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 21st January 2018, 01:33 PM   #881
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,185
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Just use the Lorentz Eqaution
Use it? You can't even spell it.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 21st January 2018, 01:41 PM   #882
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,403
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Just use the Lorentz Eqaution
The "Lorentz Eqaution" makes no such directional distinctions. Your own assertion of the math you do use for your acceleration is not the Lorentz transformation. The pretense and lack of math continues.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
What do you want to define ?
Not what I want to define but you need to define (mathematically), your "absolute motion reference frame" in order to find if any evidence whatsoever can support it.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Time dilation and rulers continues to stretch the larger relativistic energy that affect such frame.
What "rulers" "stretch" for whom in what frame, particularly with inertial motion? Again show your math.

"larger relativistic energy" than what? Again show your math


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
This mean distances is shrinking proportional, - but it is only due to local transformation and hence local perception distortions.
Again whose distance "is shrinking proportional" in what frame? What makes it "local" and just what you call "perception distortions". Please distinguish mathematically the difference between "perception distortions" and changes in coordinate values due to difference coordinates systems? Again show your math.

Also please distinguish mathematically the difference between "perception distortions" and your 'reality transformations'. Again show your math.


You seem to oscillate at will between "illusions" as "irrelevant" "perception distortions" and that being "what relativity (as well as reality) is about." Do please let us know when you can at least agree with just yourself.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
If you will decrease the relativistic energy the opposite will happens.
What "relativistic energy" for whom and in what frame? Decreased how, for whom and in what frame? Again show your math.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Where this will or starts 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.
More simple pontifications and still no actual math. Do please let us know when you actually have some math. Oh and please show your math for how you might calculate when you might have some 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, 01:13 AM   #883
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
The "Lorentz Eqaution" makes no such directional distinctions. .
The Lorentz transformation describes consequences of a kinematic process.
Einstein not only misinterpreted the cause-effect, but did not understood the relativistic energy conversion process at all, - instead he incorporating completely unnecessary nonsense postulates to SR, - to be able to explain the already known result of the already known Lorentz equation..
One of the consequences was a idiotic interpretation:that a absolute motion reference frame did no no longer existed.
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, 07:25 AM   #884
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 11,334
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The Lorentz transformation describes consequences of a kinematic process.
Einstein not only misinterpreted the cause-effect, but did not understood the relativistic energy conversion process at all, - instead he incorporating completely unnecessary nonsense postulates to SR, - to be able to explain the already known result of the already known Lorentz equation..
One of the consequences was a idiotic interpretation:that a absolute motion reference frame did no no longer existed.
If you can ever figure out just what it is that you are trying to say, then please let the rest of us know.
__________________
08 JAN 2018 > Trump says that he is "Like, Really Smart" and that he is "a Very Stable Genius".
11 JAN 2018 > During an Oval Office meeting, Trump asks "“Why are we having all these people from sh**hole countries come here?”"

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow 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, 07:45 AM   #885
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,403
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The Lorentz transformation describes consequences of a kinematic process.
I'm sure you think that means something yet it still can't give the Lorentz transformation a directional dependence the equation itself specifically does not reflect.

Hint: It depends on relative speed (a scalar, meaning it has no directional dependence itself).

For your own edification the Lorentz transformation is an equation which means it, well, equates. Sets as equal specific values. If you must insist on calling it a description then the only thing it can and does describe is what values it equates, are equal to each other, with what mathematical operators. Whatever other directional dependence, "kinematic process" description, reality transformation or other nonsense you wish to posit upon it are just your own personal predilections and not any explicit part of what that transformation equates.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Einstein not only misinterpreted the cause-effect, but did not understood the relativistic energy conversion process at all, - instead he incorporating completely unnecessary nonsense postulates to SR, - to be able to explain the already known result of the already known Lorentz equation..
One of the consequences was a idiotic interpretation:that a absolute motion reference frame did no no longer existed.
Decrying Einstein still doesn't imbue the Lorentz transformation with any directional dependence.


How's that math coming for calculating when some math will be coming?

See here's your problem Bjarne (or at least one of them) all you are fundamentally talking about are your additional variable and opposing forces. None of that actually changes relativity even if you make those forces vary with relative motion in some reference frame. What does happen though is including those forces in that reference frame changes the resulting relative speed in that reference frame, which changes those forces in that reference frame, which changes the resulting relative speed in that reference frame, which changes those forces in that reference frame, which changes the resulting relative speed in that reference frame, which changes those forces in that reference frame, which changes the resulting relative speed in that reference frame, which changes those forces in that reference frame, which changes the resulting relative speed in that reference frame, which changes those forces in that reference frame, which changes the resulting relative speed in that reference frame, which changes those forces in that reference frame, which changes the resulting relative speed in that reference frame...
__________________
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, 09:24 AM   #886
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,303
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Actually, I think one of Bjarne's arguments against relativity is that since he can't understand it, it must be wrong.

