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.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’?
It's crap. Rather than these "whaddaya think" posts, how about doing a little work yourself? It's a good habit to develop.Originally Posted by Mayflow
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?)
Relatively speaking, that website is a massive catastrophe.
I had you pegged for a crank earlier, you are taking all the right steps to prove me right.
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.
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.
You're misunderstanding what Chrispen Evan said. This is not about people and the various ways we think.It is not easy for anyone to change their frame of reference.
"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
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.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.
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.Quite honestly, I didn't understand any of that and the syntax was odd.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.
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.
One thing that should be noted is that the notion of relativity didn't just start with Einstein but actually started with Galileo.
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.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.Quite honestly, I didn't understand any of that and the syntax was odd.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.
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.
Point of reference to Mayflow- totaL JERK IS SIGHTED!
It is the natural path to www.timecube.com.
"[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.
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.
To be specific, this is where your friend goes wrong:
They are both true. That is why it is called the theory of RELATIVITY: the increase in mass is relative to the observer.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?
And then he says (creatively):
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).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.
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.
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."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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Huh?
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.
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.
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.Huh?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure that means something to someone.
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.
"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.
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.
Mayflow, please describe again where you have found that Newton and Einstein are incorrect ?
I never said that.
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.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.
I didn't actually read as much as you did. What is the Entothopter?
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.
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.Quite honestly, I didn't understand any of that and the syntax was odd.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.
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.)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.
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.
Everybody relies on their own understandings. We take inputs from many sources but we still come to our own conclusions.
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.
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.
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.
It's standard crank behaviour Flick, not the first and won't be the last, just another loon
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.
'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.
And some conclusions are right, and some are wrong.
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.
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?
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.Just because I am open to new ideas from my own mind and from others is hardly proof that I am ignorant and gullible.
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.I don't get why you humans on this forum want to say such things at me and others. I seriously do not.
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.
I don't recall arguing in favor of it. I just asked what people think. I already said I don't understand it.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.
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 ?
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.
...within reason.
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.
Oh good gravy.
So you called people out for being closed-minded regarding something you don't even understand?
Nope.
It's because you persist in spouting nonsense and dipslay a fundamental lack of knowldege.
Why?I may take delight in taking them into consideration
Specious crap is specious crap.
Why?I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
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.
If you don't understand it then what does it matter whether it's correct or not?
How will affect you either way?
Why? GPS works and we only managed to make those devices workable based on our knowledge of relativity.I think even the formula most here love to death of general relativity is subject to question.
If your GPS isn't working I'd contact the supplier.
Awwe but who defines reason?...within reason.
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 RelativityI 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?
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.
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.here you want people to answer questions for you. why don't you answer them yourselves ? do some reading about GPS satellites and relativity.
Start here: GPS and RelativityI 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?
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.
Yeah, ignorance again.
What makes you think that the power source or mechanism "changes"?
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.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.here you want people to answer questions for you. why don't you answer them yourselves ? do some reading about GPS satellites and relativity.
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.
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
then there was Einstein's famous quote: 'If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!'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,
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.
Intellectually, yes.
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.
If you put the mirror down he will vanish.Point of reference to Mayflow- totaL JERK IS SIGHTED!
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.If you put the mirror down he will vanish.Point of reference to Mayflow- totaL JERK IS SIGHTED!
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.
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.I am tempted to publish my own homage...
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?
Read this: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
All clocks, no matter how they work. Also all chemical and atomic processes.
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.I am tempted to publish my own homage...
or an interpreter. compiler builds machine executable code module(s) that are then linked and executed. interpreter builds executable code on the fly.
.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.
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.
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.
Ignorance on parade.Naw, I think it was about the atomic clock
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).
You mean incorrect views. Why don't you spend some effort on learning. Your level of ignorance is high.Welcome to new views.
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.
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).
Visual Basic? LOL
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.
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.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...)
Yeah, you missed the point. Again.
They still need to be made into binary code for the computer's processor.or an interpreter. compiler builds machine executable code module(s) that are then linked and executed. interpreter builds executable code on the fly.
Is this an example of your scientific acumen? I am not impressed.
Yeah, you missed the point. Again.
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'.
Is this your idea of scientific discussion?Is this an example of your scientific acumen?
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.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.
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.
| « [Debate] Can people Spontaneously Combust? | is the mass of Earth correct. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
96Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
