ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Allais Effect , Dark Flow , relativity , Theory of Relativity

Reply
Old 18th January 2018, 02:44 PM   #841
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Very interesting. So, how does either A or B determine for how long the photon traveled before being observed without knowing its start time?
Irrelevant, so long the 2 photons follows the same path.
Whether these travel 13 billion years 30 or 100 is the same pipe of tobacco
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 02:53 PM   #842
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 21,321
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Irrelevant, so long the 2 photons follows the same path.
Whether these travel 13 billion years 30 or 100 is the same pipe of tobacco
You didn't answer the question, though. In your thought experiment you said that the two observers, A and B, each measured how long the journey for the photons took.

How can they do that without knowing when the journey started? For that matter, A and B have no basis to agree the two photons started together.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 02:53 PM   #843
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,888
Exclamation Bjarne: Total ignorance about reference fames - observers have them

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
You have one one frame and this is from the Star S to B...
19 January 2018 Bjarne: Total ignorance about reference fames - observers have them!
There is no reference frame for "Star S to B". There are 2 observers in different gravitational potentials and so 2 different frames of reference .
This is basic relativity. SR has an inertial frame of reference for each observer not at rest with respect with each other. So Alice and Bob having different velocities = 2 different inertial frames of reference. GR has an accelerating frame of reference for each observer not at the same potential in a gravitational field. So Alice and Bob having different heights in Earth's gravitational field = different accelerating frames of reference.

Inane ranting snipped.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th January 2018 at 03:14 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 02:58 PM   #844
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,888
Thumbs down Bjarne: Delusion that the existing evidence for GR will magjcally vanish

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
I hope you have a big gap because much of this evidence you will soon have to swallow, as if it were hot potatoes.
19 January 2018 Bjarne: Delusion that the existing evidence for GR will magically vanish when an ignorant delusion fails yet again!

18 January 2018 Bjarne: Ignorance about GR evidence being only a postulate.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 03:00 PM   #845
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,888
Question State the new MTR theory prediction for Sirius B

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Space is elastic,....
So yes a lie because you did not answer
18 January 2018 Bjarne: State the new MTR theory prediction for Sirius B - show how you worked it out.
But I will give you a chance to try again and show that you did not lie.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 03:02 PM   #846
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,888
Question Give the MTR theory derivation of gravitational waves. Show your work.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Of course....
Ignorant fantasies do not derive gravitational waves. Try again:
18 January 2018 Bjarne: Give the MTR theory derivation of gravitational waves. Show your work.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th January 2018 at 03:10 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 03:15 PM   #848
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
You didn't answer the question, though. In your thought experiment you said that the two observers, A and B, each measured how long the journey for the photons took.

How can they do that without knowing when the journey started? For that matter, A and B have no basis to agree the two photons started together.
For example like that

https://www.google.dk/search?ei=Oxxh....0.QeUrjvL4lSY

Time 23h 39m, - depend on math, speed and distance
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 03:18 PM   #849
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Jesus told them.

https://i.imgur.com/OAMJsYwl.jpg

What? At least I have an answer. It's a crappy answer, but that's more than Bjarne is willing to do to defend his OWN mythology.
This one is better, only the brave (scientist) can enter, not brainwashed fools
https://pre00.deviantart.net/4af0/th...e0-d45h8su.jpg

Edited by Agatha:  Edited for rule 5. Do not hotlink unless the originating site explicitly allows it.

Last edited by Agatha; 19th January 2018 at 10:45 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 03:18 PM   #850
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,888
Question Bjarne: Give the MTR theory prediction for the Ives–Stilwell experiment

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
...This experiment confirms time dilation.
No conflict with the MTR theory
19 January 2018 Bjarne: Give the MTR theory prediction for the Ives–Stilwell experiment. Show your work.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 03:22 PM   #851
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,888
Thumbs down Bjarne: Total ignorance that a theory has to exist before data confirms it!

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
...Furthermore, - the Michelson–Morley experiment was executed before the theory of relativity, so it confirms nothing.
19 January 2018 Bjarne: Total ignorance that a theory has to exist before data can confirm it!
Basic science: A theory is firstly confirmed by the fact that it explains existing observations. SR was confirmed by explaining the Michelson–Morley experiment.

