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 26th December 2017, 08:54 AM   #241
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
Perihelion anomalies
Motion away from DFA will decelerate an object, - such object will get the loss of kinetic energy back when it again moves/accelerate against DFA.
The magnitude of the orbit anomaly that influence will cause depend on the orbit inclination relative to DFA.
Here you have the cause of perihelion anomalies in general, its simply causes by what this theory also call EDFA (Effective Dark Flow Acceleration")
Think about, - ONLY one day of measurement near arctic, - can CONFIRM DFA Once and for all.
That day you do not need more crap to explain or understand perihelion anomalies. - Its simply cause by a DFA effect very easy to grasp..
Once again by your own assertions your "EDFA (Effective Dark Flow Acceleration")" stops at a terminal velocity. Mercury is also about 4.5 billion years old. Plenty of time for your "EDFA" to max out (get countered by your, well, counter force) and no longer be an accelerating force. However, your assertion before was that your "EDFA" was a result of the universe and that is 14 billion years for your "EDFA" to now be 0. Making up crap to try to help your other crap really just gives you more, well, crap.
__________________
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 26th December 2017, 09:03 AM   #242
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
No, the observer at rest observes length contracted in the moving body. The observer at rest remains at rest with their own rulers so they never change for them. Since both are moving relative to each other, each sees the others length as contracted. No one sees the others rulers as "longer". You are mixing reference frames where the person at rest might say their rulers are "longer" than those of the moving body and even getting that wrong by asserting the rulers of the moving body get "longer". Again, please stop with the crap, since it spews from you.
The main problem you have is that you cannot decide who is moving and who is not. Absolutte motion matters, if you get that wrong everything you deal with is wrong.
The new theory claims that matter in motion i interact with space, and because of that you get relativistic effect, such as time dilation, - and relativistic change of the rulers...

If you ignore that , you are completely lost, exactly like the holy nonsense you cited from the book, teach you..
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 26th December 2017, 09:25 AM   #243
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 main problem you have is that you cannot decide who is moving and who is not.
Each is moving relative to the other. No problem there.


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Absolutte motion matters, if you get that wrong everything you deal with is wrong.
Nope, absolute motion is not a problem for anyone but you. Since it is you that requires such. Please define absolute motion that is not relative to anything.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The new theory claims that matter in motion i interact with space, and because of that you get relativistic effect, such as time dilation, - and relativistic change of the rulers...
Ah, so matter at rest doesn't interact with space and you don't "get relativistic effect"? What happened to your gravity. Problem with just making crap is it is difficult to keep straight.


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
If you ignore that , you are completely lost, exactly like the holy nonsense you cited from the book, teach you..
Nope, until actually defined absolute motion can only be ignored, as there simply is no definition to consider. The lack of a definition can't come from a book, "holy" or otherwise, it only comes from an inability to define. By all means please let us know when you have a definition of absolute motion that is not relative to anything else.
__________________
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 26th December 2017, 09:29 AM   #244
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
OK, great so now that is some 14 billion years that have passed. Everything would have reached your terminal velocity, well, 14 billion years ago. If you get nothing right in what you assert no one else can get anything but the wrong you exude.
.
There will always be periodical motion oppesite Dark Flow, and therefore also lower periodical absolute speed for some systems / objekts,. If we was moving with highest possible Dark Flow speed, - EDFA would be inactive, and Allais Effect would not had happen..But Dark Flow would still have been measured because that is meassured relative to the CMB
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 26th December 2017, 09:36 AM   #245
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Nope, absolute motion is not a problem for anyone but you. Since it is you that requires such. Please define absolute motion that is not relative to anything.
Matter in motion, interact with space.

