Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 135
Like Tree96Likes

Thread: Ok, brainiacs, and all, any thoughts on this?

  1. #1 Ok, brainiacs, and all, any thoughts on this? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Relativity Revised


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    Now it seems blatantly clear to me that these claims are logically at odds with one another in such a way as to be mutually exclusive in purely computational terms. How can we consider that velocity is relative and there is no such thing as a fixed point of reference, and then at the same time talk of an object being at rest by having ‘rest mass’?
    i believe it is because we choose a frame of reference and measure from that. if what i say is correct i don't hold out much hope for the rest of that page, which i haven't read btw.


    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    It's crap. Rather than these "whaddaya think" posts, how about doing a little work yourself? It's a good habit to develop.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    We can apply the logic of velocity to the movement of this thread ...

    ... to Pseudoscience.


    (How can anyone take seriously a site that looks like that?)
    MrMojo1 and shlunka like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Relatively speaking, that website is a massive catastrophe.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I had you pegged for a crank earlier, you are taking all the right steps to prove me right.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Einsteins theories of relativity specific and general have stood up to all testing for 100 years (1905, 1915). i don't think they can be easily 'revised'. if this were so it would be world-wide news in all the world's newspapers and scientifice magazines journals etc , not just on a obscure web site.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    Now it seems blatantly clear to me that these claims are logically at odds with one another in such a way as to be mutually exclusive in purely computational terms. How can we consider that velocity is relative and there is no such thing as a fixed point of reference, and then at the same time talk of an object being at rest by having ‘rest mass’?
    i believe it is because we choose a frame of reference and measure from that. if what i say is correct i don't hold out much hope for the rest of that page, which i haven't read btw.
    Since this is my topic (although I have taken the liberty to post Jonathan's website on it - I am not Jonathan and I don't even understand him, but he is still a friend) I would like to take the liberty to thank you for what you say here. I will explain why if I can. You said that we choose a frame of reference and measure from that. I thank you for addressing the ideas even if for a short time. It is not easy for anyone to change their frame of reference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    It is not easy for anyone to change their frame of reference.
    You're misunderstanding what Chrispen Evan said. This is not about people and the various ways we think.

    "Frame of reference" is a more or less technical term. If you want to discuss relativity in any form, you really need to get on top of the language.

    Start here. Special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    umbradiago likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    It is not easy for anyone to change their frame of reference.
    We do it all the time. A frame of reference is not the same thing as a "point of view". Or to be more exact, we change which frame of reference that we at rest with respect to. If you are sitting in a chair you are ate rest with respect to a certain frame of reference. If you get up and start walking across the at a constant speed, you are now at rest with a different frame of reference (one that is moving with respect to your chair. The rest mass of an object is the mass you would measure if both you and the mass are at rest with respect to the same frame of reference.
    umbradiago likes this.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    It is not easy for anyone to change their frame of reference.
    We do it all the time. A frame of reference is not the same thing as a "point of view". Or to be more exact, we change which frame of reference that we at rest with respect to. If you are sitting in a chair you are ate rest with respect to a certain frame of reference. If you get up and start walking across the at a constant speed, you are now at rest with a different frame of reference (one that is moving with respect to your chair. The rest mass of an object is the mass you would measure if both you and the mass are at rest with respect to the same frame of reference.
    Quite honestly, I didn't understand any of that and the syntax was odd.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    It is not easy for anyone to change their frame of reference.
    We do it all the time. A frame of reference is not the same thing as a "point of view". Or to be more exact, we change which frame of reference that we at rest with respect to. If you are sitting in a chair you are ate rest with respect to a certain frame of reference. If you get up and start walking across the at a constant speed, you are now at rest with a different frame of reference (one that is moving with respect to your chair. The rest mass of an object is the mass you would measure if both you and the mass are at rest with respect to the same frame of reference.
    Quite honestly, I didn't understand any of that and the syntax was odd.
    Think of it this way: If an object is at rest relative to you, then it is at rest in your frame of reference. If the object then starts to move relative to you, then it is in motion in your frame of reference. But if you start to move to follow the object, you've changed your frame of reference and the object is again at rest in your frame of reference.
    Halliday, umbradiago and Mayflow like this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Total crap. As expected.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Total crap. As expected.
    Yup. Any anti-relativity screed that claims that "there is a logical inconsistency..." can be tossed into the bin straightaway. It's a sure sign that the author has failed to understand relativity, and instead of properly assigning blame to himself, thinks the problem lies with the theory. Classic crank garbage.

    The author of that website seems to have a whole collection of, er, creative ideas about physics. Why is the sky blue? It isn't Rayleigh scattering; it's because the sun is gold. No kidding. I am not making this up. The guy is a total loon.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,538
    One thing that should be noted is that the notion of relativity didn't just start with Einstein but actually started with Galileo.
    umbradiago likes this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    It is not easy for anyone to change their frame of reference.
    We do it all the time. A frame of reference is not the same thing as a "point of view". Or to be more exact, we change which frame of reference that we at rest with respect to. If you are sitting in a chair you are ate rest with respect to a certain frame of reference. If you get up and start walking across the at a constant speed, you are now at rest with a different frame of reference (one that is moving with respect to your chair. The rest mass of an object is the mass you would measure if both you and the mass are at rest with respect to the same frame of reference.
    Quite honestly, I didn't understand any of that and the syntax was odd.
    Think of it this way: If an object is at rest relative to you, then it is at rest in your frame of reference. If the object then starts to move relative to you, then it is in motion in your frame of reference. But if you start to move to follow the object, you've changed your frame of reference and the object is again at rest in your frame of reference.
    Oh. Got it now. Actually I was then speaking about points of view, although I still think that frames of reference ARE points of view. The ways we view anything are going to effect what we see and how we process our perceptions.