Likewise the first confirmation of GR was matching the orbit of Mercury.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 03:31 PM   #852
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 21,321
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
For example like that

https://www.google.dk/search?ei=Oxxh....0.QeUrjvL4lSY

Time 23h 39m, - depend on math, speed and distance
Then clearly what matters, as you say, are speed and distance, and not time. If A and B each know the distance to the far star and the speed of light, then they each can calculate how long a photon would take to travel. Neither A nor B would need to observe an actual photon at all.

That makes much of your thought experiment silly obfuscation.

Be that as it may, I now have a different question. Do A and B agree on the distance?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 03:32 PM   #853
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,888
Question Bjarne: Show that the MTR theory can match the Fizeau experiment

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
...Both the MTR theory and the prevailing theory agrees to that all observers will measure the speed of light to c,
19 January 2018 Bjarne: Show that the MTR theory can match the Fizeau experiment. Show your work.

FYI: This is the Fizeau experiment that in 1851 detected a partially dragged aether. Confirmed by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley in 1886. Debunked by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley in 1887 by detecting a negative dragging when the Fizeau experiment needs positive dragging.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2018, 12:14 AM   #854
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,181
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If you work back to the starting point (if that is possible), does it come out to about 6,000 years?
I did. Indeed it does.

ETA: 6,213 years old to be precise, but given Bjarne plays fast and loose with actual numbers, take that with a ton of salt. This is a person who, in a single three line post claimed a figure for the acceleration of the Earth of 50,000,000 m/sec/sec and half a micron /sec/sec.

Who can tell what random numbers of bollocks will be wheeled out next? Or how big the wheels might be?

To be fair, it is the most obscurely covert attempt at YEC that I have happened upon.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by abaddon; 19th January 2018 at 12:27 AM.
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2018, 06:20 AM   #855
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
19 January 2018 Bjarne: Give the MTR theory prediction for the Ives–Stilwell experiment. Show your work.
How fast are these ions moving ?
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2018, 06:29 AM   #856
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A theory is firstly confirmed by the fact that it explains existing observations. SR was confirmed by explaining the Michelson–Morley experiment.
Likewise the first confirmation of GR was matching the orbit of Mercury.

corrected version......
A theory adventure is firstly confirmed by the fact that it explains make it possible to fantasize about the cause to existing observations.
SR was confirmed explaining the Michelson–Morley experiment by telling single minded adventures, and HC Anderseon could had made it even better.

Likewise the first confirmation adventure telling of GR was matching the orbit of Mercury.

Last edited by Bjarne; 19th January 2018 at 06:37 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2018, 06:31 AM   #857
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,181
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
corrected version......
A theory adventure is firstly confirmed by the fact that it explains
make it possible for the readers to fantasize about the existing
observations.
SR was confirmed explaining the Michelson–Morley experiment adventure, and HC Anderseon could had made it betteradventure.

Likewise the first confirmationadventure of GR was matching the orbit of Mercury.
Wow. You have not the foggiest clue what a scientific theory actually is, do you?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2018, 06:53 AM   #858
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Wow. You have not the foggiest clue what a scientific theory actually is, do you?
While we already knew that, he certainly is taking his rank ignorance of remedial scientific concepts to new levels. It's like listening to a Shock Jock who you though was at Howard Stern levels until he pulls out the weird porn clips and goes full Tim Henson.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:57 AM   #859
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,977
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I did. Indeed it does.

ETA: 6,213 years old to be precise, but given Bjarne plays fast and loose with actual numbers, take that with a ton of salt. This is a person who, in a single three line post claimed a figure for the acceleration of the Earth of 50,000,000 m/sec/sec and half a micron /sec/sec.

Who can tell what random numbers of bollocks will be wheeled out next? Or how big the wheels might be?

To be fair, it is the most obscurely covert attempt at YEC that I have happened upon.
6213-2018= 4195 BCE

That is very close to many of the proposed dates that YECs claim for creation

Marianus Scotus (4192 BC)
Maimonides (4058 BC)
Henri Spondanus (4051 BC)

Too close to be coincidence IMO.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:18 AM   #860
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
19 January 2018 Bjarne: Give the MTR theory prediction for the Ives–Stilwell experiment. Show your work.
Do you know this article ?

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/1...eedAccess=true
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:37 AM   #861
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,398
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
No.
The photon from the thought experiment did not travel from the star "S" to A, but ONLY from the S to B.
So now it is your claim that "A" receives no photons from "star "S""?



Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Therefore so fare you only have one set of coordinates.
A and B cannot agree what is going on that path.
If "A and B cannot agree what is going on that path" then they must report different coordinates for "that path".

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
If you try to implement other sets of coordinates, it only demonstrate that you dont want to relate to the point, but is confusing the discussion with irrelevant nonsene.
Nope explicitly not "irrelevant nonsene" as how one "relate"s to (locates) a specific "point" is by its coordinates in some coordinate system.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
If you believe you have a good point based on a coordinate mystery, show the math.
Again the math demonstrative of such are the coordinate transformations and they have already been shown to you multiple times. It is no mystery.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Once again accept there are no photons traveling from the S to A. ONLY to B, - and this is the point to relate to..
OK so now you are actually calming that "A" has nothing to measure from "S" and thus nothing to "relate" to what "B" does measure. Your experiment gets even worse for you as you try to save it.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Try to understand that A and B dont know that their realities are different.
Therefore if A would measure a distant between X and Y to 100 meter, B would believe that distance is the same as if B would measured it.
However it is not. First when B will bring his ruler down to A, also B would measure the same distance.
However, if B (and his ruler) doesn’t moves to A , - from a overall perspective A and B cannot agree about the distance, simply because their rulers are not comparable equal length so long A and B are where they are.
Try to understand that "their realities are different" is an ontological claim not a physical one. If you think the physics and math of relativity are difficult for you try the philosophy of ontology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
In the same way, if A and B would test the speed of light, both will based on their own reality, - measure that speed to be 'c'
However if an observer Z from an overall view point, would compare how long distance these two photons had travel, Z would claim that the photon A had travelled further than photon B .
Well, first off, based on your new assertions above, no photon travels from "S" to "A". So "A" has nothing to detect or compare. Second you are again, perhaps deliberately, just confusing a reference frame for some "reality".

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The SR concept is based on misinterpretation of what is the cause of length contraction, and how really to understand that fact derived from the Lorentz Equation.
Great, by all means please, show how your elastic space and absolute motion frame (you can't even define) explains how each observer in relative inertial motion to another sees the others lengths as contracted. Show you math. You may not understand the reason you tend to focus on a gravitational well (non-inertial frames) for your experiment but others here do. It lacks the symmetry of inertial frames (where each see the same contraction in the others lengths).
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:40 AM   #862
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,398
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Bogus
The absolute motion reference frame, describes only local relativistic consequences as a result of objects' energy increment
Again if that frame has "local relativistic consequences as a result of" anything then it is not absolute. As someone noted up thread you just don't seem to understand the difference between relative and absolute.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:58 AM   #863
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,398
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post


  1. And how can the distance between S and B then be calculated if you can use a certain meter definition ( either A's or B's the ruler or both of them)
  2. Furthermore why do A and B not agree about time it took 2 photons to travel the exact same distance, following the exact same path from S to B ?

I am 99,99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999 sure you will not answer to these 2 questions..
1) By calculating the coordinate positions of "S", "A" and "B" in some coordinate system and taking the difference in those values in that system. This can be done in one or more coordinate systems.

2) Because different coordinate systems (reference frames) can given different coordinate values to some events. This was established over 300 years ago even with time and space still considered to be absolute.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:02 AM   #864
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,398
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Space is elastic, and the ruler is stretching proportional with time dilation. That's the essence of the MTR theory, you still after many years hasn't understood.
Its based on the same Lorentz transformation equation as the theory of relativity, only the interpretation is different.
In inertial motion each sees the others lengths as contracted and time as dilated. So who's or what 'elastic space' is, well, "stretching". Do show your math for that "stretching".
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:05 AM   #865
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,398
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
As written some times now, gravitational lensing is true in the MTR theory, because this only mean different tension in the structure of the elastic space, However, whether photons responds to change of tension, when moving, fx sideward relative to the tension direction, - I have no idea
I am open to the question, the fact is its not important to me..
Do show your math for calculating such "tension in the structure of the elastic space" and how it explains "gravitational lensing is true in the MTR theory"?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:08 AM   #866
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,398
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
It mean we now should move with c
  • since this is not the case
  • since it is utopia
  • and since ths acceleration soon will be measured to be true
- something else must be missing
Once again what is evidently missing is your consideration that you are simply wrong.


