Aspys seem to be an odd mix on faith. [a social experiment]

Page 1 of 1 [ 2 posts ] 

Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 2

27 Feb 2015, 4:00 am

Have you noticed this? Let me explain. [And there really is something off topic nearer the bottom, I promise. I just have a wind-up before the pitch]

There seems to be an odd mixture of absolute belief and absolute doubt. It seems we very easily discard common religion because of its obvious nonsense but it also seems that we pick up consensus truth held by authority and guard it rabidly. See the structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn (The necessity of painful revolution in science because of the inherent necessary faith in systems needed to progress)

So, for instance, it seems that aspys might come down very strongly on both sides of an argument that has the mildest scientific merit but usually very strongly stand with consensus science even in cases where it was wrong. (Such as gamma ray bursts, snowball earth, or any other revolutionary progress in science down through history.)

It seems that we have a very strong social cohesion that is tempered by a very strong individuality when it comes to "This doesn't make sense", such that when it does make sense we internalize it and the associated group very strongly.

It seems like aspy types end up being quite religious in their behavior even when that rabid certainty (religiosity) is specifically anti-spiritual in nature.

Do you agree with this? Have you observed the same?

Now for the Off-topic experiment!

So... I have a primary example which will work as a test case. I think the greater percentage of people here will write me off as a kook in a moment for disagreeing with consensus science and a small minority will be utterly changed in their opinion based upon the presentation of new evidence and their own personal interpretation of that evidence regardless of the group's consensus. (and let me further project that the dividing line will be such that those who side with me will have been very strongly aspy when younger but found a way to seem almost neurotypical or better in their social ability by later adulthood)

And here it is:

There is a vast wealth of peer reviewed data that controverts certain aspects of Special Relativity. It is a system of nonsense, faith and social constructs which I can easily point out to you but it is thoroughly mixed in with good science.

I will now try to provide you with the minimum amount of data possible to pique your interest and overcome your "bullshit exploration fatigue" you naturally feel when presented with something far outside of consensus. (a near impossible balance of adequate and concise in this subject matter) ...I will also do all this in laymen's terms and therefore deserve a S symbol on my chest.

First let me repeat that there is a tremendous amount of good solid incontrovertible science tied in with special relativity so it will be difficult for you to understand this "baby and bathwater" argument. Specifically what I intend to show you is that the constancy of light speed is an irrational and magical belief. In the articles I link below I'll make you understand precisely how and why.

Let me pique your interest with the most interesting data set: Dayton Miller, a colleague of Edward Morley (of the Michelon-Morley experiment) performed tens of thousands of aether drift experiment replications of the MM experiments over a 30 year period and won a prestigious prize from the AAAS for proving the existence of a preferred frame effect in that experiment. (thereby utterly falsifying the central postulate of the theory) Because he used different devices in differing locations run by differing assistants and procedures that created a "double-blind" situation, the evidence was absolutely incontrovertible. His work directly and specifically blocked Einstein's consideration for the Nobel prize for Special Relativity yet even experts in relativity often don't know his name and certainly don't understand the work.

The only arguments against it for "temperature effects" were absurd and had numerous test cases to show how temperature effects affected the data in a different manner. The data varied in a consistent way that could only be caused by a preferred frame. (this is a long explanation most people have never heard of and there is so much I'm leaving out) The final excuse that is usually made in modern arenas is that we perform many replications of this experiment on more precise devices practically on a daily basis.

This is patently not true and easily repudiated by anyone with mildly deep understanding of optics. Modern experiments use monochromatic light while only Michelson and Miller used white light. There are a number of affects ranging from the non-linear Kerr effect, to the phenomena called lock-in that separate these experiments. A white light experiment must have precisely the same traversal distance with a single wavelength of light whereas a laser light experiment could be inches off while still displaying a fringe pattern. (Miller's experiments have never been replicated)

All of the magical and non-mechanical effects of light in special relativity are simply due to a mathematical model of an optical illusion in which the underlying truth has been swept away and ignored. This includes the twin paradox and any other strangeness including the relativity of simultaneity. Time differences and shortening, on the other hand, can be explained in purely intuitive and mechanical terms. (no faith required, no incongruity present, no blind acceptance of faulty evidence necessary)

Because of the subtlety of this problem, it is often explained by proponents in rational terms that violate the principles of the theory itself. (For instance the "explanation" of the twins paradox simply selects a preferred/universal frame.) This behavior makes the confusion far worse.

The vast majority of experiments which go utterly against the theory are heralded as proofs of its validity! The aberration of starlight, the Fizeau experiment, the Doppler effect, and most importantly and obviously, the Sagnac effect all controvert a constancy of light speed but are still compatible with Lorentz's aether theory (LET) which is the direct predecessor of Special relativity. (It used to be called Lorentz-Einstein Relativity and we still call it the Lorentz transform) LET also has zero paradoxes while still maintaining real time-dilation, real length contraction the illusions of light speed constancy and the relativity of simultaneity.

For a detailed contrasting of the two theories which will clear up every question you ever had, please read my three blog posts at

You may also read my extremely old and un-updated site for further information found at:

Let the rabid condemnation and unstoppable curiosity begin! :wink:


User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2014
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 264

28 Feb 2015, 3:22 am

A social experiment to solicit views (hits) for your own site, or a site you have something to gain from. No different than spamming WP.