    For instance, when I see Jonathan's website I think how creative and unique thinking it seems to me. So I come here to get some ideas from the ones here who have greater education and understanding of physics than I do, but I get stuff like "total crap" and the like. My point of view or frame of reference, is that such statements while indicating the limited view sets of the observer, carry no value to me other than to think to myself "well, I hope I never get so jaded or ingrained in certain thought patterns, that I can't appreciate new and different ideas that maybe challenge my own paradigms (sets and subsets of viewpoint frame references)

    Oooh, this gives me an idea. Can any of you take looks at the equations and make any evaluations on them? I know he is very obsessed with the Lorentz Transformation. I think this involves geometry, is that correct? I only have high school education in math, and while I did get an A in Geometry, I suspect that the teacher favored me a bit, because I did not really understand geometry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    (How can anyone take seriously a site that looks like that?)
    It is the natural path to www.timecube.com.
    adelady and umbradiago like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    It is the natural path to www.timecube.com.
    Point of reference to Mayflow- totaL JERK IS SIGHTED!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    (How can anyone take seriously a site that looks like that?)
    It is the natural path to www.timecube.com.

    umbradiago and Mayflow like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    "[Science] is not attested by prophecy, by miracles or signs. It makes no appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no punishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. (...) It has no fear of being read, of being contradicted, of being investigated and understood. It does not pretend to be holy, or sacred ; it simply claims to be true."

    While I like this overall I am not too keen on the claim of truth thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    "[Science] is not attested by prophecy, by miracles or signs. It makes no appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no punishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. (...) It has no fear of being read, of being contradicted, of being investigated and understood. It does not pretend to be holy, or sacred ; it simply claims to be true."

    While I like this overall I am not too keen on the claim of truth thing.

    I could have modified(*) it to "it simply claims to be true [to a certain extent]", but it would lose its value as a homage to the author in question.


    (*) I have already modified it by reducing it, as the original quote and reference together are longer than 500 characters.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    For instance, when I see Jonathan's website I think how creative and unique thinking it seems to me. So I come here to get some ideas from the ones here who have greater education and understanding of physics than I do, but I get stuff like "total crap" and the like. My point of view or frame of reference, is that such statements while indicating the limited view sets of the observer, carry no value to me other than to think to myself "well, I hope I never get so jaded or ingrained in certain thought patterns, that I can't appreciate new and different ideas that maybe challenge my own paradigms (sets and subsets of viewpoint frame references)
    That is ridiculous. If someone say 2 + 2 =5, they are not being "creative"; they are just wrong. If someone points out that their conclusion is crap, they are not being "jaded or ingrained in certain thought patterns"; they are simply pointing out the truth.

    Your friend clearly doesn't understand what he is talking about. He seems to think there is some absolute state of rest against which everything is measured. He has a simple choice: he can be sufficiently open minded to admit he doesn't understand (and make the effort to learn) or he can continue to be "creative (i.e. spout ignorant crap).

    You have the choice to admire someone so creatively ignorant or make the small effort needed to learn for yourself.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    To be specific, this is where your friend goes wrong:
    The increase in the mass of A is a large amount relative to C but it is a small amount relative to B?

    So which one is it?
    They are both true. That is why it is called the theory of RELATIVITY: the increase in mass is relative to the observer.

    And then he says (creatively):
    The formula clearly states that there is a phenomenon termed: ‘rest mass’. But! In Relativity there is no such thing as ‘rest’ because the objects are moving relative to each other.
    Of course there is such a thing as rest mass: it is the mass measured in the object's own frame of reference; i.e. where it is at rest (relative to itself).

    Actually, it would be a very good learning exercise for you to go though his drivel line by line and work out where the errors are.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    "[Science] is not attested by prophecy, by miracles or signs. It makes no appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no punishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. (...) It has no fear of being read, of being contradicted, of being investigated and understood. It does not pretend to be holy, or sacred ; it simply claims to be true."

    While I like this overall I am not too keen on the claim of truth thing.
    I could have modified it to "it simply claims to be true [to a certain extent]", but it would lose its value as a homage to the author in question.
    O yes, I see the dilemma in this. You want to give credit and not change the author's original words. I would change it to "It simply seeks to find what is true."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    To be specific, this is where your friend goes wrong:
    The increase in the mass of A is a large amount relative to C but it is a small amount relative to B?

    So which one is it?
    They are both true. That is why it is called the theory of RELATIVITY: the increase in mass is relative to the observer.

    And then he says (creatively):
    The formula clearly states that there is a phenomenon termed: ‘rest mass’. But! In Relativity there is no such thing as ‘rest’ because the objects are moving relative to each other.
    Of course there is such a thing as rest mass: it is the mass measured in the object's own frame of reference; i.e. where it is at rest (relative to itself).