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
This is how the avalanche will begin to rool.
"begin to rool"? It's been burying you for what a decade now?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:29 AM   #867
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
S
Great, by all means please, show how your elastic space and absolute motion frame (you can't even define) explains how each observer in relative inertial motion to another sees the others lengths as contracted.
What you see when you are looking out the window of Einstein’s train or a spacecraft, is not relevant to physics.
You can explain why it happens; - it is not the “real world”.
For example if you bleive you is at rest and everything else is moving, you should know this is nothing but an illusion.
People believing in SR, does so because of 100 years of repeated adventures trying to explain the consequences of the Lorentz Equation in a "logic" way...

However, - the correct and essential point is; all what reality is about, - is; - local relativistic inseparable proportional transformation, - and nothing more than that.
Length contraction is a mathematical phenomenon inseparable connected to change of relativistic energy.
All the local Lorentz transformations is caused by one and the same local kinematic process.

Quite simple the reality you see around you is changings proportional, - both
  1. time
  2. size
  3. rulers
  4. the speed of light 'c' - not to be comparable the same, but only local proportional the "same"
are all local factors (stretching or shrinking) due to change of relativistic energy.

That's all, - nothing mysterious about it
And this is the ONLY reason to that A and B cannot agree about time, rulers or distance.
There are NO OTHER REASON.

And as you should be able to understand, you need an absolute motion frame. If you don't understand it today you will later

FORGET all you learned about coordinates, - This is BOGUS.
Relativity do not have anything to do with perceptional motion related distortion, etc

Last edited by Bjarne; Yesterday at 09:13 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:53 AM   #868
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,398
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
What you see when you are looking out the window of Einstein’s train or a spacecraft, is not relevant to physics.
You can explain why it happens; - it is not the “real world”.
For example if you bleive you is at rest and everything else is moving, you should know this is nothing but an illusion.
People believing in SR, does so because of 100 years of repeated adventures trying to explain the consequences of the Lorentz Equation in a "logic" way...
You seem to be confusing "a "logic" way" with a way that would be intuitive to you. That the passenger is at rest with the "train or a spacecraft" is a matter of physical fact (for an inertial frame).


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
However, - the correct and essential point is; all what reality is about, - is; - local relativistic inseparable proportional transformation, - and nothing more than that.
Length contraction is a mathematical phenomenon inseparable connected to change of relativistic energy.
All the local Lorentz transformations is caused by one and the same local kinematic process.
Again, Great, by all means please, show how your elastic space and absolute motion frame (you can't even define) explains how each observer in relative inertial motion to another sees the others lengths as contracted. Show you math.

Claims about what is or is not "the “real world”" don't do that.


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Quite simple the reality you see around you is changings proportional, - both
  1. time
  2. size
  3. rulers
  4. the speed of light 'c' - not to be comparable the same, but only local proportional the "same"
are all local factors (stretching or shrinking) due to change of relativistic energy.
A simple list is not that math. If you don't have the math just say so instead of the pretense.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
That's all, - nothing mysterious about it
And this is the ONLY reason to that A and B cannot agree about time, rulers or distance.
There are NO OTHER REASON.
So, still no math as requested. Certainly nothing mysterious about that.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
And as you should be able to understand, you need an absolute motion frame. If you don't understand it today you will later
Nope, certainly not without the math.


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
FORGET all you learned about coordinates, - This is BOGUS.
Relativity do not have anything to do with perceptional motion related distortion, etc
Wait so now your "perceptional motion related distortion" has nothing to do with "Relativity"? You just spent your whole post claiming that was "Relativity". Again do please let us know when you can at least agree with just yourself

Next time, instead of just disagreeing with yourself, try just addressing the question...

by all means please, show how your elastic space and absolute motion frame (you can't even define) explains how each observer in relative inertial motion to another sees the others lengths as contracted. Show you math.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:58 PM   #869
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
What you see when you are looking out the window of Einstein’s train or a spacecraft, is not relevant to physics.
You can explain why it happens; - it is not the “real world”.
For example if you bleive you is at rest and everything else is moving, you should know this is nothing but an illusion.
People believing in SR, does so because of 100 years of repeated adventures trying to explain the consequences of the Lorentz Equation in a "logic" way...

However, - the correct and essential point is; all what reality is about, - is; - local relativistic inseparable proportional transformation, - and nothing more than that.
Length contraction is a mathematical phenomenon inseparable connected to change of relativistic energy.
All the local Lorentz transformations is caused by one and the same local kinematic process.

