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 15th October 2019, 08:38 PM   #1081
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,349
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
F = ma is constant..
Rubbish, - v will increase, then also m and hence also F must increase if a must be constant.
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, 02:19 AM   #1082
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,901
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
15 October 2019 Bjarne: Extreme ignorance about Newton's second law where mass is constant.
That is the high school textbook physics that the m in F = ma is constant.
Bjarne, any reason you left the highlighted out of the quote?

I don't know whether to be more dumbfounded by the dishonesty in that out of context quotation, or by the idea that no one would notice.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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, 04:10 AM   #1083
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,865
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Bjarne, any reason you left the highlighted out of the quote?



I don't know whether to be more dumbfounded by the dishonesty in that out of context quotation, or by the idea that no one would notice.


He’s convinced me he’s here to argue. His posts are indicative of someone trying to make excuses to be abusive, not someone trying to defend ideas they think have merit.

I think even Bjarne knows his claims are hot garbage.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
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, 11:09 AM   #1084
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,349
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Bjarne, any reason you left the highlighted out of the quote?

I don't know whether to be more dumbfounded by the dishonesty in that out of context quotation, or by the idea that no one would notice.
In the real world m is not constant
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, 11:21 AM   #1085
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,276
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Rubbish, - v will increase, then also m and hence also F must increase if a must be constant.
Bjarne, all this is a problem in a universe where there is absolute velocity. However, in THIS universe, velocity is relative.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
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 Yesterday, 12:43 PM   #1086
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Thumbs down Now a blatant lie that in Newton's second law F=ma m will increase when m is constant

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Rubbish, - ....
Now a blatant lie that in Newton's second law F=ma, m will increase when m is a constant mass.
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 Yesterday, 12:48 PM   #1087
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Rubbish, ...
Also a lie by altering my post in his quote which was not "F = ma is constant.."
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
16 October 2019 Bjarne: Cannot understand basic physics in my post about Newton's second law so answers with more delusions about his RR delusion.

15 October 2019 Bjarne: Extreme ignorance about Newton's second law where mass is constant.
That is the high school textbook physics that the m in F = ma is constant.

"First law is BS, the only "small" mistake Newton did." stupidity when Newton's laws have been tested for over 300 years.
Obviously in Newton's second law the force F is a variable proportional to the acceleration a. The proportionality constant is m.
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 Yesterday, 12:56 PM   #1088
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
In the real world m is not constant
That is wrong, Bjarne. In the real world of physics, m is a rest mass and constant. For example, the m in E=mc^2 is the rest mass. It is the debated relativistic mass (often denoted as M to separate it from m) that increases with speed. The debate is if relativistic mass should be taught when it is rarely used and tends to hide more fundamental relativistic dynamics.
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 Yesterday, 06:58 PM   #1089
SDG
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 393
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-4.png?w=1024


https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-7.png?w=1024
So, for a clock on the train, the duration 6.1237 dilates to 6.25

For a clock on the platform, the duration 6.25 dilates to 6.3789. All consistent as long as you remember which duration was measured by a stationary clock.
Robin,
There is one time interval in the platform frame and two different intervals in the train frame.
Which one is correct?
Is the proper time interval dependent on the clock?
Is aging dependent on the clock?
The reciprocity is the problem, because two inertial observers cannot decide who is aging faster.


You mentioned that you do not see how the following diagram violates relativity:



The platform blue light beams crossed the same distance in the platform frame.
It is similar to the original thought experiment when the light went to the left and to the right in the train car, the light travelled the same distance.
We used the Lorentz transformation with the clock desynchronization to make it 'right' for the SR to hold.



There is no Lorentz transformation that can make this right.
For example the right red arrow stays at x'=0 all the time in the train frame with time passing.
The left blue arrow stays at x=0 all the time in the platform frame with time passing.
That means you'll be getting time dilation intervals as per the definition, no clock desynchronization.
Before even going to any calculations just tell me how can red light beam under angle cross the 2cs distance in the 90 degree direction to the velocity vector faster than the light going straight in the 90 degree direction?