    Actually, it would be a very good learning exercise for you to go though his drivel line by line and work out where the errors are.
    I will discuss this if you like, but could you refer to my friend's ideas as something other than "drivel"? I see this way too much on this forum. You guys say some pretty intelligent things, then ruin it by attacking with stupid name calling without a need to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    O yes, I see the dilemma in this. You want to give credit and not change the author's original words. I would change it to "It simply seeks to find what is true."
    Science does not seek that which is true. Because science is, by practice, a complex process of elimination, it would be more accurate to say that science seeks to find that which is false so that what is left can be accepted as true until demonstrated otherwise.
    adelady and umbradiago like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    something other than "drivel"?
    Why is it not drivel to say that internal combustion engines are powered by fairy farts? Or that the planets are moved around their orbits by invisible flying unicorns? Or that Pi=4?

    I don't know, maybe your friend's "stuff" doesn't count as drivel because it isn't "creative" enough. I don't know what else to call it: it is wrong, nonsense, ignorant, idiotic, stupid, incorrect, unimaginative, closed-minded, ... drivel.

    This is not name calling. It is a straightforward factual statement. It is not an attack on him or you.

    I'm sure he is an absolutely lovely chap.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    O yes, I see the dilemma in this. You want to give credit and not change the author's original words. I would change it to "It simply seeks to find what is true."
    Science does not seek that which is true. Because science is, by practice, a complex process of elimination, it would be more accurate to say that science seeks to find that which is false so that what is left can be accepted as true until demonstrated otherwise.

    That is certainly true, and I will not pretend that Ingersoll was entirely correct in this particular quote,
    but the core of my signature revolves around the fact that science is not based on faith nor conspiracies, nor does it hide its findings behind closed doors.
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; March 30th, 2014 at 09:13 AM.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    O yes, I see the dilemma in this. You want to give credit and not change the author's original words. I would change it to "It simply seeks to find what is true."
    Science does not seek that which is true. Because science is, by practice, a complex process of elimination, it would be more accurate to say that science seeks to find that which is false so that what is left can be accepted as true until demonstrated otherwise.
    I will agree in my own methodology with this. Science uses processes of elimination to investigate incomplete premises (ideas and viewpoints) That certainly does not say that Newton was completely wrong, but just incomplete. What I see on this forum is close to completely wrong [false] to me sometimes as I see people just calling others stupid and cranks, and not realizing that we are parts of a whole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I will agree in my own methodology with this.
    Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Science uses processes of elimination to investigate incomplete premises (ideas and viewpoints)
    It's a complex variation on process of elimination that requires fulfilling many criteria along the way. I hesitated to even use "process of elimination" because of how simplistic it sounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    That certainly does not say that Newton was completely wrong, but just incomplete.
    Newton wasn't completely wrong. Newton was extremely right. He wasn't able to construct models which fit a branch of physics that did not yet exist, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    What I see on this forum is close to completely wrong [false] to me sometimes as I see people just calling others stupid and cranks, and not realizing that we are parts of a whole.
    If Newton said gravity was caused by cheese, Halley would have backed out of the room slowly and Newton would have been forgotten forever. A lot of what is posted on this forum is not an attempt to complete incomplete models of physics, but rather to defy them with what we KNOW is nonsense.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I will agree in my own methodology with this.
    Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Science uses processes of elimination to investigate incomplete premises (ideas and viewpoints)
    It's a complex variation on process of elimination that requires fulfilling many criteria along the way. I hesitated to even use "process of elimination" because of how simplistic it sounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    That certainly does not say that Newton was completely wrong, but just incomplete.
    Newton wasn't completely wrong. Newton was extremely right. He wasn't able to construct models which fit a branch of physics that did not yet exist, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    What I see on this forum is close to completely wrong [false] to me sometimes as I see people just calling others stupid and cranks, and not realizing that we are parts of a whole.
    If Newton said gravity was caused by cheese, Halley would have backed out of the room slowly and Newton would have been forgotten forever. A lot of what is posted on this forum is not an attempt to complete incomplete models of physics, but rather to defy them with what we KNOW is nonsense.
    WE do not know what is nonsense. Maybe you think you do, but to my way of thinking that is like a closed door. If people were not open to new ideas, where would we be? Everything we know of is relative to how we think of it and process our mental inputs. When you post, I process. I have an internal amplifier. Amplifiers have feedback circuitry. Both negative and positive. The negative will reduce the output, and the positive will increase the output.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    WE do not know what is nonsense.
    Sure we do. If I told you I have superpowers and I can fly, would you let me take you in my arms and jump off a building? YOU may not be able to recognize nonsense in complex mathematics or physics because you don't have enough understanding of the subject, but that doesn't mean others out there can't recognize it. No pun intended, but it's all relative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Maybe you think you do, but to my way of thinking that is like a closed door. If people were not open to new ideas, where would we be?
    There is a difference between being open minded and being gullible and ignorant. We have to filter everything we take in. If you want to view that as closing a door, so be it. I refuse to accept that giant space-faring bunnies pooped out all the planets. You go ahead and try to prove that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Everything we know of is relative to how we think of it and process our mental inputs. When you post, I process. I have an internal amplifier. Amplifiers have feedback circuitry. Both negative and positive. The negative will reduce the output, and the positive will increase the output.
    I'm sure that means something to someone.
    AlexG, PhDemon and stonecutter like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    That certainly does not say that Newton was completely wrong, but just incomplete.
    this statement is true somewhat but not for reasons you make. Newtons law of gravity was found by Einstein to be special case 'subsumed' by the general theory of relativity. Newtons law of gravity is still good today and is completely fine for sending men to the moon. a environment where the relative speeds are slow compared to light speed or bodies are not too massive Newtons theories will work fine. this is 350 years later too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    "There is a difference between being open minded and being gullible and ignorant."