Quite simple the reality you see around you is changings proportional, - both
  1. time
  2. size
  3. rulers
  4. the speed of light 'c' - not to be comparable the same, but only local proportional the "same"
are all local factors (stretching or shrinking) due to change of relativistic energy.

That's all, - nothing mysterious about it
And this is the ONLY reason to that A and B cannot agree about time, rulers or distance.
There are NO OTHER REASON.

And as you should be able to understand, you need an absolute motion frame. If you don't understand it today you will later

FORGET all you learned about coordinates, - This is BOGUS.
Relativity do not have anything to do with perceptional motion related distortion, etc


That’s a lot of text to admit you can’t produce the math supporting your BS claims.

While your Creationist chums are happy to ignore the math, that doesn’t cut it in the real world. In the real world scientists have been using the math to build GPS satellite systems and fly spacecraft to other planets. The very computer you’re using relies upon the physics and math you’re trying to deny.

The MATH is the real opponent you must overcome. The longer you keep your head wedged firmly in your colon and deny this, the longer you’ll spend being humiliated again and again on forums like this.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:22 AM   #870
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Again, Great, by all means please, show how your elastic space and absolute motion frame (you can't even define) explains how each observer in relative inertial motion to another sees the others lengths as contracted. Show you math.
This is the bone of content.
Correct Relativity (MTR) doesn't have anything to do with how observers sees each other..
Relativistic speed depended perception-distortions can be logical explained, such are nothing but simple illusions.

How A and B see each other is completely irrelevant in true physic, as well irrelevant for how to understand the essence of the Lorentz equation.
Relativistic consequences due to speed and acceleration can only be correct understood in absolute motion and energy frames.
Relativistic energy is the keyword , responsible for all what relativity (as well as reality) is about.

I can understand that you are confused.....You have to understand it like that...............

Between the star "S" and A and B, or course there will be different "acceleration frames" , different coordinates and off course travel time can be different.
However if you would have 1 billion observers on the path S to B, all one billion observers will measurere different time, and their rules would not be comparable the same.
The same would happen on the path from S to A.
In the same way A and B would also not agree about their different transformed realities, also these are comparable different. .
Distance, rulers, time, are for all these observers not comparable the same.

So the only way to measure the distance from S and to A & B, is to have one observer each meter, and then add all data together.
If A and B would use their own rulers and their own clocks, to measure cosmic distances and time it takes to travel a certain distance, this results will only be true seen from a local perspective.
The point here is that if you talk about the distance to the Sun etc, you have to specify who is the observer, and as I wrote if you would have 1 observer for every meter to the Sun, they would all disagree.

Better forget what you learned about relativity and start over again. Its all about local realities, and local relativistic energy.
Local circumstances / relativistic energy, - is what the Lorentz equation, and reality distortions is about.
NOTHING else than this.

Length contraction is a result of stretching rulers.
Its not oppesite. Its has NOTHING to do with speed depending perception illusions.
Its is about a LOCAL kinematic transformation process.

It is only the local relativistic energy level that transforms billion of different realities. NOTHING else is responsible

Last edited by Bjarne; Today at 03:42 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:30 AM   #871
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 21,200
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
....your Creationist chums......
Is this confirmed, or just a working assumption?
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:33 AM   #872
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
This is the bone of content.
Correct Relativity (MTR) doesn't have anything to do with how observers sees each other..
Relativistic speed depended perception-distortions can be logical explained, such are nothing but simple illusions.

How A and B see each other is completely irrelevant in true physic, as well irrelevant for how to understand the essence of the Lorentz equation.
Relativistic consequences due to speed and acceleration can only be correct understood in absolute motion and energy frames.
Relativistic energy is the keyword , responsible for all what relativity (as well as reality) is about.

I can understand that you are confused.....You have to understand it like that...............

Between the star "S" and A and B, or course there will be different "acceleration frames" , different coordinates and off course travel time can be different.
However if you would have 1 billion observers on the path S to B, all one billion observers will measurere different time, and their rules would not be comparable the same.
The same would happen on the path from S to A.
In the same way A and B would also not agree about their different transformed realities, also these are comparable different. .
Distance, rulers, time, are for all these observers not comparable the same.