Hans

Ah, good point. Bjarne isn’t the only fringe theorist currently active on this subforum who seems to think their ignorance of science is an advantage.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 12:55 PM   #887
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,898
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
How fast are these ions moving ?
Displaying ignorance about the Ives–Stilwell experiment says that it confirming your theory is s lie.
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 Yesterday, 12:59 PM   #888
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,898
Thumbs down Bjarne: A ignorant replacement of theory with "adventure"

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
corrected version......
23 January 3018 Bjarne: A ignorant replacement of theory with "adventure" etc. that makes his theory into a fantasy !
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, 01:06 PM   #889
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,898
Thumbs down Bjarne: Derails from his mow more probable Ives–Stilwell experiment lie

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Do you know this article ?
23 January 2018 Bjarne: Derails from his now more probable Ives–Stilwell experiment lie by with an ignorant citation.

Irrelevant citation of a 1971 letter on the Ives–Stilwell experiment by a single author in a spectroscopy journal.

Modern Ives–Stilwell experiments date from 1994.
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, 01:18 PM   #890
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,898
23 October 2009: Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
7 March 2012: Why RR is a fantasy and Bjarne debunks RR again and again!
  1. 8 January 2018 Bjarne: Argument by insult: SR is a valid scientific theory backed up with over a century of data.
  2. 8 January 2018 Bjarne: Lies by linking to an irrelevant and deluded PDF.
  3. 8 January 2018 Bjarne: Falls for a Daily Mail "Is Mercury an alien planet" title lie.
  4. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: A lie about my post which is that he fell for a blatant lie not that everyone is lying.
  5. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: A delusion of physically impossible "periodical orbit collapse".
  6. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: Utterly ignorant delusion of a "crash of their mother planet" forming Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars and their moons
  7. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: Total ignorance and ranting about special relativity !
  8. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: A "Scientific EVIDENCE" lie since he has not cited any predictions for any ISS experiment.
  9. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: Inane "bla bla" ranting that may be the insanity that GR is not tested (GR explains the precession of Mercury's orbit and is required for GPS to work).
  10. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: A lie that ISS and Galileo 5 & 6 are running a specific scientific experiment.
  11. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: At least irrelevant citation of Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of NASA's Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs (2011).
  12. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: Inanity that particulate-induced anomalies are explained by his ignorant delusions.
  13. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: Paranoiac highlighting of a quote from an irrelevant NASA collision risk document.
  14. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: Double ignorance of the orbit of Mercury "collapsing".
  15. 9 January 2018 Bjarne: Irrelevant to Mercury citations in an ignorant "orbit of mercury would collapse" post.
  16. 10 January 2018 Bjarne: Repeats the stupidity that leads to that Mercury might not exist!
  17. 10 January 2018 Bjarne: Idiotic repeat of a quote from an irrelevant NASA collision risk document
More items to add later but at the moment there are probable lies abut tests of GR confirming his theory when he does not even know the details of the tests !
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, 11:09 PM   #891
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Bjarne wrote here (few days ago) http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=887
How fast is the ions moving
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Displaying ignorance about the Ives–Stilwell experiment says that it confirming your theory is s lie.
19 January 2018 Bjarne: Give the MTR theory prediction for the Ives–Stilwell experiment. Show your work.
Yes off course Reality Check EVERYONE is lying.
We all know this. Also the content in this thread (where the Ives–Stilwell experiment discussed) at a respected scientific forum is nothing but a BIG lie .http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/1...comment-964082
It also a LIE that a ion is moving. - Not only a lie but a BIG BIG BIG lie.
EVERYONE can see it, the forum is LYING
Shame that a forum is LYING'
What a SHAME
This is how you see the TRUTH, - right Relativity Check ?

And this image is a BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG LIE >>> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/1...comment=964082

Last edited by Bjarne; Yesterday at 11:46 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, 11:16 PM   #892
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Bjarne Wrote few days ago
Do you know this article ? http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...nalCode=lstl20

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
23 January 2018 Bjarne: Derails from his now more probable Ives–Stilwell experiment lie by with an ignorant citation.

Irrelevant citation of a 1971 letter on the Ives–Stilwell experiment by a single author in a spectroscopy journal.

Modern Ives–Stilwell experiments date from 1994.
Yes off course realty Check Off course, we have indeed one more liar here. No doubt about it. We all see that .
Also this article published by a respected publisher is nothing but a BIG lie >>>>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...nalCode=lstl20
EVERYONE can see this
EVERYWHERE where we look there is ONLY liars.
So we can conclude there is nothing to discuss. EVERYTHING is Lie.
Trump and Reality Check are absolutely correct EVERYBODY are liars.
Nothing to do about it.

However we will make America and Germany GREAT again. - ( Its just a lie but don't tell it to somebody) .
Its a also lie because there are too many liars in USA and therefore NO ONE can trust each other.

Finish here for today, - Just a lie, don't believe it, - I will get back. No I will not get back this is also a lie

Last edited by Bjarne; Yesterday at 11:45 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 Today, 04:23 AM   #893
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,606
Ehr, no Bjarne. You are the one who claims everybody is lying (or brainwashed).

Reality Check just says YOU are lying.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Yes off course realty Check Off course, we have indeed one more liar here. No doubt about it. We all see that .

EVERYONE can see this
EVERYWHERE where we look there is ONLY liars.
So we can conclude there is nothing to discuss. EVERYTHING is Lie.
Trump and Reality Check are absolutely correct EVERYBODY are liars.
Oops! Seems you just did it again.....

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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
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 04:46 AM.
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.