    I fail to see open mindedness in you. (well maybe a glimpse of such at times - but then you seem to revert) Just more of the "This is what has been taught to me so it is truth and other stuff is not" Just because I am open to new ideas from my own mind and from others is hardly proof that I am ignorant and gullible. I don't get why you humans on this forum want to say such things at me and others. I seriously do not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Mayflow, you and your friend need to do a lot more reading before getting a book published.

    I read the first page you gave, I skimmed the second page and I glanced at the book.

    I kind of liked the Entothopter, but the answer to your physical theory is still no.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Mayflow, please describe again where you have found that Newton and Einstein are incorrect ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Mayflow, please describe again where you have found that Newton and Einstein are incorrect ?
    I never said that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Mayflow, you and your friend need to do a lot more reading before getting a book published.

    I read the first page you gave, I skimmed the second page and I glanced at the book.

    I kind of liked the Entothopter, but the answer to your physical theory is still no.
    It is not my book nor my writing, nor my theories. I was just curious as to how people would respond to Jonathan's page.
    I didn't actually read as much as you did. What is the Entothopter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I kind of liked the Entothopter, but the answer to your physical theory is still no.
    Ah, the "entothopter".
    I came across that from somewhere else a month or so back.
    Not only is it incorrectly named it's also bullshit.
    dan hunter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    It is not easy for anyone to change their frame of reference.
    We do it all the time. A frame of reference is not the same thing as a "point of view". Or to be more exact, we change which frame of reference that we at rest with respect to. If you are sitting in a chair you are ate rest with respect to a certain frame of reference. If you get up and start walking across the at a constant speed, you are now at rest with a different frame of reference (one that is moving with respect to your chair. The rest mass of an object is the mass you would measure if both you and the mass are at rest with respect to the same frame of reference.
    Quite honestly, I didn't understand any of that and the syntax was odd.
    Think of it this way: If an object is at rest relative to you, then it is at rest in your frame of reference. If the object then starts to move relative to you, then it is in motion in your frame of reference. But if you start to move to follow the object, you've changed your frame of reference and the object is again at rest in your frame of reference.

    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    WE do not know what is nonsense. Maybe you think you do, but to my way of thinking that is like a closed door. If people were not open to new ideas, where would we be? Everything we know of is relative to how we think of it and process our mental inputs. When you post, I process. I have an internal amplifier. Amplifiers have feedback circuitry. Both negative and positive. The negative will reduce the output, and the positive will increase the output.
    That's where your approach differs from mine. I'm neither a scientist nor an engineer - but I don't rely on my own understanding of what I read or what people say. For most physics discussions, I'm not well versed enough in the topic to contribute a lot of detail. Except where I've taken a particular interest. That's in climate. For that, I actually got out a notebook and spent days - weeks actually - working my way through some online sites and a couple of books that are available online. So that I really, really understood the physics of greenhouse gases and I worked my way through the equations. Worked is not quite right, I struggled. More than 40 years since I'd done any calculus or any physics, but I did it. (If I can do it in my sixties, then most people can do it.)

    Now? I'm as good as most on that subject. But I'm not willing to do the same for relativity - I have a sort of mental checklist where I know what I'm interested in and where I'm reasonably confident that my knowledge is fairly up to date. Relativity hasn't made it high enough on the list for me to put in the time and effort. I'll stick to generalities for myself and let others who know the stuff take the lead in discussions.

    If you want to discuss relativity, you have to know what physicists are talking about. It might take you 2 or 3 weeks, slogging away with a notebook and a lot of brain pain to get your head around it. But until you actually understand what the words mean and how the concepts fit together (doing the equations, and making sure you understand them for yourself, is optional so long as you realise that ignoring that work is not optimal) you're not in a good position to even start to make any kind of judgment whether an idea or an equation makes sense in its own terms, let alone how it might be better if it were different in some way.

    No one can do this sort of thing without putting in a reasonable amount of work. You don't need to do a 4 year degree, but you do have to make a real effort. It isn't simple, it will never be simple, some of it can be counter-intuitive - and there's no way to get around it but to put your head down and do some work.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Everybody relies on their own understandings. We take inputs from many sources but we still come to our own conclusions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    "There is a difference between being open minded and being gullible and ignorant."

    I fail to see open mindedness in you. (well maybe a glimpse of such at times - but then you seem to revert)


    What you see of me is a very shallow glimpse. When I am performing lab work, I have to keep an open mind regarding my results, for instance. If I assume that what I hypothesize will be correct, there will be a bias in my reporting. I am also very open minded about instituting mitigation and restoration practices in ecology work. People have varying ideas as to how to best go about mitigating, for instance, wetland damage from development.