Quote:
Ah, so matter at rest doesn't interact with space and you don't "get relativistic effect"?
Maybe not, who knows? , maybe all what you call mass, is caused by motion

Quote:
What happened to your gravity. Problem with just making crap is it is difficult to keep straight.
Same as above

Quote:
Nope, until actually defined absolute motion can only be ignored, as there simply is no definition to consider. The lack of a definition can't come from a book, "holy" or otherwise, it only comes from an inability to define. By all means please let us know when you have a definition of absolute motion that is not relative to anything else.
  1. What is potential energy?
  2. What is kinetic energy ?
Does it have anything with Mass to do ?
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 26th December 2017, 09:45 AM   #246
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
There will always be periodical motion oppesite Dark Flow, and therefore also lower periodical absolute speed for some systems / objekts,. If we was moving with highest possible Dark Flow speed, - EDFA would be inactive, and Allais Effect would not had happen..
Great, so no more percession from "EDFA" when it is topped out. Heck just that there is some finite terminal velocity means the percession from "EDFA" should be reducing even if your "EDFA" didn't top over the 10 or 11 billion years before the solar system was created. What limits dose the reduction in the percession of Mercury place on your "EDFA". Note that limit could be zero meaning the percession is not reducing and not a result of your reducing "EDFA" force.



Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
But Dark Flow would still have been measured because that is meassured relative to the CMB
Great, so not absolute but just "relative to the CMB". One crap down and a pile still to go.
__________________
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 26th December 2017, 09:48 AM   #247
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Great, so no more percession from "EDFA" when it is topped out. Heck just that there is some finite terminal velocity means the percession from "EDFA" should be reducing even if your "EDFA" didn't top over the 10 or 11 billion years before the solar system was created.
.


Quote:
What limits dose the reduction in the percession of Mercury place on your "EDFA". Note that limit could be zero meaning the percession is not reducing and not a result of your reducing "EDFA" force.
If the orbit inclination of mercury was excactly perpendicular, relative to the DFA axis, there would not be any perihelion precession anomaly.
if the inclination was more or less aligned with the DFA axis, the orbit of mercury would collapse.

  1. Volcanic past suggests closest world to the sun first formed OUTSIDE the solar system http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ar-system.html
  2. Mystery of Earth's Water Origin Solved http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-vesta-science
  3. Astrophysicists puzzle over planet that's too close to its sun http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug...e/sci-planet27
  4. Jupiter may have once migrated closer to the Sun http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ntentrel="nofollow" target=no
  5. Mystery of extrasolar planets' eccentric orbits https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0504/19orbits
  6. Astrophysicists puzzle over planet that's too close to its sun http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug...e/sci-planet27

Last edited by Bjarne; 26th December 2017 at 10:20 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 26th December 2017, 10:06 AM   #248
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
Matter in motion, interact with space.
And matter not in motion? Remember you're the one proposing what amounts to an absolute rest frame. So matter absolutely not in motion in that frame is a result.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post

Maybe not, who knows? , maybe all what you call mass, is caused by motion
"who knows?" OK well thanks for at least admitting you don't even know what you are proposing.

"is caused by motion" relative to what?

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Same as above
Great, so again you assert you just don't know. Given an absolute rest frame is central to your assertions you not knowing its implications simply asserts that it is all just made up crap, even to you. There went the whole pile.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post

What is potential energy?[/list]
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pegrav.html


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post

What is kinetic energy ?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ke.html


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Does it have anything with Mass to do ?
Again rest mass is invariant but total energy (potential plus kinetic) is not. The mass energy equivalent of rest mass is potential and invariant as that mass is always at rest relative to, well, itself. The mass energy equivalence of total energy varies with total energy (potential plus kinetic).
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 26th December 2017 at 10:09 AM.
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 26th December 2017, 10:17 AM   #249
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
"is caused by motion" relative to what?
Motion is relative to absolut rest.
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 26th December 2017, 10:36 AM   #250
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,955
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Motion is relative to absolut rest.


I sit on my couch. I am, relative to my house, at rest.

The tectonic plate upon which my house rests is in motion relative to the core of the Earth, albeit slowly.

The planet we are all on is rotating, which provides another frame of reference by changing its position relative to the observable universe.

The planet is further orbiting a star, meaning it is in motion relative to the star.

The star is orbiting the core of the Milky Way galaxy.