So the only way to measure the distance from S and to A & B, is to have one observer each meter, and then add all data together.
If A and B would use their own rulers and their own clocks, to measure cosmic distances and time it takes to travel a certain distance, this results will only be true seen from a local perspective.
The point here is that if you talk about the distance to the Sun etc, you have to specify who is the observer, and as I wrote if you would have 1 observer for every meter to the Sun, they would all disagree.

Better forget what you learned about relativity and start over again. Its all about local realities, and local relativistic energy.
Local circumstances / relativistic energy, - is what the Lorentz equation, and reality distortions is about.
NOTHING else than this.

Length contraction is a result of stretching rulers.
Its not oppesite. Its has NOTHING to do with speed depending perception illusions.
Its is about a LOCAL kinematic transformation process.

It is only the local relativistic energy level that transforms billion of different realities. NOTHING else is responsible


That’s hilarious!

You just admitted your nonsense is incomplete and CAN’T be used to design things like a GPS system.

The more you post about your ideas the more pathetic and limited they become. No wonder you haven’t produced any equations to test it. Doing so would expose how you have a tiny little fraction of theory!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:22 AM   #873
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,398
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
This is the bone of content.
Correct Relativity (MTR) doesn't have anything to do with how observers sees each other..
Relativistic speed depended perception-distortions can be logical explained, such are nothing but simple illusions.
Ah, a no true relativity claim. Perhaps you should look up logical fallacies...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

before making a fallacious claims of something being "logical explained".

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
How A and B see each other is completely irrelevant in true physic, as well irrelevant for how to understand the essence of the Lorentz equation.
Nope, demonstrably incorrect as again coordinates are the variables in the mathematics. The math is four dimensional and the Lorentz equation for length contraction and/or time dilation is a reduced form of that mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

For inertial reference frames the spacetime separation (3+1 dimensional coordinates) of events are the same. So once again where mathematically is your elastic space for inertial reference frames, show your work.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Relativistic consequences due to speed and acceleration can only be correct understood in absolute motion and energy frames.
Relativistic energy is the keyword , responsible for all what relativity (as well as reality) is about.

I can understand that you are confused.....You have to understand it like that...............
I'm not confused, no math, then no consequences. As your elastic space apparently can't deal with inertial reference frames you attempt to avoid those consequences by simply asserting it as not "Correct Relativity". If you think that is going to work then it is you who are confused.


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Between the star "S" and A and B, or course there will be different "acceleration frames" , different coordinates and off course travel time can be different.
However if you would have 1 billion observers on the path S to B, all one billion observers will measurere different time, and their rules would not be comparable the same.
Again for inertial frames the space-time separation of events are the same. Simply ignoring that won't help you.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The same would happen on the path from S to A.
In the same way A and B would also not agree about their different transformed realities, also these are comparable different. .
Distance, rulers, time, are for all these observers not comparable the same.

So the only way to measure the distance from S and to A & B, is to have one observer each meter, and then add all data together.
If A and B would use their own rulers and their own clocks, to measure cosmic distances and time it takes to travel a certain distance, this results will only be true seen from a local perspective.
The point here is that if you talk about the distance to the Sun etc, you have to specify who is the observer, and as I wrote if you would have 1 observer for every meter to the Sun, they would all disagree.
Again your baseless speculation are still not your elastic space math for inertial reference frames. Again if you simply don't have it just say so instead of all the pretense.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Better forget what you learned about relativity and start over again. Its all about local realities, and local relativistic energy.
Local circumstances / relativistic energy, - is what the Lorentz equation, and reality distortions is about.
NOTHING else than this.
Simply insisting others be as deliberately ignorant as you is also not your elastic space math for inertial reference frames. Again if you simply don't have it just say so instead of all the pretense.


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Length contraction is a result of stretching rulers.
Its not oppesite. Its has NOTHING to do with speed depending perception illusions.
Its is about a LOCAL kinematic transformation process.
Stretching of what space or who's rulers, in inertial motion each finds the others lengths to be contracted.


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
It is only the local relativistic energy level that transforms billion of different realities. NOTHING else is responsible
Great then the mathematical relation between your elastic stretching space and "the local relativistic energy level" should be easy for you to show. Do please let us know when you can actually do that. However, remember that you just above placed a limit on that math that "Its has NOTHING to do with speed depending perception illusions. ". So now you need a mathematical relation between your elastic stretching space and "the local relativistic energy level" that "has NOTHING to do with speed". You seem to have painted yourself into a very tight and bad corner.

ETA: for those interested, the Derivation of the Lorentz transformations from the invariance of the space-time interval (for inertial reference frames).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deriva...ce_of_interval

As far as I know it doesn't work for non-inertial (accelerating) frames making Bjarne's misuse of the transformation (particularly for acceleration) even more compounded.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; Today at 07:50 AM. Reason: ETA
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:56 AM   #874
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by The Man View Post

Great then the mathematical relation between your elastic stretching space and "the local relativistic energy level" should be easy for you to show. Do please let us know when you can actually do that. .
Both the ISS test and DFA are in fact evidence for that an absolute motion reference frame exist.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:10 AM   #875
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,398
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Both the ISS test and DFA are in fact evidence for that an absolute motion reference frame exist.
Once again your claim contains no math. Nothing can be "evidence for" your "absolute motion reference frame". Since you can't define such a frame and have recently limited yourself to "NOTHING to do with speed". Continued digging just buries you more, I recommend you stop digging as well as stop the pretense that you have, could formulate, or even anyone could formulated the math required by your assertions.


Hint; Your own assertions above make the math you have asserted involving speed now wrong or your assertion "Its has NOTHING to do with speed depending perception illusions." wrong. Do please let us know where you do decide you are wrong.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:46 AM   #876
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Once again your claim contains no math. Nothing can be "evidence for" your "absolute motion reference frame". Since you can't define such a frame and have recently limited yourself to "NOTHING to do with speed". Continued digging just buries you more, I recommend you stop digging as well as stop the pretense that you have, could formulate, or even anyone could formulated the math required by your assertions.
.
We will soon measure the influence of DFA and ASAM, which mean how time dilation is connected to downwards + sideward motion. This will be the first evidence for a absolute motion reference frame exist. More evidence will off course follow. Take it easy fellow.

Still it is time to change side. Only the brave one goes to Valhalla. Not brainwashed cowards.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:32 AM   #877
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,300
Bjarne, would you agree that before you can correct a theory you must have a thorough understanding of it? How and when did you acquire your knowledge of relativity?
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:36 AM   #878
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,603
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Bjarne, would you agree that before you can correct a theory you must have a thorough understanding of it? How and when did you acquire your knowledge of relativity?
Actually, I think one of Bjarne's arguments against relativity is that since he can't understand it, it must be wrong.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:01 AM   #879
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,398
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
We will soon measure the influence of DFA and ASAM, which mean how time dilation is connected to downwards + sideward motion. This will be the first evidence for a absolute motion reference frame exist. More evidence will off course follow. Take it easy fellow.

Still it is time to change side. Only the brave one goes to Valhalla. Not brainwashed cowards.

Once again my user name is not "fellow" and why the heck would anyone but you not be taking any of this easy? You'd do better not to simply project your own unease onto others.

Again as you can't even show how your notions are mathematically "connected to downwards + sideward motion." let alone your still undefined "absolute motion reference frame". Whatever measurements are eventually made can similarly not do anything of the sort either. Though I don't think anyone here has any doubt that you will continue to claim anything as support, or potential future support, for your assertions. While still lacking any math to demonstrate that, or any mathematical connection whatsoever between your assertions and any form of relativity.

Reminds me of that old skateboard/science fiction movie where a group of skateboarding natural philosophers would skate around some ground shaking and paradigm shifting advancement without actually committing to anything and often simply just contradicting themselves.


I believe it was called "Gleaming the Rubicon".
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:07 PM   #880
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Again as you can't even show how your notions are mathematically "connected to downwards + sideward motion."
Just use the Lorentz Eqaution

Quote:
let alone your still undefined "absolute motion reference frame". Whatever measurements are eventually made can similarly not do anything of the sort either. Though I don't think anyone here has any doubt that you will continue to claim anything as support, or potential future support, for your assertions. While still lacking any math to demonstrate that, or any mathematical connection whatsoever between your assertions and any form of relativity.
What do you want to define ?
Time dilation and rulers continues to stretch the larger relativistic energy that affect such frame.
This mean distances is shrinking proportional, - but it is only due to local transformation and hence local perception distortions.
If you will decrease the relativistic energy the opposite will happens.
Where this is starting or ending is not decisive, likewise where the universe will end or begin is also also not important. Or whether the egg of chicken was first is not decessive.
You cannot say Darwin is a coward because he don't know whether the egg or chicken was first.

Last edited by Bjarne; Today at 01:11 PM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.