    Am I open minded in regards to the fundamental laws of physics? No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Just more of the "This is what has been taught to me so it is truth and other stuff is not"


    It's a false assumption to say that I ONLY believe in what I believe because it was taught to me. I was taught material, then I applied it in homework problems and experiments in lab environments. Since everything worked as it was supposed to and my results lined up, I accepted it as the best method we currently know. I took physics in college. I was taught how equations were derived, how they were applied, then I applied them in lab experiments and in my homework. Everything matched up. If it didn't, I asked questions.

    That is simply called learning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Just because I am open to new ideas from my own mind and from others is hardly proof that I am ignorant and gullible. I don't get why you humans on this forum want to say such things at me and others. I seriously do not.
    If you are open to absurd notions supported purely by a misunderstanding of accepted physics, you are being gullible and ignorant. Science, like me, doesn't take feelings into account in this instance. If you are accepting information that is not logical or plausible, you are being gullible. If that isn't corrected, you will continue down the wrong path. If criticism and correction only emboldens you to travel farther down the wrong path, you are being ignorant. Hence, my conclusion.

    I'm not trying to hurt your feelings or attack you. I'm simply trying to point out that what you're trying to paint as physics is just twaddle from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. It has nothing to do with being open minded. What I find particularly disturbing is that every other person in your threads (perhaps with the occasional exception of Stargate) has pointed this out as well and you have decided that means EVERYONE BUT YOU is behaving badly and attacking you.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    It's standard crank behaviour Flick, not the first and won't be the last, just another loon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Oh good grief. I was hoping for something intelligent.
    Perhaps if you posted something intelligent, and displayed some intelligence yourself, you'd get a different response.

    Posting links to unscientific crap and then arguing in favour of it when the errors have been pointed out isn't an intelligent thing to do.
    Especially when you yourself asked for an appraisal of the contents of that link.
    stonecutter and umbradiago like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    'Relativity Revised'

    seeing that statement and told i can learn about it on a obscure website is enough for me to call this non-science and look not further. if relativity was really revised by a scientist or team of them then the results would be written in every major science publication and every major newspaper of the world. and the discussion would be on-going for weeks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Everybody relies on their own understandings. We take inputs from many sources but we still come to our own conclusions.
    And some conclusions are right, and some are wrong.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    I spot on you. I call it spot, because you I find quite interesting. The way you work, the ways you think. One thing differs between us. You think that because I entertain what many may call crackpot ideas, I buy into such ideas, but that is inaccurate. I may take delight in taking them into consideration, but quite truly, I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Just more of the "This is what has been taught to me so it is truth and other stuff is not"
    This is pretty offensive. You are saying that other people stick blindly to what hey have been told, or what they have read in books, without thinking about it. No one else actually works it out or thinks about it.

    You imply that science works like some sort of religion: the Great Prophet Einstein said ... and therefore we must all believe it. Some of us have struggled to make sense of new ideas we have come across. Worked things out from first principles. Finally got a bit of insight into the way the world works ... and then someone comes along and says we are not open minded, and just repeating what we have been told?

    Just because I am open to new ideas from my own mind and from others is hardly proof that I am ignorant and gullible.
    As you appear to be willing to accept those ideas without thinking about them (the very thing you are accusing others of) it is pretty compelling evidence of just that.

    I don't get why you humans on this forum want to say such things at me and others. I seriously do not.
    It is purely based on the things you say and do. What else could it be based on? You come along and say "here is a web page that proves 2 + 2 = 5" and then accuse us of not being open minded or creative because we reject it.

    How do expect people to respond? Should we say, "that is an interesting and creative point of view that I will take on board"? Of course not. It is wrong. Anyone who thinks it isn't is ignorant and gullible.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Oh good grief. I was hoping for something intelligent.
    Perhaps if you posted something intelligent, and displayed some intelligence yourself, you'd get a different response.

    Posting links to unscientific crap and then arguing in favour of it when the errors have been pointed out isn't an intelligent thing to do.
    Especially when you yourself asked for an appraisal of the contents of that link.
    I don't recall arguing in favor of it. I just asked what people think. I already said I don't understand it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
    what part do you question ? what studies have you seen that makes it 'subject to question' ? are you all knowing of math behind general relativity ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
    Of course it is subject to question. It is a scientific theory. It is constantly being tested, both experimentally and theoretically. We know it is incomplete. There will huge rewards for whoever manages to extend or replace it.

    However, just saying "it is wrong because I don't understand it" will not win any prizes.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
    ...within reason.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I don't recall arguing in favor of it. I just asked what people think. I already said I don't understand it.
    In that case, I think you should do what I suggested earlier and use it as a learning opportunity. Take each sentence and work out if it is right or wrong - either by reference to text books, wikipedia or questions here. If you think it is wrong, then work out where the logical fallacy or mathematical error is. This will give you a really deep insight into the theory, and the skills needed to spot crank pseudoscience in future.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I don't recall arguing in favor of it. I just asked what people think. I already said I don't understand it.
    Oh good gravy.

    So you called people out for being closed-minded regarding something you don't even understand?

