Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Personal Topic

Relativity

  • Please log in to reply
1030 replies to this topic

#613 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 04:35 PM

Exactly what I was thinking!

 

I haven't watched the video. "Argument by youtube" doesn't appeal to me, although I must admit I am guilty of having done the same once or twice. I try to avoid doing that now.

You are being unjustifiably selective.  On Youtube these exists all manner of topics, with sources such as Yale, Harvard, MIT, Fermiflab, lectures by Lawrence Krauss, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Kip Thorn, and that smiling beatle looking git from England, whose name escapes me.....but now I've listed these guys, I can see why maybe you think the youtube content is just rubbish.

 

Criticize the argument here please, try for once to think scientifically!



#614 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 04:44 PM

 

Next he said that a rod, stationary of moving must exist in the ONE time moment. Its absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for each end of the rod to exist in different times.

 

 

 

 

He doesn't say a single word about "rods" in the video I posted.  Maybe you should watch it.

 

Look, this guy appears to  believe that time is absolute.  So do I.  Or at least that that is the only sensible way to treat it in any theory.

 

He doesn't say that, but that seems to be his premise. I'm making his "argument" much more coherent that it is, even by saying that for him, but not any less worthless.

 

He notes that his wristwatch now reads 10:04. Then, without any intermediary step whatsoever, he claims that proves that all clocks everywhere in the universe, including those on GPS satellites, show exactly the same time as his wristwatch does at any given moment.  If his watch says 10:04, then that proves every clock reads 10:04.

 

And, that's it.  No need to ever even test this, he says.

 

One confusion he makes is obvious. It is the same one advanced by those he opposes. He equates "time" with readings on watches.


Edited by Moronium, 12 February 2019 - 05:23 PM.


#615 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 04:46 PM

Actually the guy must be a Genius, as he possesses that same "rebellious" attitude and a quirky hair style characteristic of someone who is so totally obsessed with his work, that he never stops to think of his appearance. Exactly like Albert Einstein. (either a Kook or a Genius, just look at his hair!)

Is it the sign of intelligence if one spends all day at the beauty parlor?



#616 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 04:49 PM

try for once to think scientifically!

 

 

Heh, the irony of it all.



#617 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 04:52 PM

Also, as he is very clear about WHAT exactly the "absolute truth" actually is, its clear that you either did not actually listen to him, or you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

 

Heh.  The "absolute truth," he says, is that his wristwatch gives only one time (he even "proves" it with a teddy bear), and therefore that is the time that must be shown on every clock everywhere, i.e., 10:04.

 

It's ridiculous on its face.  Suppose my watch just stopped, for example.  Apparently he's never been out of his own time zone.  Maybe he's never been out of his Mom's basement, who knows?


Edited by Moronium, 12 February 2019 - 05:12 PM.


#618 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 04:59 PM

He doesn't say a single word about "rods" in the video I posted.  Maybe you should watch it.

 

Look, this guy appears to  believe that time is absolute.  So do I.  Or at least that that is the only sensible way to treat it in any theory.

 

He doesn't say that, but that seems to be his premise.

 

Then, without any intermediary step whatsoever, he claims that proves that all clocks everywhere in the universe, including those on GPS satellites, show exactly the same time as his wristwatch does at any given moment.

 

And, that's it.

 

One confusion he makes is obvious. It is the same one advanced by those he opposes. He equates "time" with readings on watches.

You somehow watched the wrong video, the one you posted is not the one i originally posted, which was all about LT.

 

He does not equate "time" with watch hands. He is simply saying that NOW is the same instant everywhere. The hands on clocks is just Einsteins way of illustrating that. This is not a claim that is extraordinary, as he says, its just a simple fact. He calls this fact, "an absolute truth" as opposed to a relativistic interpretations of time.

And to point out the error of relativistic times, he employs Einstien's very claims direct from the 1905 paper.

 

I do wish you would open your mind a little and try to follow along here.

 

Do you NOT believe  that "time" is not at one instant the very same NOW everywhere? I thought you did.

 

His claim is not about real clock hands, scattered everywhere in space, even on GPS satellites. His claim is that even in Einsteins own theories, time is absloute, and that therefore NOW is but one instant and is the same instant everywhere. Why is this so hard to grasp?



#619 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 05:01 PM

Heh.  The "absolute truth," he says, is that his wristwatch gives only one time.  And therefore that is the time that must be shown on every  clock everywhere.

 

It's ridiculous on its face.  Suppose my watch just stopped, for example.

You must be missing his point on purpose I think. Its nothing to do with clock readings! He merely is employing Einstein's terminology to show that its impossible for time to be different at different locations, NOT hand on clocks!

 

Moronium, you are now using the very same irrational logic that your detractors here use all the time with you, which gets you annoyed because of the stupidity of such arguments.


Edited by marcospolo, 12 February 2019 - 05:02 PM.