The galaxy is heading towards another galaxy and will eventually merge with it.

In all those frames of reference, where is the “Absolute Rest” you’re talking about?

Can you describe an object at “absolute rest?”
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 26th December 2017, 11:29 AM   #251
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Bjarne
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
"is caused by motion" relative to what?
Motion is relative to absolut rest.
I must insist that you describe how is a newyorker taking a nap moving relative to "absolute rest"?

And I'll keep asking every time you base your words in an absolute frame you cannot specify.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 26th December 2017, 11:50 AM   #252
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
I sit on my couch. I am, relative to my house, at rest.

The tectonic plate upon which my house rests is in motion relative to the core of the Earth, albeit slowly.

The planet we are all on is rotating, which provides another frame of reference by changing its position relative to the observable universe.

The planet is further orbiting a star, meaning it is in motion relative to the star.

The star is orbiting the core of the Milky Way galaxy.

The galaxy is heading towards another galaxy and will eventually merge with it.

In all those frames of reference, where is the “Absolute Rest” you’re talking about?

Can you describe an object at “absolute rest?”
All the time you is adding speed to your allready existing absolute speed, - or reducing it - relative to no motion (seen from an absolute rest frame) you is changing your "relativistic (reality) proportions" - The exact same happens up and down in a gravitational field,

Last edited by Bjarne; 26th December 2017 at 12:08 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 26th December 2017, 11:54 AM   #253
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
I must insist that you describe how is a newyorker taking a nap moving relative to "absolute rest"?

And I'll keep asking every time you base your words in an absolute frame you cannot specify.
Because you most likely never is at absolute rest, it's doesn't mean that such "frame" not exist..
One option is that at absolutte rest there are no strong force, hence no mass, and no matter can exist.
Another option is that there are two ways to generate mass, one of those is relativistic, the other one unknown
So you have 2 starting points / specifications, which one do you prefer ?

Last edited by Bjarne; 26th December 2017 at 12:03 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 26th December 2017, 12:09 PM   #254
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Because you most likely never is at absolute rest, it's doesn't mean that such not exist..
I have no evidence of god either, and that doesn't mean such god doesn't exist. But the most important scientific fact is that I have no evidence for a god.

You're are talking of privileged frames of reference. Then you need some proof of them being privileged, and that same evidence may guide you to precisely locate them. So again, tell me where to find such privileged frames of reference.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 26th December 2017, 12:17 PM   #255
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
One option is that at absolutte rest there are no strong force, hence no mass, and no matter can exist.
Another option is that there are two ways to generate mass, one of those is relativistic, the other one unknown
So you have 2 starting points / specifications, which one do you prefer ?
I see you were working in your post while I replied to you.

Provide a mathematical expression for the law explaining how the strong force varies as velocity measured against "absolute rest" changes.

After answering that, start with any of those "starting points", then develop the other. They'll be equally illustrating.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 26th December 2017, 12:30 PM   #256
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,605
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
And it still is, also in the new theory
Simple because the ruler is a propotional relativistic variant.
Exactly which ruler, Bjarne?

Quote:
The point is that the faster absolute speed, the longer ruler.
The local observer will not see that, but an absolute observer will
If motion is absolute, then all observers are absolute. In an absolute motion scenario, the change of the "ruler" (whichever ruler you might be referring to) would be observable and measurable.

However, this is not what we observe. What we do observe is that all observers are local. In other words, we are unable to measure any change in our own "ruler". Instead, we observe that the "ruler" is changed in other motion frames (as in time dilation).

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
Old 26th December 2017, 12:31 PM   #257
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,605
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Because you most likely never is at absolute rest, it's doesn't mean that such "frame" not exist..
One option is that at absolutte rest there are no strong force, hence no mass, and no matter can exist.
Another option is that there are two ways to generate mass, one of those is relativistic, the other one unknown
So you have 2 starting points / specifications, which one do you prefer ?
It is your fairy-tale, so you choose.

