So, den, wuzz da upzhot a alla diz "speeda gravity" debate?

"Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat Space-Time with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2x1010c. Such a change of perspective requires no change in the assumed character of gravitational radiation or its light-speed propagation. Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian Relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR-at least, not in favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-light-speed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau."

Troo dat, Babe. Goez on hed an givez 100 ta 1 oddz if ya hazta, yo still gunna winz dat bet.

Ya kudda throwed in Neo-Darwiniztik evoloozhun, genetik deeterminazhun a homosexuality, an jizt boutz eny udda kommee, konvenchino, atheeiztik, materioiztik, deeterminiztik, er PC interpritazhun a eny topik, an still be da winna.

"SRT deals with inertial systems. At the heart of SRT there are two basic principles:

a) The speed of light, c, is constant and it has the same magnitude in any inertial system.

b) All inertial systems are equivalent. There is no preferred “rest reference system”.

Thus, the laws of physics are covariant in all inertial systems. Lorentz transformation is profoundly essential to the SRT for it is compatible with the relativity principle: It maintains the covariance of physical laws...

If, according to the equations above, we have absolute simultaneity of events why does the standard interpretation of SRT argue for relativity of simultaneity?...It turns out that two contradicting conclusions, concerning simultaneity of events in the laboratory reference frame are derived from the same Lorentz equations. So in order to restore consistency, this contradiction should be resolved entirely within the framework of the Lorentz equations.

The solution is fortunately very simple. We must notice that we are talking about two different tests and that is the reason we are arriving at two different results...

In this second test, the detection events will not be simultaneous at either of the inertial systems (the railway car or the laboratory or in any other frame). But the time dilation ratio still holds: (3.10) Δt = γ Δτ. We thus have a complementary interpretation to SRT, which restores “absolute simultaneity” of events, independent of the specific inertial reference system...

The “time dilation” effect is considered by the standard interpretation of SRT to be symmetric...[But] in spite of the length contraction of the railway car in the laboratory frame, we obtain a longer time measured in the laboratory, which is expressed by the time dilation effect. The inevitable conclusion is that “time dilation” effect” is inherently asymmetric.

This is a very important conclusion with four major consequences:

1. There is no “twin paradox” in special relativity theory.

2. We do not need the “relativity of simultaneity” effect to maintain the symmetry of the “time dilation” effect, which does not really exist. This, in turn, supports the “absolute simultaneity” argumentation of the previous section

3. Neither do we need any special mechanism to break the nonexistent symmetry of the time dilation effect in order to explain the nonexistent “twin paradox”(2),(3).

4. Moreover, new theories like the conventionality of simultaneity (CS) thesis(4) should not be physically appropriate any more...

We have shown above that “time dilation” effect is inherently asymmetric. We still have to resolve the issue of how such asymmetric effect could emerge out of the Lorentz symmetric transformation....Thus, we have to separate between two types of “time dilation"...The only physical “time dilation” effect physically measured is between clocks in the “laboratory system” and in any other inertial system. This effect is mathematically and physically asymmetric...

Thus, to sum up, while providing an analysis of the clock “time dilation” asymmetry, the main contribution of our new approach to special relativity theory, is the restoration of clock time “absolute simultaneity”, which seems to represent more accurately our existent physical reality."

http://physicaplus.org.il/zope/home/112 ... skin=print

Diz heea guy enz up sayin: "It is to the honor of Albert Einstein, if after one hundred years, we can still shed a new light on his great “Special Relativity Theory”. Troof be, it aint nuthin new. Wut he dun sedz haz bin sedz, ovva, an ovva, an ovva, by meny grate sientiztz, evva sinze 1905. Da subjektiviztz, an all uddaz inklined ta adoptz a obzkure "miztiko" theeory ovva a kommin senze theeory, jizt aint nevva lizzind er unnastud, dazz all.

Problim iz, likez all siztimz chok fulla vague-azz, sef-konnadiktery, miztiko azzerzhunz, ya gotta hazza kwazi-relijuz deevozhun, tagedda witta totto suzpenzhun a kritiko thankin, ta buyz inna it. Dazz kewl, an all, but it aint "sienze."

So, den, wutcha enz up wit be deez "edzhookated" blowhardz hoo solemmly pronounzez dat "Sienze (SR) provez dat time izza "foth deemenzhun," dat "spaze-time" iz kurved, dat "simotanaity be rellative," dat blah, blah, blah... Enybuddy hoo don realizez dat jizt be stoopid-azz, soopaztituz fooz hoo aint knowwin no kinna nuthin."

Gud ole Ambroze Beeaze wuz onna dem kine, long-azz time bak:

“Education is that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.”

Ain't, OB no longer deigns to minister to us. We're ininducable.

