond directly to this standard complaint. This claim is nothing more than a fantasy held by crackpots to shift blame for their failures from themselves to others.

The actual fact is that the peer reviewed literature already has a huge amount of disagreement and conflict. Scientists are highly motivated to disprove the work of other scientists, and greater social and economic rewards accrue to those who can overthrow greater predecessors.

Searches for violations of Lorentz covariance are an active area of research. A scientist who can actually show that will be published in the most prestigious journals, their research funding will be secured for the rest of their career, and their name will be remembered for centuries to come. The journal that rejects such a paper will lose credibility and citations. The incentives on all sides favor publishing such studies.

The social and economic factors all favor overthrowing great scientists. The reason it doesn’t happen often is not because there is some conspiracy or conformity requirement. It doesn’t happen often because it is very difficult to do. So far not even any skilled, motivated, and experienced scientist has been able to overthrow Einstein, let alone a typical crackpot with little understanding, poor arguments, and no supporting experimental evidence.