If the Lorentz transformation is symmetrical then how come we are not going to get the dotted red line?
We cannot because the light would not travel at the same speed within the same reference frame.
SDG
SDG 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, 07:04 PM   #1090
SDG
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 393
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
SDG, why do you think your ideas are generating no traction?
I have my take on it.
SDG
SDG 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, 08:27 PM   #1091
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Thumbs down Usual lie, same abysmally ignorant questions and a persistent delusion

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
There is one time interval in the platform frame and two different intervals in the train frame.
Which one is correct?
Is the proper time interval dependent on the clock?
Is aging dependent on the clock?
The reciprocity is the problem, because two inertial observers cannot decide who is aging faster.
...
17 October 2019 SDG: Usual time interval lie, same abysmally ignorant questions and a persistent delusion.

The Lorentz transformation maps 1 time interval in any frame to 1 time interval in another frame so "two different intervals" is a lie.
"Which one is correct" is a question abut his lie.
Proper time is the time as measured by a clock moving with the observer.
Basic fact - aging is measured by clocks!
Basic SR - time dilation!
His persistent delusion that observers must "decide who is aging faster". What SR states is that the observers age at the same rate. Both observers measure the same time dilation because time dilation only has speed in it .

N.B. We can have 1 time interval in the platform frame and 2 two different intervals in the train frame so long as at least 1 of the train intervals is unrelated to the platform interval.

18 posts of ignorance, fantasies and a few lies from 30 August to 27 September 2019 (and growing!)
  1. 27 September 2019 SDG: Back to "textbook example" idiocy that cannot show any problem with SR!
  2. 30 September 2019 SDG: A rather dumb question when a post is about all of SDG's posts!
  3. 30 September 2019 SDG: A "By your logic nobody should have a look at Einstein's ideas" fantasy.
  4. 30 September 2019 SDG: Still has not learned the definition of proper time!
  5. 30 September 2019 SDG: An obvious error that posts showing knowledge about SR show no knowledge.
  6. 1 October 2019 SDG: Repeats his "relativity has two time interval options for the train frame" error but at least dropped the blatant error of proper time (time inside the frame).
  7. 1 October 2019 SDG: Persisting with the "two different train time intervals for one platform time interval" error

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 08:36 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 Yesterday, 09:04 PM   #1092
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,349
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Now a blatant lie that in Newton's second law F=ma, m will increase when m is a constant mass.
Yes F=ma is a lie, if m and F is constant
If that was true, - and let say Dark Flow is true, - a stone that must follow Dark Flow Acceleration would reach the speed c within relative short time, and redpresent infinity amount of energy.

do you really believe in such BS yourself
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, 09:06 PM   #1093
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,349
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Also a lie by altering my post in his quote which was not "F = ma is constant.."

Obviously in Newton's second law the force F is a variable proportional to the acceleration a. The proportionality constant is m.
According to MTR this is a lie. I thought you understood 7 years ago.. m is NOT constant in the real world, - but a real relativistic transformation factor.

Last edited by Bjarne; Yesterday at 09:08 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
Old Yesterday, 09:08 PM   #1094
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,349
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Also a lie by altering my post in his quote which was not "F = ma is constant.."

Obviously in Newton's second law the force F is a variable proportional to the acceleration a. The proportionality constant is m.
Newton made 2 rubbish laws
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, 09:10 PM   #1095
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,349
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
In the real world of physics, m is a rest mass and constant.
This is religion, not science.. and a lie
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, 09:47 PM   #1096
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,217
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The reciprocity is the problem, because two inertial observers cannot decide who is aging faster.
The observer on the platform decides that the observer on the train is aging faster, and the observer on the train decides that the observer on the platform is aging faster.

That is not a problem, because the two observers are in different inertial frames and can therefore never meet (remember special relativity only applies to observers whose velocity doesn't change).

The only time it would be a problem is if the two observers ever do meet, i.e. end up in the same inertial frame. The only way for that to happen is if one of them undergoes acceleration, i.e. changes their velocity, at which point we need general relativity to work out what happens That tells us that the observer who undergoes the acceleration will age less than the observer who didn't. Hence someone who goes off in a spaceship and zooms around at close to the speed of light for a while and then returns (which requires him to undergo acceleration) will find that more time has passed on Earth than passed for them.

Once again: this is textbook stuff.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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, 04:09 AM   #1097
SDG
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 393
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The observer on the platform decides that the observer on the train is aging faster, and the observer on the train decides that the observer on the platform is aging faster.