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
Old 26th December 2017, 12:43 PM   #258
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
http://science27.com/wp-content/uplo...05/graf777.jpg


If the orbit inclination of mercury was excactly perpendicular, relative to the DFA axis, there would not be any perihelion precession anomaly.
Once again you ignore your own stated terminal velocity. So basically you would not be able to tell if the orbit was "excactly perpendicular, relative to the DFA axis" or just your terminal velocity had been reached.


Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
if the inclination was more or less aligned with the DFA axis, the orbit of mercury would collapse.
Is the orbit of mercury "more or less" collapsing? Again remember it had 4.5 billion years to "more or less" collapse.

So now we have no apparent collapsing, after 4.5 billion years and you are unable to distinguish between the orbit being "excactly perpendicular, relative to the DFA axis" and your terminal velocity being already reached.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
  1. Volcanic past suggests closest world to the sun first formed OUTSIDE the solar system http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ar-system.html
  2. Mystery of Earth's Water Origin Solved http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-vesta-science
  3. Astrophysicists puzzle over planet that's too close to its sun http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug...e/sci-planet27
  4. Jupiter may have once migrated closer to the Sun http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ntentrel="nofollow" target=no
  5. Mystery of extrasolar planets' eccentric orbits https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0504/19orbits
  6. Astrophysicists puzzle over planet that's too close to its sun http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug...e/sci-planet27
Spamming the thread now, never a good sign.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 26th December 2017 at 01:01 PM. Reason: typos
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 26th December 2017, 12:48 PM   #259
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,605
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Matter in motion, interact with space.
OH? Evidence?


Quote:
Maybe not, who knows? , maybe all what you call mass, is caused by motion


Same as above

  1. What is potential energy?
  2. What is kinetic energy ?
Does it have anything with Mass to do ?
You need to ask those questions, yet you claim to be smarter than millions of scientists? Really?

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
Old 26th December 2017, 12:53 PM   #260
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
Motion is relative to absolut rest.

Nope, trying to define your absolute rest frame even just relative to motion in general still makes it relative and not defined from any other rest frame.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 26th December 2017 at 01:05 PM. Reason: typo
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 26th December 2017, 12:58 PM   #261
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
Because you most likely never is at absolute rest, it's doesn't mean that such "frame" not exist..
One option is that at absolutte rest there are no strong force, hence no mass, and no matter can exist.
Another option is that there are two ways to generate mass, one of those is relativistic, the other one unknown
So you have 2 starting points / specifications, which one do you prefer ?
Mass doesn't result from the strong force. The crap just keeps spewing. Again most here would probably prefer you spewing less crap, relativistic or otherwise.
__________________
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 26th December 2017, 01:42 PM   #262
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,932
Just how the hells can one determine a "Zero motion" or an absolute at-rest frame? How the **** can it be measured?
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 26th December 2017, 02:12 PM   #263
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Exactly which ruler, Bjarne?

If motion is absolute, then all observers are absolute.
No, what make you think so.

Quote:
In an absolute motion scenario, the change of the "ruler" (whichever ruler you might be referring to) would be observable and measurable.
A and B cannot compare their ruler to each other, so long they are in different frames, - but we can easy understand they must be different, if 'C' (speed of light) is the "same" for both. We had have that discussion before. Simple thought experiment make that very logical and very clear.


Quote:
However, this is not what we observe.
because you cannot observe, but only use your brain.

Quote:
What we do observe is that all observers are local.
What do you mean ?
This is not observation, but a conclution.

Quote:
In other words, we are unable to measure any change in our own "ruler".
Off course not, because you cannot compare, its impossible, - still you can use you brain,..... thought experiments

Quote:
Instead, we observe that the "ruler" is changed in other motion frames (as in time dilation).
You still cannot observe that.
You can either conclude
A. That distance must have change
B. The ruller must have change.
"We" made the wrong choose

A thought Experiment
‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..

But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.
B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s clock.
The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.

We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.

When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either ....
  1. The distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process .
  2. Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (been longer) proportional to the time also been stretching, as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.
Only by chosen the 2nd option A and B both can (logical) assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thou ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’..)