    Strange and umbradiago like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    You think that because I entertain what many may call crackpot ideas, I buy into such ideas, but that is inaccurate.
    Nope.
    It's because you persist in spouting nonsense and dipslay a fundamental lack of knowldege.

    I may take delight in taking them into consideration
    Why?
    Specious crap is specious crap.

    I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
    Why?
    Given that it's been shown to be correct so often what exactly are you questioning about it?
    On what grounds?

    That last question is perhaps the most relevant here: every post you make indicates that you have ZERO grounds for the questions you pose with regard to "accepted science".
    In other words your position is that of gross ignorance pretending to be knowledgable/ scientific.
    umbradiago likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I don't recall arguing in favor of it. I just asked what people think. I already said I don't understand it.
    If you don't understand it then what does it matter whether it's correct or not?
    How will affect you either way?
    umbradiago likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
    Why? GPS works and we only managed to make those devices workable based on our knowledge of relativity.

    If your GPS isn't working I'd contact the supplier.
    tk421, Howard Roark and umbradiago like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
    ...within reason.
    Awwe but who defines reason?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
    Why? GPS works and we only managed to make those devices workable based on our knowledge of relativity.

    If your GPS isn't working I'd contact the supplier.
    I don't even have a phone, much less a gps. Also show me proof of where the general theory of relativity has something to do with gps devices?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
    Why? GPS works and we only managed to make those devices workable based on our knowledge of relativity.

    If your GPS isn't working I'd contact the supplier.
    I don't even have a phone, much less a gps. Also show me proof of where the general theory of relativity has something to do with gps devices?
    GPS and Relativity

    this is common knowledge to those in science. if you don't like this link do interent search with 'gps and relativity' and you find many, many links to learn from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    What kind of clocks are ticking faster or slower? What do they run on?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    What kind of clocks are ticking faster or slower? What do they run on?
    here you want people to answer questions for you. why don't you answer them yourselves ? do some reading about GPS satellites and relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    What kind of clocks are ticking faster or slower? What do they run on?
    here you want people to answer questions for you. why don't you answer them yourselves ? do some reading about GPS satellites and relativity.
    What? No, I am just asking what the power sources and mechanics of the watches are and why they should change if aboard some made up spaceship traveling near the speed of light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
    Why? GPS works and we only managed to make those devices workable based on our knowledge of relativity.

    If your GPS isn't working I'd contact the supplier.
    I don't even have a phone, much less a gps. Also show me proof of where the general theory of relativity has something to do with gps devices?
    Start here: GPS and Relativity

    For someone who claims to be "creative" and interested in science, you show an appalling lack of curiosity. A few seconds with google turns up thousands of pages on this topic, ranging from overviews for lay audiences to detailed peer-reviewed research papers with fourth-order corrections.

    I'm afraid that it's clear from your consistent behavior that you are mainly interested in magical thinking. You react childishly to anyone telling you why that thinking is wrong (see Baez's crackpot index, particularly the bits about "defenders of the orthodoxy" and related tiresome rants). But some ideas, simply put, are crap. To point that out isn't rude. It's science, bud. This is a science forum. If you expect nonsensical, discredited ideas to be accorded the same respect as those that have survived the crucible of sustained attack by determined skeptics to umpteen decimal places, you're pathetically mistaken.

    Like many crackpots, you and your friend seem to believe that your thoughts are wholly novel. What you don't realize is that these are very old notions -- they go back a century in this case, when Einstein's SR stirred up a hornet's nest of opposition. Our reaction here isn't "bullying" (you and stargate keep mischaracterizing it as such). It's merely that you have utterly failed to understand how much has already been studied and established. It's amusing -- and sad, at the same time -- that you and your friend somehow have deluded yourselves into thinking that, in a century of study by hordes of scientists (many who wanted to show Einstein to be wrong), no one ever, anywhere, considered those ideas.

    What is more likely: That a gaping logical inconsistency in relativity has gone undetected for all that time, or that you and your friend have simply misunderstood the theory?

    Given the poor knowledge of science you've displayed thus far here, the answer is obvious. The problem isn't a lack of open-mindedness on our parts.

    Crap is crap. Sorry if you don't like that fact. Time to grow up and get some real education.
    AlexG, RedPanda, PhDemon and 2 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    What? No, I am just asking what the power sources and mechanics of the watches are and why they should change if aboard some made up spaceship traveling near the speed of light.
    Yeah, ignorance again.
    What makes you think that the power source or mechanism "changes"?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    What kind of clocks are ticking faster or slower? What do they run on?
    here you want people to answer questions for you. why don't you answer them yourselves ? do some reading about GPS satellites and relativity.
    What? No, I am just asking what the power sources and mechanics of the watches are and why they should change if aboard some made up spaceship traveling near the speed of light.
    For pete's sake, do some STUDYING! You are ignorant, but that doesn't have to be a permanent condition. However, if you insist on adopting this lazy attitude, you'll never get out of the swamp.

    A key notion of relativity is that the underlying power sources and mechanics are totally irrelevant. The Lorentz contraction formula, for example, doesn't care about any of those things. It's actually a statement of the geometry of space. It's a hint that led, ultimately, to general relativity.