That is not a problem, because the two observers are in different inertial frames and can therefore never meet (remember special relativity only applies to observers whose velocity doesn't change).

The only time it would be a problem is if the two observers ever do meet, i.e. end up in the same inertial frame. The only way for that to happen is if one of them undergoes acceleration, i.e. changes their velocity, at which point we need general relativity to work out what happens That tells us that the observer who undergoes the acceleration will age less than the observer who didn't. Hence someone who goes off in a spaceship and zooms around at close to the speed of light for a while and then returns (which requires him to undergo acceleration) will find that more time has passed on Earth than passed for them.

Once again: this is textbook stuff.
Pixel,
then all the text book writers should answer the question why they go against experiments.
The Clock Postulate.
It is proven by experiments.

Quote from the second link:
Quote:
He discusses some Mössbauer experiments that show that the rate of a clock is independent of acceleration (~1016 g) and depends only upon velocity.
The question: What velocity? In reference to what?
SDG

Last edited by SDG; Today at 04:28 AM.
SDG 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, 04:23 AM   #1098
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,217
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The question: What velocity? In reference to what?
SDG
The velocity of the observer relative to the clock.

The clock ticks at one rate relative to an observer in the same inertial frame, and at a different rate relative to an observer in a different inertial frame.

From the paragraph immediately above the one you quote:

Quote:
The so-called “twin paradox” occurs when two clocks are synchronized, separated, and rejoined. If one clock remains in an inertial frame, then the other must be accelerated sometime during its journey, and it displays less elapsed proper time than the inertial clock. This is a “paradox” only in that it appears to be inconsistent but is not.
You still seem to be having trouble with the bolded part.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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, 05:18 AM   #1099
SDG
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 393
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The velocity of the observer relative to the clock.

The clock ticks at one rate relative to an observer in the same inertial frame, and at a different rate relative to an observer in a different inertial frame.

From the paragraph immediately above the one you quote:



You still seem to be having trouble with the bolded part.
Pixel,
that's my point.
The pure example of contradiction on one page.
The author(s) of the page talk about acceleration for the twin paradox and a couple of lines below the referenced experiment contradicts it.
If this is OK with you then what is your definition of contradiction?

Can we settle post #1089 first?
SDG
SDG 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, 06:00 AM   #1100
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Robin,
There is one time interval in the platform frame and two different intervals in the train frame.
Which one is correct?
Both. Only one of those durations is measured by a stationary clock on the platform. They are different intervals.
Quote:
Is the proper time interval dependent on the clock?
Yes, it is dependent on which frame the clock is stationary in.
Quote:
Is aging dependent on the clock?
Aging happens at the same rate as the stationary clock that the person is adjacent to.
Quote:
The reciprocity is the problem, because two inertial observers cannot decide who is aging faster.
There is no problem since they will have no disagreement about what is on each others clocks.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; Today at 06:04 AM.
Robin 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, 06:06 AM   #1101
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Can we settle post #1089 first?
SDG
Why don't you draw a spacetime diagram for it and label the events. That would make discussion of it possible.

(Granted it is tricky doing that extra dimension on a spacetime diagram)
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; Today at 06:10 AM.
Robin 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, 06:09 AM   #1102
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,865
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
This is religion, not science.. and a lie


The only one using the language of religious zealots here is you Bjarne. You keep insisting others are wrong, but you can't even get your own equation to agree with your claims.

__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
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, 06:10 AM   #1103
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,657
Deleted
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; Today at 06:11 AM.
Robin 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, 06:14 AM   #1104
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,217
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Pixel,
that's my point.
The pure example of contradiction on one page.
The author(s) of the page talk about acceleration for the twin paradox and a couple of lines below the referenced experiment contradicts it.
No, the referenced experiment confirms it. The muons that are travelling at 0.9994 c around the ring, undergoing acceleration due to their circular orbit, live longer than the muons at rest. The amount of the time dilation depends only on the velocity of the muons.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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, 07:36 AM   #1105
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
I have my take on it.
SDG
And what is your take, may I ask?
JeanTate 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, 07:42 AM   #1106
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,446
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
You mentioned that you do not see how the following diagram violates relativity:

https://i.imgur.com/6rXoJUE.png

The platform blue light beams crossed the same distance in the platform frame.

