Leaderboard

I also don't have evidence that witches don't exist. Nor do I have evidence that god does not exist. Nor do I have evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Do I keep going? Your point?

So to summarize the post, you don't have any evidence that 'SGR' is wrong?

I thought the premise was that time slowed down for an object the more speed above the speed of light you are going. Is it not? I don't think it would be possible to go backwards into time to the moment the object was created and watch it transform into its previous state. Or is that included in it? I thought something like that was only possible in worm holes or black holes. (two equally fantastic contraptions) But this is exciting to think about right? One reason it got popular. A boring universe where everything is straightforward is not exciting enough. Relativity theory = Fail videos and cat videos of today? Well. The people behind the theory, or other supporters, would have to prove the theory. And it is other people's choice whether they want to believe a theory or not. If people create new theories based on a theory, then that is their choice and problem. I agree with Steljarkos that it holds back productive science.

Validated by whom? Those whose theoretical foundations are being criticized? By your own words, you are proving my point for me. SGR has not been proven conclusively and so the onus is on those promulgating a doubtful conjecture to provide the evidence. And yes, SGR is doubtful, particularly within the context of a broken peer review process as I've introduced in my opening post (Binswanger and Horton). Now you may not think that the SGR conjecture is doubtful, but then, Christian believers also don't think that their God conjecture is doubtful. Such is the nature of faith, and the true believers who follow that faith. Now your dismissal of the reference that I provided as being fringe... here's the situation. ANY outsider daring to challenge The Establishment will be dismissed as fringe. It's a given, it is expected, and it happens every.single.time. Look at the lead-up to the current crisis in the Fake News Network. It's the same dynamic that will eventually come to bear on the Fake Science Network... if not now, then later. Before I can accept SGR, I want to see clear, unambiguous evidence that it works. I don't want to see category errors or other indications that logically incoherent concepts are coming together to explain the unfalsifiable. I'm not happy with SGR's measley 7.5% contribution to Mercury's perihelion shift... a whopping 90% would be more compelling in eliminating my doubt (the seeds of doubt planted by Binswanger and Horton). GPS relativity corrections is now a certified urban legend on a par with feminism's wage gap myth. Red shift is NOT evidence of big bang because tired light has not been disproven. And so on. There was a time that I accepted SGR, because what I now realize, had never occurred to me before. Things began to change once it occurred to me what a load of horse manure the GPS urban legend is... and yet, how often it was trotted out like some kind of gotcha moment for science. If people are going to dismiss every debunking of SGR as fringe, then my challenge is for the SGR true believers to provide GOOD evidence, and not the vague "weight of evidence" that is open to interpretation or concerns about peer-review footsies. Weight-of-evidence can be compelling... but you've got to trust those providing it. Binswanger and Horton have shown us that that level of trust is not warranted. The seeds of my doubt were planted in GPS and the broken peer review process (Binswanger and Horton). And now they are snowballing with the Fake News phenomenon. Why? Because there's another crucial dimension to science... and it is the cultural narratives that inform science. You judge a person by the company they keep. You judge a culture by the bullshit it entertains. Feminism, SJWs, Antifa and fake news carry the same stench and are an expression of the same miasma... my concern is, does this stench extend also to fake science? A broken culture can only ever create broken science, and that's why we need to be careful with the concepts that we take on board. It is on SGR that the onus lies to provide the evidence behind their faith, because it is fundamentally impossible to disprove something that relies on faith.

Fringe journal posts fringe article. That's not evidence. I am asking for evidence as in reproducable experiment that has been validated.

I liked your previous answer better. You were right about the no-communication theorem that relates to QM, independently of SGR (relativity), and the theorem's premise that quantum entangled states cannot be used as a basis for transmitting information. A decision has to be made between QM vs SGR. It's either one or the other. For me, QM has always been the more compelling theory, with its evidence that is repeatable and irrefutable. SGR is not an option for all the reasons I've already outlined in my previous posts, above. What is time? It is a measure of the progression of events. A ticking clock is one of the means of measuring that progression of events. To conflate this progression of events as a dimension of space-time in which coordinates can be set, and to which you can, in theory, relocate to, is nonsense that is better suited to science fiction than science fact. Once a progression of events has run its course, that's it... you can replicate the method and the formula, but not the moment or the self in that moment. We should spare ourselves the grief of SGR's convoluted, nonsensical rationalizations. No, nobody can go backwards in time to kill your grandparents before your mother was born so that you cannot be born... not even in theory. This stuff is as ridiculous as it sounds. Now irrespective of whether SGR theorists take this nonsense seriously (I know that some of them do, and they agonize over the paradoxes), the conflation of time as a dimension of space-time is in principle a most serious category error. But worst of all, SGR keeps getting in the way, and this distracts smart people in QM, so many of whom reflexively take on board SGR's objections. SGR is a ball-and-chain that is hampering real scientific progress. Let's dump it once and for all. There exists evidence that debunks SGR. But the SGR behemoth of mainstream academia refuses to accept it. And like the fake news of mainstream media, this fake science of mainstream academia is going to require another James O'Keefe to crack it. Cheers

From what is known today it is a fundamental problem. Sending information faster than the speed of light basically means sending information backwards into time. Would there be faster than light information causality in our world could not exist. We would observe actions taking place before a cause happens, and we would observe news from the future. Yes to remain sceptical is the first duty of any reasonable mind. However it is very unlikely that Einsteins relativistic theory will be proven wrong in any fundamental claim. If we look at the progress from Newton to Einstein, Einstein is more precise than Newton, includes Newton and enormously extendes the area of knowledge. But nothing Newton said is refuted by Einstein. So any substantial progress in our knowledge - and we know that there still is a lot unknown - will, and i will hold any bet, rest on Einstein and include his claims. Construction sites are our ignorance about the nature of time. Funny enough, Einstein does not tell us anything about a flow of time, his spacetime (the four coordinates that define a point) just exists as a whole. Another site is the fundamental properties of space(time) and the fabric its made of. While, as far as we know, nothing with mass can move faster than c within space, spacetime itself can expand at any rate. reagrds Andi

Remember that Hillary Clinton had her sunshine-law defying email server operating at the same time as Wikileaks published the State Department cables in 2010 all the way through the end of her term in 2012.Since she did nothing to further secure her server after that event, any claims from her (and any party member unconcerned about her emails) to be concerned about Wikileaks as Russian spies have to be discarded.

well, first is that the mere fact that critters on this planet all derived from a common ancestor is something that you can reliably speculate on by the provable fact that everything is described using the "same" building blocks. second, yes, we (humans) just like everything else ARE a collection of symbiotic organism..no mystery there at all. Even a few minutes with any basic biology text will show that. I think this is the greatest proof to date that we "Evolved" as symbiotic species in the past changed over time to have a stronger degree of symbiosis. I think the confusing point is that idea that the the length of genome somehow indicates "higher" advancement is not how you need to look at it. Think of the basic building blocks more like an alphabet...more "words" do not necessarily mean a great masterpiece or fundamental truth of science. While more complex behavior or capabilities take up more "words" in your blueprint, the ability that those words produce can be vastly different. Think of the blue print needed to describe the complex built-in behavior of some societal creatures (ants)..that is pretty complex from the start. Now, consider how higher level mammals are useless from the start; the "words in their book" do not capture a specific complex starting behavior but a "Future" ability. Rather than describe what you need to know now, they describe the ability to rapidly adapt and learn what happens in the future. They have traded all that built-in starting knowledge with the idea that another of your species will take care of that and allow that "programming space" to be used for something else...a more complex but not necessarily a vastly more space consuming program. Much like understanding any foreign language, once we have figured out all the semantics of the human genome (we have already gotten the syntax (structure) figured out) then we really will be answer many of these questions. The scary part will be, once we have truly decoded the genetic language, what will society do with that???? scary....very scary... Everyone with: eidetic memory, enhanced bone density (some people actually do have bones that are many times harder that most of us right from start), strength and fitness "built-in"(the biochemistry that occurs as a result of exercise, is still just chemistry, if you can program that behavior into your body you will always be "fit"), regeneration of lost limbs, disable the aging of internal cells (they seem to have a built-in "timer" now that counts down to death), disease resistance, etc. etc. This will fundamentally change human society in a single generation by creating a "super human" with all others falling off the evolutionary tree. The replacement of homosapien with homosuperior is a given, and from that point on evolution is no longer in play.

Yep not to mention unfalsifiable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Hypothesis

You forgot to mention the madness of dark matter or dark energy

I'm curious what Stefan thinks (and y'all) of Richard Spencer. I've heard him speak about Spencer once but he was just commenting on the sucker punch incident. Has he said anything about Spencer or his movement? Some of the people Stefan associates with such as Cernovich, Laura Loomer, Jack Posebiec, etc purposely distance themselves and try to delegitimize Spencer. It seems like FDR is distancing itself from Spencer also. Theres been a lot of great presentations and talks about race here. Specifically IQ and negatives of multiculturalism. White identitarianism is a logical conclusion that can be drawn (correct me if you disagree) from the facts we discuss here about race. Richard Spencer advocates for white identitarianism but gets no support from Stefan. Even though it appears Stefan agrees with Spencer because Stefan will talk about how multiculturalism is bad.