By chosen that, - (the 2nd) most logical option, - hell will break lose in science..

Last edited by Bjarne; 26th December 2017 at 02:46 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 26th December 2017, 02:13 PM   #264
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
OH? Evidence?

You need to ask those questions, yet you claim to be smarter than millions of scientists? Really?

Hans
Smarter ?
Well I would say not possible to brainwash
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 26th December 2017, 02:15 PM   #265
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Just how the hells can one determine a "Zero motion" or an absolute at-rest frame? How the **** can it be measured?
Not me, matter can.
Because matter will always interact with space, much or little, depending on the absolute motion / speed.

Last edited by Bjarne; 26th December 2017 at 02:23 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 26th December 2017, 02:21 PM   #266
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,173
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
All the time you is adding speed to your allready existing absolute speed, - or reducing it - relative to no motion (seen from an absolute rest frame) you is changing your "relativistic (reality) proportions" - The exact same happens up and down in a gravitational field,
Where is this 'absolute rest frame'? If everything in the universe is in motion relative to everything else it must be outside the universe?
Captain_Swoop 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 26th December 2017, 02:25 PM   #267
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Mass doesn't result from the strong force. The crap just keeps spewing. Again most here would probably prefer you spewing less crap, relativistic or otherwise.
The strong force is the most important factor in relativistic mass
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 26th December 2017, 02:35 PM   #268
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The strong force is the most important factor in relativistic mass
If one consults detailed (with math) discussions of "relativistic mass," one finds:

"Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:

"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself." *

Not too much of "strong force" in that.

*E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1
Peregrinus 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 26th December 2017, 02:39 PM   #269
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,035
All this has a whiff to aether theories and the Aristotelian unmoved mover. Lot's of words, no equations at all.

So I must insist in having here the law describing the change of the strong force according to the speed relative to "absolute rest" (sic).
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 26th December 2017, 02:48 PM   #270
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,605
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Smarter ?
Well I would say not possible to brainwash
Yea, I would agree with THAT.

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
Old 26th December 2017, 02:51 PM   #271
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
If one consults detailed (with math) discussions of "relativistic mass," one finds:

"Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:

"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself." *

Not too much of "strong force" in that.

*E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1
So long we do not know what the strong force really is, it make no sense to discuss what it does and not does. Remember Einstein wanted until his dead to unite the strong force and gravity, he was sure they were united. Others dont believe in that, so what ?
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 26th December 2017, 02:57 PM   #272
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 strong force is the most important factor in relativistic mass
Relativistic mass is a result of relative motion so not relativistic mass. However, I did forget that quantum chromodynamic binding energy is a positive potential and not a negative one. So you were correct there and I apologize for that oversight. My crap there. The strong force does contribute to invariant (rest) mass of the hadrons and baryons.
__________________
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 26th December 2017, 02:59 PM   #273
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,403
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
If one consults detailed (with math) discussions of "relativistic mass," one finds:

"Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:

"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself." *

Not too much of "strong force" in that.

*E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1

Again, Bjarne conflates relativistic mass with rest or invariant mass.
__________________
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 26th December 2017, 03:05 PM   #274
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
So long we do not know what the strong force really is, it make no sense to discuss what it does and not does. Remember Einstein wanted until his dead to unite the strong force and gravity, he was sure they were united. Others dont believe in that, so what ?
Wait, so after actually being correct at what the strong force does, in the way of invariant mass. You're now just going to proclaim "it make no sense to discuss what it does and not does"? Way to blow your own accuracy for your desired inaccuracy, conflating relativistic and invariant mass.
__________________
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 26th December 2017, 03:11 PM   #275
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,605
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
No, what make you think so.
If motion is absolute, all observers are observing from the absolute frame. What else should they observe from?


Quote:
A and B cannot compare their ruler to each other, so long they are in different frames, - but we can easy understand they must be different, if 'C' (speed of light) is the "same" for both. We had have that discussion before. Simple thought experiment make that very logical and very clear.
If motion is absolute, there is only one frame. You can always compare each observer. Don't you understand the implications of your own claims?