    Forget about SR for the moment, and go back to KJW's observation about Galilean relativity. If I am traveling in a car at constant velocity, then the football I am holding is not moving with respect to me; it has zero kinetic energy in my frame. But if I open the window and let it go, it can do work on something in the road frame. The football most definitely has energy with respect to the road. Energy is a frame-dependent quantity. Speed of light has nothing to do with that.

    Before you can hope to appreciate Einsteinian relativity, you have to get clear on Galilean relativity first.
    Howard Roark and DogLady like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    What you don't realize is that these are very old notions -- they go back a century in this case, when Einstein's SR stirred up a hornet's nest of opposition. Our reaction here isn't "bullying" (you and stargate keep mischaracterizing it as such). It's merely that you have utterly failed to understand how much has already been studied and established. It's amusing -- and sad, at the same time -- that you and your friend somehow have deluded yourselves into thinking that, in a century of study by hordes of scientists (many who wanted to show Einstein to be wrong), no one ever, anywhere, considered those ideas.
    i am reminded of paper writtne in 1931 by 100 people called '100 authors against Einstein':

    Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), published in 1931. It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity. Besides philosophic objections (mostly based on Kantianism), also some alleged elementary failures of the theory were included, however, as some commented, those failures were due to the authors' misunderstanding of relativity. For example, Hans Reichenbach described the book as an "accumulation of naive errors", and as "unintentionally funny". Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a backward step to the 16th and 17th century,
    then there was Einstein's famous quote: 'If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!'
    adelady, tk421 and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    What kind of clocks are ticking faster or slower? What do they run on?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    I am lazy? I work around 50 hours per week as an electronics tech and I calibrate electric and magnetic field detectors from DC to 40 GHz to show their frequency and linear responses to the calculated applied fields and calculate the appropriate correction factors, and also the dB of error in nonlinear units. Both voltage and current flow are nonlinear. Combine them and it is power and is linear. I am also taking a computer science course and a course in intro calculus and another in astrophysics. I am sorry if that is lazy to you, but it is my life to live as I wish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I am lazy?
    Intellectually, yes.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I am lazy? I work around 50 hours per week as an electronics tech and I calibrate electric and magnetic field detectors from DC to 40 GHz to show their frequency and linear responses to the calculated applied fields and calculate the appropriate correction factors, and also the dB of error in nonlinear units. Both voltage and current flow are nonlinear. Combine them and it is power and is linear. I am also taking a computer science course and a course in intro calculus and another in astrophysics. I am sorry if that is lazy to you, but it is my life to live as I wish.
    Yes, you are lazy, appallingly so. It doesn't matter that you work many hours as a tech. You play at doing science, because it's easier than actually doing science. Look at the jargon you pack into your declaration above in an attempt to impress -- "dB error in nonlinear units" is not something a knowledgeable tech would say (decibels are already nonlinear). Nor would a knowledgeable person say "voltage and current flow are nonlinear; combine them and it is power and it is linear." That is at best completely meaningless, and at worst completely wrong (systems and their behavior can be nonlinear; physical quantities are not described by such characteristics -- linearity is not possessed by a kilogram, for instance).

    The sloppiness you evince above and virtually everywhere else in the posts you've made so far reveal that you'd prefer to pretend to a knowledge of science. You've done almost nothing to acquire any real knowledge. Worse, you seem not terribly interested in acquiring any real knowledge, as you actively fight against anyone teaching you something (because it goes against your "creative" ideas).

    Believing in magic is a lot easier than studying, I know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    It is the natural path to www.timecube.com.
    Point of reference to Mayflow- totaL JERK IS SIGHTED!
    If you put the mirror down he will vanish.
    Howard Roark and exchemist like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    It is the natural path to www.timecube.com.
    Point of reference to Mayflow- totaL JERK IS SIGHTED!
    If you put the mirror down he will vanish.
    I love the Time Cube. A youtube of the guy presenting a talk at MIT (!) used to be on the web, but it was gone the last time I searched.

    There used to be a brilliant parody of the Time Cube (as if self-parody were insufficient), something involving copper and "dumbys." Your post makes me want to go find it again. Thanks.

    ETA: And here it is: http://www.somethingawful.com/fakesa/learning_triangle/
    Last edited by tk421; March 30th, 2014 at 12:32 PM.
    RedPanda and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I am tempted to publish my own homage...
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I am tempted to publish my own homage...
    The scary thing about The Learning Triangle site is that it's hardly distinguishable from any number of sincere crackpot sites out there. In searching for it, I came across a number of discussions by folks taking the Learning Triangle seriously.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post

    I don't recall arguing in favor of it. I just asked what people think. I already said I don't understand it.
    You were told what people here think of it, i.e. total crap. If you're not arguing in favor of it, why are you offended by everyone's opinion of it?
    Howard Roark and exchemist like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
    Why? GPS works and we only managed to make those devices workable based on our knowledge of relativity.

