Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MacM
We seem to be getting a diversification here between where clj4, yourself and others are going.
I think (or at least I thought) I made the distinction between SR and my view rather clear. It should produce results nearly identical to current emperical data (the exception being this underlying minor deviation which would demonstrate the existance of absolute motion vs relative motion) as being correct physics.
The major differance, and I feel it is extremely important, is what it does not include and that is predictions of reciprocity of relavistic affects, spatial length contraction and v = c as a limit.
Eliminating those I think are signifigant differances worth exploring. How to do that seems to be where we are diversifying.
I am suggesting that one can come to some conclusions via the gendankin route. Having agreed on such results you then might find you have greater interest in researching existing data or performing specific new tests to confirm or falsify the view.
|
[moderator mode]
If you wish to continue with this gedanken route, then please make that very clear.
Please also make it clear that you are making no claims whatsoever about any experimental or observational support for a "CMB" (or similar) absolute frame (at least until your 'gedanken experiment' discussion has run its course).
If you'd like to do both, but want to keep them 'clean', then please start a separate thread on experimental/observational results which are (or are not) consistent with an 'absolute frame'.
Note that, under the ATM rules, if you make statements about experimental/observational results being consistent with an 'absolute frame' (or not - as you did in the OP), they can be challenged (and you will have to defend them); if you don't want these things to be part of your 'gedanken experiment', then make it clear they are outside the scope of your claims.
[moderator mode]