In the platform frame, the two light beams reach the specified positions (where the blue arrow heads are) simultaneously, traveling a equal distances in equal amounts of time.

In the train frame, the two light beams reach the red arrow heads at different times, traveling unequal distances in unequal amounts of time.

What about that violates relativity?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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, 08:40 AM   #1107
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,446
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
There is no Lorentz transformation that can make this right.

Have you tried the Lorentz transformation?

Let's call the emission of the light beams at the origin event A, the arrival of the left light beam at the far side of the train event B, and the arrival of the right light beam at the centerline of the train event C.

For event A:
platform frame:
x = 0
y = 0
t = 0
train frame:
x' = 0
y' = 0
t' = 0

For event B:
platform frame:
x = 0
y = 2 cs
t = 2 s
train frame:
(to be determined)

For event C:
platform frame:
x = sqrt(3)cs
y = 1 cs
t = 2 s
train frame:
(to be determined)

Platform frame distance AB = distance AC = 2 cs
Speed of light = 2 cs traveled in 2 s = 1 cs/s = c

That's your setup condition, your blue arrows, correct? So now let's use the actual Lorentz transformations (rather than your inaccurate ad hoc diagrams) to understand what happens in the train frame.

Event B in the train frame:
(recall, for event B, x = 0, y = 2 cs, t = 2 s)

x' = gamma * (x - vt)
x' = 2 * (0 - (.866 c * 2 s)) = -3.464 cs (or sqrt(12) cs)
y' = y = 2 cs
t' = gamma * (t - vx/c^2) and since x = 0 for event A, t' = gamma * t
t' = 4 s

Train frame speed of light for interval AB: the light travels a distance of sqrt(2^2 + 3.464^2) = 4 cs in 4 s = 1 cs/s = c

Event C in the train frame:
(recall, for event C, x = sqrt(3) cs, y = 1 cs, t = 2 s)

x ' = gamma * (x - vt)
x' = 2 * (sqrt(3) - (.866 c * 2 s)) = 0
y' = y = 1 cs
t' = gamma * (t - vx/c^2)
t' = 2 * (2 - .866c * sqrt(3) cs/c^2) = 2 * (2 s - 1.5 s)
t' = 1 s

Train frame speed of light for interval AC: the light travels 1 cs in 1 s = 1 cs/s = c.

Still no contradictions.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; Today at 08:42 AM.
Myriad 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, 09:18 AM   #1108
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,349
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Bjarne, all this is a problem in a universe where there is absolute velocity. However, in THIS universe, velocity is relative.

Hans
Not the day , the nature of space, and how that nature is involved in the nature of matter, - both are just a little better (theoretical) understod.

Also think about WHY a clock can tick relative slower or faster ? - which process is responsbile ?
Without trying to solve / consider such major challenges, - a paradigm, will not have taken the necessary step higher as kindergarten science.
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, 11:17 AM   #1109
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,865
Talking Here Bjarne goes again...

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Not the day , the nature of space, and how that nature is involved in the nature of matter, - both are just a little better (theoretical) understod.

Also think about WHY a clock can tick relative slower or faster ? - which process is responsbile ?
Without trying to solve / consider such major challenges, - a paradigm, will not have taken the necessary step higher as kindergarten science.
Here Bjarne provides an excellent illustration of the Divine Fallacy, also known as the argument from incredulity.

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

Because he personally finds the possibility of relative frames of reference implausible, he assumes they are impossible. To further this delusional reality denial he has created a half-assed theory with incomplete mathematics that contradict his own claims. When pressed to do things like explain the time dilation observed in extant technology, such as GPS satellites, he resorts to reiterating his argument from incredulity and lobbing out insults.

The ideal location for Bjarne's theories:

__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
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, 11:46 AM   #1110
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,276
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Not the day , the nature of space, and how that nature is involved in the nature of matter, - both are just a little better (theoretical) understod.

Also think about WHY a clock can tick relative slower or faster ? - which process is responsbile ?
Without trying to solve / consider such major challenges, - a paradigm, will not have taken the necessary step higher as kindergarten science.
Bjarne, that, what you wrote above, simply makes no sense.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
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, 12:26 PM   #1111
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,872
I love the bipolar nature of this thread!
Elagabalus 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 01:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.