xyzt

It is called Lorentz "INvariance". Not at all, what gives you this idea? There is nothing to be learned from Sungenis, he's an ignorant and a crank. Let me set your many confusions straight: 1. The experiment in cause is Michelson-Morley. 2. Michelson-Gale is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT experiment and sungenis says NOTHING about it. 3. Michelson and Morley expected to "detect" the move of Earth through "aether", or a speed of about 30km/s. This was due to INCORRECT applications of a laws of physics. 4. Instead, they "detected" a much lower speed. Subsequent experiments detected even lower speeds converging to ....ZERO. 5. The reason is that Michelson used the wrong theory, when one uses the correct theory (Special Relativity) , one gets the correct prediction....ZERO!. 6. An exact zero can never be measured due to the fact that all experiments are subject to statistical errors. Nevertheless, over the years, the measurements have steadily converged towards zero. Start reading here. 7. sungenis is not only an idiot, he's also a despicable liar, there is nothing that can be learned from him and his acolytes.

Because you are lying, there is nothing on Michelson-Gale. Nope, you obviously have no clue. No, he didn't. And yes, you have no clue. One more thing, it is "Einstein", no "einstein". Get it?

There is no point in watching any youtube of this idiocy, there is no disproof of the current experiments. As an aside, the Michelson-gale experiment is supposed to produce a non-null experiment and...it produced a non-null experiment. As another aside, Michelson-Gale, like Sagnac, has NOTHING to do with relativity, so it cannot "disprove" relativity. As yet another aside, I cannot believe for a second that Sungenis is THAT stupid to be talking about Michelsod-Gale in his video, so you must be confused.

Because they are "thinkers out of the box", not "followers" like the mainstream. Apparently, Sungenis took my argument against his crackpoterry to show that Michelson-Gale/Sagnac support his point of view. I have no patience to go through the video (makes me want to puke), so I would like to know the timestamp where he's talking about Michelson-Gale. Scotty, please give out that timestamp in order to support your claim.

Sagnac effect is kinematic, there are no forces, no external effects involved, so it is purely local. Foucault experiment involves the dynamics of the whole universe, one cannot tell if the universe is not rotating about the Earth, "dragging" the pendulum frame with it.

It is not "Michelson-Morley", it is "Michelson-Gale", a totally different experiment. Contrary to your fringe claim, Michelso-Gale cannot "be evidence for both sides". This is a VERY interesting question, the argument presented by people that deny the Earth rotation is that one can assume that the Earth does not rotate and that it is the universe that rotates causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate with it. By contrast, experiments based on the Sagnac effect, like the Michelson-Gale experiment, by virtue of being purely local and kinematic (as opposed to being cosmological and dynamic) cannot be attributed to anything else but to the Earth rotation about its axis.

Yep. The evidence is in front of you, except that you cannot or would not accept it.

No one is attacking you, I have just pointed out the errors in your claims, whether you are "just a messenger" or a shill for Sungenis, I couldn't care less.

I am not interested in Sungenis. I debated him on another website, I gave him a long(er) list of experiments that disprove his nutty claims, the bottom line is that rotation is absolute, as such it can be detected from within a frame associated to the Earth. He is not only an idiot, he's a dishonest idiot.

Rotation: the Michelson-Gale experiment Revolution: change of seasons.

...because they applied the thrust synchronously in THEIR co-moving place but NOT in ANY other frame.

Others have already pointed out the multiple mistakes in your "theory". Let me point out another one: The way GPS works is that it needs to take into consideration the relativistic time dilation: [math]\tau=t \sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}[/math] where "c" is ...the speed of light. Do you have GPS in you car? Does it work?

My initial sense was that the "theory" belonged to Trash. Turns out that I was correct, thank you for confirming it.

Before you "develop" a "theory" you need to LEARN the EXISTING ones. Have you studied physics?

The correct formulation is either: 1. The total energy E contained by a proper mass [math]m_0[/math] is [math]E=\gamma m_0c^2[/math] 2. The variation of total energy [math]\Delta E[/math] released by a variation of proper mass [math]\Delta m_0[/math] is [math]\Delta E=c^2 \Delta m_0[/math] 3. In the rest frame co-moving with the mass [math]m_0[/math] the total energy is equal to the rest energy [math]E_0=m_0c^2[/math] because [math]\gamma=1[/math] [math]E=mc^2[/math] is a (bad) shorthand for either 1,2 or 3. Now, there is no mass associated with dark energy, so your question cannot be answered.

1. It is not "time dilation", it is "total accumulated proper time". 2. Acceleration does not affect the "total accumulated proper time" directly, speed does. See the "clock hypothesis"

Tough for him.

Interestingly enough, 0.(9)=1

Who is "we"? Can you provide proof of your above statement ?

Total energy (just like kinetic energy) is frame-DEPENDENT , the above has nothing to do with conservation of energy. You are mixing frame-(in)dependence with conservation. Totally different concepts.

Very, very unlikely. What's on your mind?

Huh?

Incorrect. In the FRAME that the clocks are synchronized, they STAY synchronized. In all OTHER frames (in motion wrt the frame above), the clocks are NOT synchronized. This is because synchronization is a relative phenomenon, i.e. it is FRAME-DEPENDENT.

...into increasing the person's speed , i.e. into increasing the person total energy.

No, it doesn't.