Quote:
because you cannot observe, but only use your brain.
Nonsense.


Quote:
What do you mean ?
This is not observation, but a conclution.
You can only make conclusions if you have observations. Otherwise what you make is wild guesses.

Quote:
Off course not, because you cannot compare, its impossible, - still you can use you brain,..... thought experiments
No. Thought experiments without observation is fiction.

Quote:
You still cannot observe that.
You can either conclude
A. That distance must have change
B. The ruller must have change.
"We" made the wrong choose
Or (C) you can go with relativity, which adequately exlpains EVERY observation we have made so far.

Quote:
A thought Experiment
‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..

But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.
B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s clock.
The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.

We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.

When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either ....
  1. The distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process .
  2. Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (been longer) proportional to the time also been stretching, as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.
Only by chosen the 2nd option A and B both can (logical) assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thou ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’..)

By chosen that, - (the 2nd) most logical option, - hell will break lose in science..
No. The only difference they will observe is the time the photon takes to move from B to A. Their rulers are different, but so are their clocks, so they will observe the same distance (in theory; in practice, of course, they have no way of knowing when the photon was emitted). And another condition, just for your enlightenment: They cannot observe the same photon, but I'll accept they observe different photons that traveled together.

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
Old 26th December 2017, 03:12 PM   #276
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
All this has a whiff to aether theories and the Aristotelian unmoved mover. Lot's of words, no equations at all.

So I must insist in having here the law describing the change of the strong force according to the speed relative to "absolute rest" (sic).

We are discussing possible consequences of how an anisotropic acceleration will affect the universe.

As well that a necessary breaking force must exist

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&d=1514328872
Attached Images
File Type: jpg rrr.jpg (13.8 KB, 133 views)

Last edited by Bjarne; 26th December 2017 at 03:54 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 26th December 2017, 03:21 PM   #277
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
If motion is absolute, all observers are observing from the absolute frame. What else should they observe from?
You have not understood that at all. An absolutte reference frames contains all others.

Quote:
If motion is absolute, there is only one frame. You can always compare each observer. Don't you understand the implications of your own claims?
There are billions of frames. Each time your reality is different, from another, your "frame" is different too.

Quote:
You can only make conclusions if you have observations. Otherwise what you make is wild guesses.
Conclusions are what make up more than 97% of your universe allready, - let me only mention 90 % = dark energy and dark matter, - this is ONLY conclutions / guesses. So what is your problem ?

Quote:
No. Thought experiments without observation is fiction.
They are necessary and much used the last 100 years

Quote:
Or (C) you can go with relativity, which adequately exlpains EVERY observation we have made so far.
Soon fellow, very soon you will understand how insane that of chapter of science really is / was

Quote:
No. The only difference they will observe is the time the photon takes to move from B to A. Their rulers are different, but so are their clocks, so they will observe the same distance (in theory; in practice, of course, they have no way of knowing when the photon was emitted). And another condition, just for your enlightenment: They cannot observe the same photon, but I'll accept they observe different photons that traveled together.
You wrote ; "Their rulers are different" This is not what the prevailing theory tells you, Its say only the path these two photon took is different, and that this is the whole explanation.
This mean you have understood the new theory
Thanks..

Last edited by Bjarne; 26th December 2017 at 03:40 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 26th December 2017, 03:22 PM   #278
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
We are discussing possible consequences of how an anisotropic acceleration will affect the universe.

As well that a necessary breaking force must exist

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&d=1514326129
Not what I've asked from you. But again, what unit results from using the right side of your equation? You're making high school level mistakes.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.

Last edited by aleCcowaN; 26th December 2017 at 03:24 PM.
aleCcowaN 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 26th December 2017, 03:37 PM   #279
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Not what I've asked from you. But again, what unit results from using the right side of your equation? You're making high school level mistakes.
m/s^2
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 26th December 2017, 03:38 PM   #280
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
m/s^2
No. It doesn't.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 04:37 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.