I was gonna misuse the term "ineducable" but I'm just sick of the whole upside down OB universe. He at least knows we aren't going to buy his load by now, so since we can't be inducated to patronize the statist truckload, we probably won't even get a chance to conform at the re-inducation camps.

He's building his shrine to statism, to prove he's a worthy patron of the useful arts and propaganda.

We probably won't get much of chance to beard the lion anymore.

Well, Babe, evvin tho I statted out kiz heea tred wit da titto "fo Erik," it rilly wuzznt jizt fo him ta beeginz wit. Manely, itz jizt fo ma own dam amuzmint, ya knowz? Da fak datchoo mitta gotz sumthin frum it iz jizta beeg boniz.

I be knowwin frum da git-go dat mozt peepoz aint gunna paze no tenchun ta nuthin I sez, aint gunna haz much kloo wut I evvin tryin ta gitz at, an aint gunna karez, eeda way. So, den, I jizt tryz an ennatanez ma own dam sef, mozt timez.

I thankz Erik moztly likez hangin out at Krizchun mezzige bordz, tellin alla dem fooz, ovva an ovva, dat he be knowwin sienze, wich konziztz a irrefutabo an sertin knowlidge, an dat day aint nuthin but plumb ignint. He "razhuno," an day aint, ya knowz? He aint gotz da ferzt kloo boutz how "irrazhuno" an "relijuz" dat he iz. Dazz jizt udda pervz, nevva him.

My brain ain't as fat as yours so I have a hard time interpreting your beautiful and enlightened words or I may have responded more. Maybe you could help me with that when we meet up?

Hunnychile, win we meetz up, ma werdz will be mo unnastanabo kuz I will saingz dem out inna blooz toon, eh? Inna meentime, guyz likez diz heea kin sezzit mo betta:

"Many people seem to think that experimental confirmations of Einstein's special theory of relativity demonstrate that absolute simultaneity has no real basis in our world of space and time. This is wrong, however, for as a number of philosophers have pointed out, it is relatively straightforward to craft a neo-Lorentzian theory that preserves absolute simultaneity while reproducing the predictions of special relativity.

To define absolute simultaneity within the framework of special relativity is in fact child's play. One simply postulates the existence of a preferred reference frame and defines absolute simultaneity as Einsteinian simultaneity calculated from the vantage point of that inertial frame...Now whatever one may think of such a theory, it plainly has not been discredited empirically. If it is to be rejected in favor of special relativity, it can only be on the grounds of some non-empirical epistemological principle."

http://centanium.com/2011/07/special-re ... itics.html

Perzakly. Don NEVVA beeleevez no perv hoo wanna tellz ya dat SR dun bin proved, eh?

"If it is to be rejected in favor of special relativity, it can only be on the grounds of some non-empirical epistemological principle."


Likez sum kinna epiztimologiko prinzipo dat sez: "Da mo miztiko, da mo betta!"

Mizta Natzro be knowwin alla boutz dat, eh?

"At first appearance, Mr. Natural is a mystic guru who spouts aphorisms on the evils of the modern world and the salvation to be found in mysticism and natural living. He has renounced the material world and lives off anything he can get in exchange for his nuggets of wisdom. Usually depicted as slightly overweight (although his size varies), he is bald with a long white beard, and wears a gown which makes him resemble the Old Testament God or a prophet...

Part wise man, part conman, Mr. Natural has strange, magical powers and possesses cosmic insight; but he is also moody, cynical, self-pitying, and suffers from various strange sexual obsessions. He is endlessly being accosted by would-be disciples seeking the truth (among them such long-running Crumb characters as Flakey Foont and Shuman the Human). He typically regards them with amused condescension and a certain grudging affection, although his patience often wears thin and he takes sadistic pleasure in making them feel like idiots...When asked, "What is the meaning of life?", he responded, "It don't mean sheeit."

While he is typically very cool and in control, he sometimes ends up in humiliating predicaments like getting tossed in jail for child molestation or languishing for years in a mental institution...

Despite his renunciation of the material world, he's an unrepentant sybarite. His straight talk, while refreshing, can get him into trouble, as when he was kicked out of heaven for telling God it's "a little corny" in "Mr. Natural Meets God". But he may be the only Crumb creation who is genuinely likable. Mr. Natural's aphorisms such as "Keep on Truckin'" form a disconnect with his image as a sage, and his inventions are at once brilliant and crackpot."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Natural_(comics)

I know some Mr. Natchrals. I see them on the exits around Home Depot holding carboard signs. . . I'm callin' that comic out for just not being true. Natches all stink, so bad you will wretch if you open the window and try to throw out a five.

Well, some don't. Some go home to real nice fully-decked out pads and take baths, then go out in their Lexus to hit the strip joints at night. You can have a pretty good life on five hundred a day.