    If your GPS isn't working I'd contact the supplier.
    I don't even have a phone, much less a gps. Also show me proof of where the general theory of relativity has something to do with gps devices?
    Read this:

    GPS and Relativity
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    What kind of clocks are ticking faster or slower? What do they run on?
    All clocks, no matter how they work. Also all chemical and atomic processes.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I am tempted to publish my own homage...
    If you can, why not? What language will you use? Visual basic? I think Jon used that. Computers only understand binary, so you will need a compiler.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    so you will need a compiler.
    or an interpreter. compiler builds machine executable code module(s) that are then linked and executed. interpreter builds executable code on the fly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    What kind of clocks are ticking faster or slower? What do they run on?
    All clocks, no matter how they work. Also all chemical and atomic processes.
    .

    I think it was about the atomic clock. What happens when the non-atomic thingies enter into the equations? Non atomic is currently thought by many to be a much larger percentage of all that is than the atomic is. Welcome to new views.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    If you are creating a web page then there is no need for either a compiler or interpreter. HTML is simply transferred as text. You might want to use a language like Javascript or PHP to make something more interactive.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I think it was about the atomic clock. What happens when the non-atomic thingies enter into the equations? Non atomic is currently thought by many to be a much larger percentage of all that is than the atomic is.
    I'm not sure what you mean; all clocks are affected equally because it is time that is dilated, not the mechanics of the clock itself.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Naw, I think it was about the atomic clock
    Ignorance on parade.

    All clocks, no matter how they run or how they're powered. The atomic clock is simply the most accurate. Also all atomic processes slow down, i.e. muons live longer when moving a relativistic speeds Muon Experiment in Relativity. Everything slows down (when measured from another FOR).

    Welcome to new views.
    You mean incorrect views. Why don't you spend some effort on learning. Your level of ignorance is high.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Everything slows down (when measured from another FOR).
    thank you for adding the 'from another FOR'. people who do not understand SR think that if they are on board that spaceship traveling 0.9c relative to earth FOR, that the occupants will experience things slowing down as in a dream. the occupants would not notice anything out of the ordinary.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Tell all this to my alarm clock which needs batteries, or my truck clock which evidently runs a bit faster than other clocks, or to the clocks who have stopped working. I don't think they will listen though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Tell all this to my alarm clock which needs batteries, or my truck clock which evidently runs a bit faster than other clocks, or to the clocks who have stopped working. I don't think they will listen though.
    I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Different clocks have different levels of accuracy. So what? All those clocks will run relatively slower, from another frame of reference, exactly as predicted by relativity (within the accuracy that a given clock can measure, of course).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    If you can, why not? What language will you use? Visual basic? I think Jon used that. Computers only understand binary, so you will need a compiler.
    Visual Basic? LOL
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Tell all this to my alarm clock which needs batteries, or my truck clock which evidently runs a bit faster than other clocks, or to the clocks who have stopped working. I don't think they will listen though.
    in SR thought experiments all clocks are assumed to be the same and keep the same time, whether accurate or not. in engineering tasks it is always best to have all clocks keeeping the same time and all clocks accurate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    If you can, why not? What language will you use? Visual basic? I think Jon used that. Computers only understand binary, so you will need a compiler.
    So you're also ignorant of web page construction.

    (And computers in general: unless you're claiming you compose all of your posts in binary and use a compiler...)
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    If you can, why not? What language will you use? Visual basic? I think Jon used that. Computers only understand binary, so you will need a compiler.
    So you're also ignorant of web page construction.

    (And computers in general: unless you're claiming you compose all of your posts in binary and use a compiler...)
    A computer processor can only interpret and apply binary. It doesn't matter to the processor if you use java or html or what. It only can process binary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    A computer processor can only interpret and apply binary. It doesn't matter to the processor if you use java or or html or what. It only can process binary.

    Yeah, you missed the point. Again.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    so you will need a compiler.
    or an interpreter. compiler builds machine executable code module(s) that are then linked and executed. interpreter builds executable code on the fly.
    They still need to be made into binary code for the computer's processor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    A computer processor can only interpret and apply binary. It doesn't matter to the processor if you use java or or html or what. It only can process binary.

    Yeah, you missed the point. Again.
    Is this an example of your scientific acumen? I am not impressed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    They still need to be made into binary code for the computer's processor.
    an executable module, one that has been compiled and linked, is in the proper binary code (instruction set) for that particular processor. an interpreter creates the executable code on the fly which is then executed. its output is also 'binary'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Is this an example of your scientific acumen?
    Is this your idea of scientific discussion?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Is this an example of your scientific acumen? I am not impressed.
    No, it's pointing out that you missed the point: binary and a compiler isn't needed by users for the vast majority of tasks on a computer, nor is it required to create web pages.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Is this an example of your scientific acumen? I am not impressed.
    No, it's pointing out that you missed the point: binary and a compiler isn't needed by users for the vast majority of tasks on a computer, nor is it required to create web pages.
    As I said. the computer processes only binary data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    As I said. the computer processes only binary data.
    No, what you actually wrote was: If you can, why not? What language will you use? Visual basic? I think Jon used that. Computers only understand binary, so you will need a compiler.
    Neither binary nor a compiler are required to create web pages.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts.
    By Numii in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1457
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2014, 04:38 PM
  2. thoughts
    By allenyuang in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 17th, 2010, 03:56 PM
  3. thoughts
    By allenyuang in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 31st, 2010, 03:36 AM
  4. thoughts
    By allenyuang in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 29th, 2010, 05:45 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •