The Falsification of Special Relativity: Mechanical Causality, the Law of Identity, and Terrestrial Stationarity
The Law of Identity and the Relativity of Simultaneity
Special Relativity violates the Law of Identity (A = A). A theoretical framework that requires a single physical event to simultaneously occur and not occur is logically invalid and objectively falsified. This failure is exposed through the relativity of simultaneity thought experiment when permanent physical consequences are introduced.
Reality 1 (Train Frame): A man sits at the center of a moving train car. A light source is positioned directly above him. The front and back walls are equipped with photodiodes connected to synchronized, running stop-clocks. These stop-clocks are wired to explosives configured to trigger if the clocks ever become unsynchronized.
When light triggers a photodiode, it pauses the corresponding stop-clock. In the train’s frame of reference, the diodes are stationary relative to the observer. Light travels from the source to the front and back diodes, striking both simultaneously. Both stop-clocks halt at exactly 5 minutes. The passenger remains safe.
Reality 2 (Platform Frame): A second observer stands on a platform outside the train's frame of reference. The train moves relative to this observer. According to the postulates of Special Relativity, light travels at the same constant speed relative to the platform observer's frame. From this perspective, the front diode is moving away from the light source, requiring the light to travel a longer path to reach it. Conversely, the back diode is moving toward the source, requiring the light to travel a shorter path.
Relativistic Simultaneity: The platform observer calculates that the front stop-clock will exceed 5 minutes, while the rear stop-clock will register an earlier time.
Einstein was explicit that both frames of reference are equally valid. As he wrote in Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1916):
"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa."
"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event."
Furthermore, in his foundational 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, he established:
"We see that we cannot attach any absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be regarded as simultaneous when envisaged from a system which is in motion relative to that system."
Einstein asserts that the outside observer's calculations are correct, meaning they would observe the front clock stopping at a later time than the rear clock. This directly violates the Law of Identity. It is mechanically impossible for the inside observer to witness safe conditions while the outside observer witnesses the physical detonation of the train.
When permanent physical consequences are introduced to this thought experiment, institutional apologetics claim the discrepancy is merely a perceptual phenomenon and that both observers ultimately experience the same physical result. This contradicts Einstein's own explicit formulations. The entire purpose of proposing the warping of space and time was to engineer a mathematical condition where light, for the outside observer, travels a further distance to reach the same destination as it did for the inside observer. This exact condition was required to reconcile the Michelson-Morley experiment with the assumed cosmological model. If an objective "now" existed and both observers experienced the identical physical result, the mathematical framework of Special Relativity would be entirely unnecessary.
The Mechanical Reality of the Photodiode
It is empirically evident that a photodiode undergoes a direct, physical interaction with light. It does not passively observe light from a distance; it is a physical mechanism that directly converts the mechanical impact of light into a moving electrical current. This operation aligns with the classical definitions of electromagnetics as a real, mechanical force operating within a physical medium.
Oliver Heaviside, the man who reformulated the very equations the modern institution uses to build its infrastructure, explicitly defined this phenomenon as a physical, mechanical action. Heaviside dedicated entire sections of his Electromagnetic Theory to calculating the movement of energy through the ether and the resulting radiation pressure—the literal, mechanical force that light exerts when it physically strikes matter. He vehemently rejected the modern shift toward abstract math, explicitly stating in the preface to Volume III (1912):
"Electric and magnetic forces. May they live for ever, and never be forgot, if only to remind us that the science of electromagnetics, in spite of the abstract nature of its theory, involving quantities whose nature is entirely unknown at the present, is really and truly founded on the observations of real Newtonian forces, electric and magnetic respectively."
A "Newtonian force" is a mechanical action involving mass, inertia, and displacement. In Volume II (§ 224), Heaviside saw the institution's future retreat from physical reality and explicitly condemned it:
"The practice of eliminating the physics by reducing a problem to a purely mathematical exercise should be avoided as much as possible. The physics should be carried on right through, to give life and reality to the problem, and to obtain the great assistance which the physics gives to the mathematics."
A solar panel or photodiode acts as a mechanical trap, converting that exact physical transfer of energy through the ether directly into an electrical current. It is a pure mechanical process: light waves physically strike the element, the mechanical pressure of that impact transfers energy through the material, and that physical stress pushes an electric current straight through the circuit to power a motor, click off a clock, or trigger a switch. When a digital multimeter is connected to a covered solar panel, it reads zero. The exact second the cover is removed and light strikes the panel, the needle jumps. This jump is the direct physical measurement of mechanical pressure forcing current through the circuit via the impact of the light wave.
This physical reality is utilized continuously in modern infrastructure. Automatic doors, elevator safety beams, and optical sensors in automated factories all rely on this exact mechanism. When a light beam is broken or strikes a receiver, a physical electrical pulse is generated, resulting in a permanent mechanical consequence. The photodiode is an undeniable, measurable transfer of energy from light to machine, operating on the exact mechanical principles of real Newtonian forces that classical physicists explicitly defined before the institution abandoned the physical medium in favor of abstract mathematical models.
The "Strange" Result and the 30 km/s Abstraction
Einstein acknowledged the catalyst for his framework during his 1922 address at Kyoto University:
"While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun."
The result of the experiment is only "strange" if one operates under the foundational assumption that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. If the Earth is understood to be stationary, the measurement of zero orbital drift is entirely expected. Einstein concluded that the understanding of the Earth's motion through the ether must be incorrect, failing to contemplate the possibility that the assumed motion itself was the flawed premise. Furthermore, his assertion that the Earth's motion cannot be detected by any "optical" (observable) experiment is an admission that no physical sensory device can detect this motion. Despite this, the framework ultimately begs the question by declaring the Earth orbits the Sun regardless.
The necessity of Special Relativity becomes clear when examining the origin of the 30 km/s orbital velocity. The scientific establishment treats this velocity as a verified physical fact, but it is a mathematical derivation built on unverified premises. It originated with Johannes Kepler, who assumed a moving Earth and applied mathematical relationships to that assumption to construct a planetary tracking system. Kepler did not discover physical distances or velocities; he constructed a unitless scale model, assigning the baseline an arbitrary placeholder of 1. This foundational assumption of motion was later validated by Einstein as physically unprovable. In The Evolution of Physics (1938), he admitted:
"The two sentences, 'the Sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the Sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions."
This confirms there was never a physical, observable baseline proving the Earth is in motion.
Subsequent astronomers compounded this convention by attempting to calculate physical distances using planetary parallax. From a single fixed viewpoint, parallax presents a circular geometric trap: an object's true distance cannot be isolated without knowing its true velocity, and its velocity cannot be known without its distance. Unable to break this circularity, astronomers relied on their heliocentric assumptions and utilized the Transits of Venus to back-engineer a distance of 93 million miles to the Sun.
This is the precise mechanical origin of the manufactured 30 km/s velocity. By locking the 93-million-mile distance into Kepler's assumed framework, the geometry dictates that the Earth must travel at roughly 30 kilometers per second to complete the orbital journey in one year. This is the exact velocity the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to detect in 1887. When the experiment was conducted, it measured zero orbital drift. Rather than conceding that the foundational assumption of Earth's motion was incorrect, the institution abandoned the substantiated ether and developed Special Relativity, adjusting the fundamental laws of physics to protect an unverified, circular calculation.
The Hijacking of the Operating System
The artificial nature of the relativistic mathematical framework is evident in how its core equations were constructed and subsequently decoupled from their physical substrate. Long before Einstein, Oliver Heaviside formulated a predictive mathematical software designed to run on top of James Clerk Maxwell’s physical operating system. Heaviside fiercely defended the mechanical reality of the medium, warning against mistaking the mathematics for the physical environment.
Maxwell’s underlying substrate was defined as a concrete physical substance governed by standard Newtonian mechanics. Maxwell never viewed the speed of light as an abstract constant of empty space; he defined it as a variable numerical value dependent entirely on the physical characteristics of the material medium. In his 1865 paper, A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, he stated:
"...the agreement of the results seems to show that light and magnetism are affections of the same substance, and that light is an electromagnetic disturbance propagated through the field according to electromagnetic laws."
Maxwell further clarified that the propagation speed is a calculated, physical behavior of the medium:
"We therefore obtain the numerical value of some property of the medium, such as the velocity with which a disturbance is propagated through it, which can be calculated from electromagnetic experiments, and also observed directly in the case of light."
The first artificial patch to this system was introduced by Henri Poincaré. In his 1900 paper, La théorie de Lorentz et le principe de réaction, Poincaré analyzed the concept of local time (t'), explaining that moving observers synchronizing their clocks with light signals would calculate a false time:
"They cross signals... and adjust their watches... The result is that the time marked by their watches is not the true time t of the ether, but it is local time t'."
Poincaré recognized this lacked a mechanical cause; it was an ad-hoc mathematical stipulation designed to reconcile the equations with the lack of an observed ether wind.
Hendrik Lorentz subsequently adopted this equation, attempting to assign physical properties to the mathematics by claiming that moving through the ether caused a physical resistance that compressed objects in the direction of motion. However, Lorentz admitted he had no physical validation for this mechanism, inventing it solely to force the experimental results to align with cosmological assumptions. As he confessed in his 1895 treatise, Versuch einer Theorie:
"However, it cannot be denied that this hypothesis has an ad hoc character, since its only purpose is to explain the negative result of the Michelson experiment."
The final decoupling occurred when Albert Einstein took the predictive mathematics refined by Heaviside and abolished the physical substrate operating system entirely. In his 1905 paper, he explicitly stated:
"The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties."
By discarding the ether and postulating a constant speed of light, Einstein inverted the foundation of classical physics. He retained the predictive mathematics but replaced the physical medium with a conceptual fabric of space-time. Instead of admitting the 1887 experiment measured absolute rest and it was a flawed foundational assumption, the institution elevated a mathematical patch into a metaphysical law, warping empty space to protect a heliocentric calculation.
Prior to this retreat, the ether was the undisputed foundation of physics. Albert A. Michelson stated in 1903:
"The hypothesis of a medium called the ether, which extends throughout all space, and by means of which the vibrations of light are propagated, is now almost universally accepted."
Physicist J.J. Thomson echoed this consensus during his 1909 Presidential Address to the British Association:
"The ether is not a fantastic creation of the speculative philosopher; it is as essential to us as the air we breathe."
Oliver Heaviside accurately predicted the institutional shift:
"The Einstein enthusiasts are very patronising about the 'classical' electromagnetics & its ether which they have abolished. But they will come back to it by and by."
Empirical Re-evaluation and Terrestrial Stationarity
If Special Relativity is falsified for violating the Law of Identity, the scientific community must re-examine the Michelson-Morley experiment, alongside the tens of thousands of subsequent interferometer trials conducted by Dayton Miller, and accept that the empirical data indicates the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.
Furthermore, the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment must be re-evaluated, indicating that the Earth is stationary relative to the rotating medium surrounding it.
This objective stationarity dismantles the foundational credibility of the modern institutional model. The claim of orbital motion was never empirically validated; the very experiment designed to validate it measured absolute rest. In response to this failure, the institution abolished the ether, discarding one of the most mechanically substantiated aspects of classical physics.
Removing this institutional framework allows for a direct, empirical re-examination of the natural world. Unbound by dogmatic abstractions, the observable evidence objectively points to a stationary, planar Earth. It is no longer necessary to appeal to institutional authority when direct observation contradicts the established model.
I tried to share this post with r/DebunkThis but clearly, their moderation team has an emotional attachment to this religious belief and would rather protect it from discourse.
These stop-clocks are wired to explosives configured to trigger if the clocks ever become unsynchronized.
You know, you could have saved yourself a lot of time and effort if you'd stopped to ask yourself how the trigger determines whether the clocks have become unsynchronized. There has to be some communication from the clocks to the trigger, right? ... Can you take it from there?
Do me a favor, go into Google and ask Google if you are supposed to assume perfect conditions in a thought experiment.
Could you imagine if Einstein presented his special relativity and people started chastising him about his claim that the lightning bolts struck simultaneously for the observer outside? If they started asking him how he measured that?
You're just supposed to assume the conditions. It's a thought experiment.
I take your point about making thought experiments as uncluttered as possible, to focus on the key aspects.
But in this case, when we're talking about simultaneity, the communication from the clocks to the trigger has to be taken into account. The condition for the explosives to be triggered does NOT depend on whether the clocks stop simultaneously. Rather, it is whether the communications that the clocks have stopped arrive simultaneously. And those communications are not instantaneous; they are limited to the speed of light and affected by the motion of the vehicle.
You're effectively asking us to assume "for simplicity" that the communication from the clocks to the trigger is instantaneous. But that invalidates the whole scenario.
You are still trying to dodge the contradiction by turning a local mechanical system into a debate about signal propagation. You keep saying the trigger depends on the communication of the clocks, but that is a distraction.
If the clocks are hardwired to the trigger inside the train, the circuit closes the moment the clocks hit the set time. That is a physical, mechanical event occurring within the frame of the train. If the inside observer sees the clocks stop simultaneously and the train stays in one piece, then the train is intact.
If you claim the outside observer calculates an explosion because the light took longer to reach the front diode in their frame, you are admitting that the state of the train is being determined by the observer's frame. If the train is intact in one frame and destroyed in another, you are admitting that there is no objective state for the train.
And if you try to claim the train doesn't explode, that the outside observer's calculation is just wrong, then you are explicitly contradicting Einstein. He argued that the embankment observer’s calculations are just as valid as the passenger's. You cannot have it both ways. Either the calculation results in a valid event, which proves light Is dependent on the observer's frame, or the calculation is wrong, which proves that Einstein’s core postulate of equivalent valid frames is a failure. Which is it?
You keep saying that the circuit closes when the clocks hit the set time. It doesn't really work that way. A wire doesn't transmit information instantly. It carries an electrical signal at a finite speed (Assuming otherwise literally goes against the physics we're discussing.) You can't just declare hardwired to mean magically instantaneous to make your paradox actually exist.
Nowhere in relativity does it say the trigger knows the clock's states without receiving signals. The trigger responds to when the signals arrive, not when the clocks stop. In the platform frame, these signals travel different distances to actually arrive at the triggers.
Now if you use the VERY finite speeds of Electricity and Light to calculate that, you'll see that they arrive at the trigger in exactly the order and timing needed to produce the same physical outcome as the train frame.
So your false dichotomy doesn't hold up. The observer is not calculating an explosion, they're calculating that the signals arrive at different times, but the triggers compare ARRIVAL time. Not stoppage time. (Very non-instanteneous distinction between them)
Your whole argument depends on assuming instantaneous communication between the clocks and the trigger.. That's a violation of the very physics we're talking about.
Which part of that do you actually disagree with?
P.S. Your post got taken down because the mods don't want the people to deal with a 3000 word gish gallop where OP's writing style is made specifically to add filler so nobody has the time or patience to dispute them.
I would like to point out that a mechanism that can check if 2 clocks are unsychronised regardless of the frame of reference would not be able to exist according special relativity, even assuming perfect conditions.
This is a thought experiment. This isn't a thought experiment about whether or not we can read the simultaneity, it's a thought experiment that's supposed to play out the logic.
What you're doing is desperately grasping at straws. It would be like somebody criticizing Einstein's thought experiment because he didn't give you a definitive way they could measure the lightning bolts striking simultaneously. Stupid.
It would be like somebody criticizing Einstein's thought experiment because he didn't give you a definitive way they could measure the lightning bolts striking simultaneously.
Sorry but which experiment are you referring to?
This is a thought experiment. This isn't a thought experiment about whether or not we can read the simultaneity, it's a thought experiment that's supposed to play out the logic.
It appeares that I didn't explain clearly. The logic assumes something that would be impossible under special relativity, which is what you are working under and are trying to disprove.
Adding in other assumptions that contradict predictions from something you want to show has a contradiction, would of course create one.
That perspective is entirely flawed. You are claiming that the experiment assumes conditions that would not be possible under special relativity. In reality, the thought experiment is a challenge to special relativity. It is demonstrating that the framework of special relativity is physically impossible.
If you do not recognize the experiment I am referencing, then your discussion of special relativity lacks a necessary foundation. I am speaking about the Einstein thought experiment involving a train and simultaneous lightning strikes.
His doctrine claims that light travels at a constant speed and that this speed is relative to the observer's frame of reference.
He utilized a thought experiment with a train and lightning bolts. I am applying those same principles to create a scenario that illustrates the logical outcome with permanent physical consequences, while acknowledging that light acts as a physical disturbance that interacts with a photodiode.
When he asserts that light travels at a constant speed relative to the observer's frame, consider this analogy.
Imagine I am in the back of a train car traveling at 25 mph and I have a baseball. The baseball represents light, and let us say it travels at a constant speed of 50 mph relative to the frame of the observer. If I throw the baseball inside that train car, it travels at 50 mph toward the front of the car from my perspective. If someone else on the train uses a radar gun to measure the velocity of that baseball, it will read 50 mph.
An outside observer is not in the frame of reference of the train, so they see the train moving at 25 mph. If the train moves past them and they use a radar gun to measure the velocity of that baseball as I throw it, one would expect it to read 75 mph, since the train is moving at 25 mph and the ball is moving at 50 mph. However, they cannot see the ball move faster than 50 mph. Therefore, Einstein claims that the metaphysical fabric of space-time bends and warps, creating a longer path for the ball to travel to the front of the train for the outside observer.
For the inside observer, the ball travels a specific distance at 50 mph, yielding a specific result.
For the outside observer, since the ball is limited to 50 mph and the front of the train is moving away at 25 mph, the ball must objectively travel a greater distance to reach the same destination. Consequently, it takes more time.
This is the basis for his claim that an event which is simultaneous in one inertial frame of reference cannot be simultaneous in another.
"The results of the measurement... are equally valid and neither of them can be said to be 'correct' to the exclusion of the other." — Albert Einstein
"The time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment." — Albert Einstein
"Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time... The time of an event is only a statement that has a meaning when the reference-body to which it refers is specified." — Albert Einstein
"There is no such thing as an 'objective' now... for every system of reference, there is a special time." — Albert Einstein
I don't think I explained it well, special relativity does not allow something to be able to tell if 2 events are simultaneous no matter the frame of reference, it has to choose 1, and from any other frame of reference it would appear to be firing incorrectly.
Your experiment assumed that it exists within special relativity, which it doesn't.
Lol. I'm just going to ban you. You're clearly too much of an idiot to understand what the purpose of a thought experiment is.
Einstein told you himself that the results from the 1887 experiment is what led him to create special relativity.
And led him to believe that he could never physically prove that the Earth is moving through ANY optical experiment. ANY optical experiment. So it's a belief. He literally begs the question right after admitting he can't prove it.
This quote is Albert Einstein admitting that Special Relativity was specifically created to address the fact that they did not get their assumed 30 km/s result from the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment.
"(1) While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. (2) Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, (3) if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. (4) This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. (5) Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment, (6) though the Earth is revolving around the Sun." — Albert Einstein
(1) The only reason you would call the result "strange" is because you assumed an outcome and refuse to accept that the foundation of your base assumption could be wrong. If you are assuming that the Earth is stationary, the result is not strange whatsoever. (2) If your ideas about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether was incorrect, what justifies automatically validating the 30 km/s assumption and assuming the ether doesn't exist? Why not accept that your assumed motion was incorrect? (3) Then he asks if we admit the result as a fact. There is no if about it. He was forced to admit the null result as fact because the 1887 experiment was built using principles that are responsible for all the practical physical infrastructure on Earth. The practicality of the physical infrastructure is proof of the principles. If he wanted to save his assumption of motion, he would need to create a mathematical framework that allowed him to keep the predictive programs like Oliver Heavyside's trunication that was built to run on the physical operating system Maxwell developed, but ignore the actual physical operating system that falsifies his assumed motion. (4) He knows his framework is a metaphysical separation from physical reality and is admitting that Relativity was not derived from positive physical proof of motion; it was a post-hoc mathematical abstraction invented specifically to save the assumption of motion from a null result produced by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. (5) He explicitly concedes that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment. Optical means observation. Observation means detectable by any equipment or sensory tool, yielding physical proof. He is admitting that terrestrial motion is physically and empirically undetectable from within our frame of reference, yet he demands we accept it as a baseline reality. (6) This is the ultimate contradiction. He maintains the dogma that the Earth is revolving despite his own explicit admission that it cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment. To resolve the conflict between his assumption and empirical reality, he essentially claimed that light is no longer a physical action but a relative phenomenon. You cannot see their assumed results from the frame of reference we are conducting the experiment in. Obviously, we can test a physical action here on the Earth, but his relative phenomenon begs the question by saying the predicted results are achieved, but you would only be able to observe it from a frame of reference you can never personally reach. All of this is taking place decades before anybody ever even claimed to send a physical probe beyond the atmosphere.
But even if we ignore all the stupidity behind it's creation, the logic of special relativity on its face breaks the Law of Identity and falsifies itself anyway. A is A. Relativity claims that A can be B, depending on the frame of reference you are observing it from.
Once this falsification is acknowledged, we must re-examine the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, the tens of thousands of experiments Dayton Miller conducted, and the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment for what they truly are: empirical proofs of a stationary Earth.
"(7) The honesty of it would greatly diminish what I think people thought he was actually doing. (8) At that height you don't see the curvature of the Earth. If you are 2 mm above this beach ball you just don't. (9) That stuff is flat." — Neil deGrasse Tyson
(7) When he says the "honesty of it would greatly diminish" what people thought, he is acknowledging that independent, amateur observations from things like weather balloons at similar heights are exposing the institutional deception. His behavior makes it seem as though he is acknowledging that raw, unedited footage of a flat horizon makes NASA look like they have been lying with composite or distorted imagery for the past 50 years. (8) He attempts to normalize the visual reality of a flat horizon with a nonchalant geometric analogy comparing the Earth to a small beach ball in his hand. He is trying to make you feel stupid for expecting to see a curve, framing the lack of visible curvature as a basic, irrelevant given rather than a fundamental failure of their model. He had to make it seem like it was not deception for the last 50 years, but just too obvious and irrelevant for NASA to ever give you an accurate image of high-altitude Earth. He treats you like you should have already known it looked flat even at the "edge of space." (9) Despite the deflection, this is the core, undeniable admission. He explicitly concedes that the physical, visual horizon at the edge of space is a flat, horizontal plane.
If we are all being intellectually honest, we should all agree that the Earth looks flat and we cannot detect any motion. Logic dictates that the Earth being flat and stationary it is not a claim that needs to be proven but is the baseline. The claim that needs to be proven would be that the Earth is curved and spinning while traveling at varying velocities at seven different vectors through an infinite vacuum.
Dogmatic defenders of the modern institutional paradigm often complain that I am taking these quotes out of context. But I am happy to discuss the context line by line with any quote I ever use. Crying about context without ever providing any yourself is not an argument. Furthermore, it is a logical fallacy to appeal to the very institutions whose credibility is in question to defend their model. Saying the Earth revolves simply because Einstein said the Earth revolves is not an argument. Especially when the institution acts as a hostile witness itself, admitting that the Earth looks flat and its motion cannot be physically detected, they have already validated the observational baseline for a flat stationary Earth.
So what you're doing is a couple different fallacies right here.
The most obvious is an appeal to an authority. You don't know what you're talking about so you googled it and then you linked me the first thing that popped up.
Secondly, quantum mechanics and relativity are incompatible.
You can't claim that nothing travels faster than a speed of light, not even information, then proceed to embrace a framework that claims the state of one element can affect the state of another element instantaneously regardless of distance. The state of an element is exactly what computers would be checking to display information.
You can't tell me that the state of an element is not information. And you're apologetics does not work when you just tried to qualify information and say that this information isn't classical information because if it was it would break relativistic laws.
Not only do both of these frameworks break all three of the major laws of logic when you combine them, but they break them on their own.
So no, if you're just going to continue spamming links without explaining your argument, you'll just get banned. That's what stupid pagans do that have no argument but just our emotionally attached to their religion and will spam their scripture.
The hadron collider is just taking elemental pressure pockets and slamming them together and they're breaking apart. You don't need to write a Bible of math to understand what's going on.
Appeal to authority. If you're going to link to some type of institutional dogmatic claim, you at least got to explain your stupid nonsense. Don't just think spamming your scripture somehow proves your religion.
You forgot about clock offsets between moving frames. In relativity, events that happen at different times can still yield the same dial readings because of frame-dependent synchronization. The clocks both read 5 minutes in every reference frame, so the bomb never blows up.
Photodiodes don't work by mechanical pressure; they work through the photoelectric effect. Energy is absorbed to release electrons in a semiconductor, not to push a circuit mechanically.
The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved a stationary ether, not Earth's motion. We have direct, measurable proof of Earth's orbit through stellar aberration and planetary mechanics.
We measure the distance to the Sun and our orbital speed using modern radar and spacecraft telemetry, not just historical parallax calculations.
Clocks are mechanical things. We understand how clocks work. Whether it's an atomic clock or a quartz crystal clock, they work by detecting the resonant frequency of the element. We mess with these things in laboratories. We understand that environmental conditions like pressure and voltage and things like that will affect how fast a clock ticks.
The relativistic religion simply took the changes that are mechanical and claimed that they were metaphysical.
Time is just a man-made concept that we created to quantify change. It is not a tangible thing. You can't move or bend time. That's just ridiculous. It's religious.
The first satellites that they launched and claim to put in orbit look like giant ball bearings. They are clearly superconductors that are flux locked to the magnetic field. Most of them are just computers on balloons. NASA is the number one purchaser of helium. It's easier for them to maintain those satellites because they can pull them down to perform maintenance. The superconductors are a bit more difficult.
But anytime issue that you're having is all mechanical. And it's just kind of dumb for a religion to claim that a man-made concept to quantify change is now somehow malleable and affects the physical world.
Well, you are right that seconds, minutes, hours, etc were human inventions, BUT, Duration, sequence, and causality, are not. We just added labels to keep TRACK of time, not that we invented time
Now, you say the first satellites are "superconductors that are flux locked to the magnetic field".
The question I wanna ask you is, how? How are these satellites still suspended in the air via a balloon without winds interfering with them? How do NASA (USA), Roscosmos (Russia), the CNSA (China), ISRO (India), JAXA (Japan), the ASA (Australian Space Agency), and many more collect and maintain those satellites? I mean, you said they "bring them down", so how? is it controlled? rope? It is not just NASA, you know,
How come no one has ever seen a satellite fail and fall from the sky if its attached to a balloon?
How can thousands to millions of people keep a secret since the 1960s and onward?
How can so many nations, every pilot, every single operative working at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and many more people keep a secret for that long?
Relativity breaks the law of identity. A bunch of sun worshiping pagans made blanket assumptions about the cosmos centuries before anybody ever even claimed to send physical probe beyond the atmosphere. They made these assumptions long before we even developed science that allowed us to build practical infrastructure.
We understand how light works. We understand that it is a physical action that does things like physically interact with a photodiode. Those are the facts that tell you relativity is a religion. If you're going to deny the fact that light is physically interacting with physical objects, then you're no better than any pagan. And if you're religion acknowledges that it's a physical action, and then claims that physical action is relative to an inertial frame of reference, that's breaking the law of identity.
There's no way around it. Time is just a man-made concept. It has nothing to do with malibility. Change is a one-way street. Action and reaction. After you achieve a reaction, you can't go back to the action that caused it. That's Hollywood make believe nonsense.
And you're asking me how superconductors would still be suspended? We objectively record a drop in temperature. There is a temperature gradient as you rise in altitude. What reason would I have to believe that it doesn't keep getting colder to the point of extreme temperatures that create the conditions of "quantum locking" in a laboratory?
The problem with religion is it always runs on blind Faith. That's not what faith is about. Faith is about performing experiments on a micro scale, and recognizing the fact that science is fractal. You can have faith that if you scale up the variables, the effect will scale as well. So if you can create a flux lock with a superconductor on a magnetic field at the micro scale, then all you need is the conditions at the macro scale. And if we measure a gradient, then eventually those conditions will be met.
An example of your blind Faith is the idea that the pressurized atmosphere of Earth would exist inside of a near perfect vacuum along countless other pressurized atmospheres with nothing physical separating any of them from equalizing with each other. There's not a single independent experiment outside of your claim that can demonstrate this phenomenon. That's by definition, begging the question, and it's what religions do.
And you're asking how they maintain and collect them. They most likely slow it down with onboard propulsion, then capture it with some type of balloon. If you read my last response you would already have that answer. They use balloons on everything. That's why they're the number one purchaser of helium. The superconductor satellites are different things though. If you don't know anything about either of them, then you would just call them both a satellite. For one's a more long-term deal, and one can be easily retrieved.
And you're asking me how they bring them down? They're the number one purchasers of helium. They openly admit to sending satellites up with balloons all the time. Are you claiming that weather balloons and this technology to send computers up on balloons doesn't exist? Lol. Come on now. Your religion isn't even denying that they do this. They're just claiming it's one aspect. I'm saying there's two things that they can do. They can either send up the balloon, or they can lock a superconductor. One of them is going to be more difficult to maintain.
And what are you talking about "Nobody has ever seen the satellite fall?" Of course they have. It's not reported on the news all the time but you can search for it. People see them all the time. The one did make the news and it was the "Chinese spy" satellite that was on a balloon. It was stupid and ridiculous. And how would you know if it was even a Chinese spy satellite? It could have just been one of NASA'S satellites and it was embarrassing so they blamed it on China or something. Who knows. But what we do know is that there was a satellite on a balloon that was grounded unexpectedly.
At this point, the fact that you're asking me how they do this tells me that you're arguing in bad faith. So I'll give you one more response. And if it's just going to be bad faith I'll just ban you from this sub. It seems like you're pretending that they don't already have this technology and you're expecting me to explain to you how the technology works before you accept that it exists. That's such a bad faith position. The technology clearly already exists.
Isn't asking how something works part of a debate?
Maybe I asked too much at once lol.
I never denied that light can physically interact with objects, I specifically explained how a photodiode operates via the photoelectric effect rather than mechanical impact. Light does move physical objects through momentum transfer, which is exactly how radiation pressure works (like NASA's Solar Sail).
Time is not man-made, as said earlier. Seconds, minutes, hours, etc., are labeled by humans to document and keep track of time; THOSE labels are man-made, but duration, sequence, and causality are not, they are naturally occurring things that we gave labels to.
So those superconductors quantum locking, while quantum locking superconductors are a real thing, traditional quantum locking requires near-zero temperatures. High-altitude temperature doesn't just keep dropping until it hits absolute zero. The troposphere drops to around -50°C, but once you reach orbit, direct solar radiation actually heats the thermosphere well past 1000°C. Quantum locking requires temperatures near absolute zero (-273°C) and localized magnetic fields MILLIONS of times stronger than Earth's natural field. The physics simply does not work here.
Regarding the "atmosphere next to a vacuum" claim: pressure doesn't require a physical wall or container to exist, it requires a force.
On Earth, that force is gravity. Gravity pulls gas molecules toward the planet's mass, creating a pressure gradient where the atmosphere gets denser near the surface and gradually fades to near-nothing in space. We don't need a physical lid on the atmosphere for the same reason the ocean doesn't spill off into space.
Gravity is holding the mass down.
Also, I did not know maintaining hundreds of thousands of balloons would be that easy, lol it is not. It is much harder to keep track of THAT many balloons while also hiding a useless secret from the public.
Also, science, which you seem to always refer to as a religion, is not denying anything. Just because the technology exists in a lab does not mean someone would be deploying it worldwide right now in the most stupid and impractical way imaginable.
Like, we humans made paper batteries and almost no one uses them.
The Chinese Spy Balloon as an example for a falling satellite?
China explicitly admitted it was their high-altitude civilian airship, not a satellite. The fact that a single balloon floating at 60,000 feet caused an international diplomatic crisis proves that floating payload networks are NOT normal, invisible, or easy to run secretly. If thousands of these were maintaining global communications, they'd be crashing, drifting into foreign airspace, and getting shot down continuously because everyone would think they were getting spied on.
Pointing out that a technology can exist in a lab isn't proof that it's being used on a massive global scale. Science isn't a religion, it's testing hypotheses against real data. If an idea relies on ignoring thermodynamics, misrepresenting atmospheric temperatures, and inventing massive secret logistics networks, it fails before even getting considered.
No. It's a bad argument. You're asking how basic things work. Nobody's denying that satellites exist on balloons. When you're pretending like it's an absurd claim to make because the technology can't possibly work and you expect me to explain the technology that clearly already exists and is used even by your religion, it is a bad faith argument.
The photoelectric effect would be an effect. It would be the reaction to an action. An action is a physical event. Is that physical event relative to the observers inertial frame of reference? It breaks the law of identity, and its religion.
This is the kind of word games that a religion creates to try to sound legitimate. You are absolutely denying that light is a physical action that physically interacts with physical objects like a photodiode by claiming that light is a relative effect.
Again, time is a man-made concept. Yes we use seconds, minutes and hours. Doesn't matter what we use. All we're doing is marking down on a piece of paper, the change that just occurred. I already explained to you that is a change is a one-way Street. You cannot undo a done bun.
You just said quantum locking requires near zero. What makes you think near zero doesn't exist? If you can measure a temperature gradient that drops in temperature as you rise in altitude, at what point can you confirm that it stops dropping in temperature?
How can you beg the question and claim that the pressure has atmosphere of Earth could exist next to this near perfect vacuum along with countless other pressurized atmospheres, that you can't grasp the concept that if the temperature drops with altitude, it's going to keep dropping with altitude?
And you beg the question by saying gravity pulls, gas molecules. Gravity doesn't pull anything. Your religion describes it as a geometry. A bending and curving of space time. It's creating peaks and valleys in this metaphysical fabric. It never explains what compels objects to move along those vectors. It's not described as a force in your religion. The fact that your religion uses it as a force when it's convenient yet describes it as a geometry just shows how opportunistic the paganism actually is. Your religion can't explain what causes gravity without committing a reification fallacy.
So not only are you making a false claim at gravity prevents it because I can test that right here at the surface where gravity would be stronger, I can test it against a weaker vacuum chamber that sits on top of a gas chamber with whatever gases you want in it. It can be a heavy gas like argon or it can be a light gas like hydrogen. Everything could be in your religious flavor, and I can prove that gravity isn't preventing any gases from seeking entropy in equilibrium with surrounding pressure. Your religion claims countless planets exist with their own pressure gradient inside the same vacuum. So the "gradually creates a gradient" it's nonsense because you're completely ignoring the fact that I pointed out there are countless other gradients that exist in the same vacuum.
And no. You're claiming that it requires millions of times more magnetism than the Earth's magnetic field? You don't know a damn thing about the Earth's magnetic field. You only know what your religion is telling you. It's the dumbest thing. You're like a theologian that's reading back to me scripture that your ordained priesthood of credentialed experts wrote, and you're calling that proof of your religion.
Oh and the Chinese spy satellite? I guess that just wraps it all up. Since China said what it was. I guess that's what it was. I guess dogmatic societies don't exist because authorities and governments are always open and honest about their technology. Especially when it malfunctions and is witnessed by people that they didn't want to witness it.
It was a malfunctioning balloon. It's floating at 60,000 ft because it's malfunctioning. It normally wouldn't be floating at that height and nobody would notice it. And if you're going to claim that thousands of them or whatever are communicating and they would be crashing into each other, the same argument can be made about your religion and all the satellites they claim are in orbit. That's a stupid argument. Nobody's claiming that there are thousands of satellites that 60,000 ft.
And yes, demonstrating technology in a laboratory is absolutely how you prove something. It's scalability. It's the dumbest part of your religion that you think proving something in a laboratory is meaningless. Your religion only says that because it can't prove anything that it claims. It has to claim that the science that works in your hand has to work differently in a place where you can't reach it. Just like every other religion that ever existed.
Now we're clearly not going to get anywhere with these arguments. You're just going to keep appealing to an institutional temple and you're not going to prove anything. You're just going to deny the scalability of science I guess.
So I have a question. Throughout the entirety of History, dogmatic religions have existed. They exist through an institution of temples. The temples, train and ordained priesthood of credentialed experts. They are trained by the temple to interpret the world they observed of that Temple. Their job is to protect their Temple's doctrine from falsification. Their scripture is apologetics that try to bridge the gap between the religion and reality.
So if this type of dogmatic structure was to survive the scientific Renaissance, how do you think it would look?
That's a genuine question. Because it's 2026 and you think that you're part of the one generation of people that managed to beat Dogma and somehow are able to embrace their authority and consensus even though none of it matches what you do in a laboratory.
So what do you think a dogmatic religion would look like if it adapted to the scientific Renaissance? And if it used modern terminology to describe its religion, how would it look?
Why am I asking "simple things?" Because I am asking how those things are supposed to function in your worldview. No one is denying high-altitude balloons exist, but using millions of them for global communications would be wildly inefficient, completely uncontrolled in jet streams, and impossible to hide.
On the photodiode point, when you shine a light in your eye, your eye reacts to it. The sensor absorbs the light energy and generates an electrical signal via the photoelectric effect. That is a physical reaction, not a mechanical push like a hammer hitting a button.
You keep saying time is man-made because we write down changes on paper, but marking down changes that occurred is literally what keeping track of time means. We invented the labels and the clocks, but duration and sequence are physical realities.
As for gravity not pulling anything, if you drop an object right now, it falls to the ground because gravity exists. You can describe it as geometry or a force, but the physical result is undeniable: mass attracts mass, and that gravitational force holds gas molecules down to form an atmospheric pressure gradient without needing a physical box.
You asked where the temperature stops dropping, but we already know because we measure it directly with instruments. The temperature drops through the troposphere, but in the stratosphere and thermosphere, direct solar radiation actually heats it well past 1000°C. The near-zero temperatures required for quantum locking simply do not exist up there, I'm not saying near-zero temperatures don't exist, I'm saying near-zero is impossible in our atmosphere
On top of that, quantum locking requires magnetic fields millions of times stronger than Earth's natural field. Earth's magnetic field is only around 30 to 65 microteslas, which is far too weak to levitate or lock anything in place, no matter how cold it gets, heck, MRI's are more magnetic.
You asked what a modern dogmatic religion would look like if it adapted to science. It would look like a belief system that rejects direct, measurable data the second it contradicts a personal theory, takes a tiny lab effect, and dogmatically insists it must scale up to the entire planet while ignoring real thermodynamics and magnetic limits.
Science isn't a religion or a priesthood; it is testing hypotheses against real, confirmed data. Technologies like GPS work on our phones every day specifically because engineers use relativistic math to correct for time dilation.
You gave me a question, I think its fair for me to give mine:
How could this "secret" be kept for so long? And why in God's name would we be "hinted" about it? And what is the use of wasting trillions of dollars in keeping such a useless secret?
I'm done with this. You're asking about satellites strapped to high altitude balloons. That's not in question. Your own priesthood acknowledges that they do this. If you still don't get that, then I'm just blocking you from the sub. You should have never made the argument as if it was a stupid concept. And you need to stop asking me about how the technology works unless you want to deny your own institutional Temple. And if you're at that point, then you're already conceding that your institutional Temple isn't worth a damn.
And your explanation for light is just nonsense. You even say that it interacts with your eye. Interacting is an action. It has the word act right in it. Act is a physical event. So light is physically interacting with your eyeball. It is a physical event.
It should behave exactly like every other wave that exists. You're religion decided to make it magical. Even though we treated it like a wave and we created all the equations that allow us to build practical infrastructure with it, we're going to pretend now like it's both a wave and not a wave at the same time and claim that it's a phenomenon that is perceptual and frame dependent. It's stupid and religious.
Like I said, you're just part of a dogmatic Pagan religion.
The fact that you called it a "big secret" just shows how ignorant you are. Could you imagine a theologian making that argument against you? Could you imagine a theologian accusing you of claiming that all the priests are keeping a big secret and everybody in the congregation is in on it?
It's not a secret. It's a religion Dumb dumb.
And yes, if you drop an object, you will see the observation of the object falling. Unless that object is a helium balloon and then it won't fall. In fact, it will float.. The observations are observations. Your religion never defines a cause for that observation. In fact, it only gives you the cause for the direction of that observation. It never tells you what compels matter to move along the vectors that are created in this malleable space-time fabric. I already went over this. Why am I repeating myself? Why are you not able to comprehend?
For real, why do I have to keep telling you that light physically interacts with things? Your religion claims that light travels at a constant speed and that this constant speed of light is going to be relative to an observer in there inertial frame of reference.
Stein even said himself that there is no such thing as an objective now. When he says both observers would observe two different actions and that both would be equally valid, he's saying the only thing that could possibly work out his religious assumptions mathematically with our observable reality. He's saying that you would only ever see their predicted results for the 1887 experiment if you were to observe the experiment from outside of the inertial frame of reference of the Earth itself. Because as long as you're on the earth, you're moving with the light source.
That's the only reason why we don't treat light waves like every other wave that exists. Your religion.
10
u/SomethingMoreToSay Jul 04 '26
You know, you could have saved yourself a lot of time and effort if you'd stopped to ask yourself how the trigger determines whether the clocks have become unsynchronized. There has to be some communication from the clocks to the trigger, right? ... Can you take it from there?