#620 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 05:06 PM

I thought I was in purgatory but I see I was being overly optimistic.


Edited by ralfcis, 12 February 2019 - 05:15 PM.


#621 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 05:16 PM

Well, that sure made it easy for me.  I don't EVER have to pay any attention to any experiment or testing again.  I know it's false, a priori.

 

When you trot this guy out as a representative of the "scientific experts" you've studied and relied on, Marco, it becomes clear that your understanding of "science" is quite different than mine.

 

I have to assume that this guy's middle initial is short for "Crank."

His statement was:

Quote

 

In fact there can never be any experiment or testing whatsoever, including with GPS satellites, to verify Einstein's relativity because it contradicts absolute truth. (Vesselin C. Noninski)

 

Now this is a claim that IF you have a hypothesis that HAS been shown to be an IMPOSSIBILITY, then LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY the ONLY way to treat it is as an error.  Someone who CLAIMS to have some supporting evidence to back up an recognized IMPOSSIBILITY, MUST according to the scientific method, and to rational thought, be REJECTED without consideration.

 

Such claims of supporting evidence of an impossible hypothesis would be the likes of "the Earth is flat". 

Moronium, do you study the "supporting evidence" for flat Earth hypothesis? People offer their supporting evidence all the time.

 

Why not?

You seem to think that supporting evidence can not be rejected, its BETTER than the theory itself, because you cant disagree with supporting evidence can you?

 

So in my understanding you have to put the horse before the cart. The soundness of the hypothesis is critical, and evidence is only as good as the interpretation thereof. Observational evidence can never "prove" a theory, only support or destroy a theory.

 

So far, no one has offered evidence that NOW is not the same instant everywhere, and noone has offered evidence to show that rod ends are not in the same instant of time.  This does not seem to me to be the talk of a crank.  In fact, anyone who disagrees with these two statement is necessarily a crank.


Edited by marcospolo, 12 February 2019 - 05:17 PM.


#622 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 05:20 PM

I thought I was in purgatory but I see I was being overly optimistic.

Your thinking is not one of your strong points.  You think that SR is correct. case closed.



#623 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 05:25 PM

His claim is not about real clock hands, scattered everywhere in space, even on GPS satellites.

 

 

Yes it is.  Listen to it.

 

The guy is totally incoherent.


Edited by Moronium, 12 February 2019 - 05:29 PM.


#624 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 05:35 PM

Yes it is.  Listen to it.

 

The guy is totally incoherent.

You are NOT following his argument, you choose to be pedantic over the illustrations but not be able to discern the purpose or meaning behind the facade of words. How did you ever grasp Einsteins theories, and decide that they wernt correct? Is Einstein only talking about clock hands? OR was he perhaps trying to get at some point?

 

Do you REALLY think this guy believes that a giant grid of clocks exist in space? Really, you think that's what he is saying?

Is he just interested in Horology?

 

You are just being disagreeable because the upshot of this guys argument reveals the your precious LT is an impossibility, and you cant bear it.

Oh the humility of it all!


Edited by marcospolo, 12 February 2019 - 05:40 PM.


#625 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 05:42 PM


 

You are NOT following his argument, you choose to be pedantic over the illustrations but not be able to discern the purpose or meaning behind the facade of words.

 

Do you REALLY think this guy believes that a giant grid of clocks exist in space? Really, you think that's what he is saying?

Is he just interested in Horology?

 

 

He makes no "argument" to follow.  He just makes the same unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions relentlessy--i.e., that all clocks everywhere MUST say the same as his watch.  If it were otherwise, it would contradict the "absolute truth."

 

And, in case it got lost in the shufffle, what is the "absolute truth" according to him?  It is that his watch now says 10:04, and no other time.

 

Truth be told, I could care less about what he thinks.  If you ask me, he doesn't think.

 

You want to say that he doesn't say what he says.   Nice try.

 

I can make an argument for absolute time, and have done so, many times.  But that wouldn't make what I say what he said.


Edited by Moronium, 12 February 2019 - 05:52 PM.


#626 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 05:56 PM

He makes no "argument" to follow.  He just makes the same unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions relentlessy--i.e., that all clocks everywhere MUST say the same as his watch.  If it were otherwise, it would contradict the "absolute truth."

 

Truth be told, I could care less about what he thinks.  If you ask me, he doesn't think.

 

You want to say that he doesn't say what he says.   Nice try.

 

I can make an argument for absolute time, and have done so, many times.  But that wouldn't make what I say what he said.

 

So forget him then.

 

Instead I will make two claims that are facts of Physics.

 

1. NOW is the same everywhere.

2. different ends of a long skinny object both MUST exist in the one NOW. One cant exist in another time.

 

So far so good.

Now apply the LT equation to each end of the long skinny object according to the setup describe in Albert's 1905 paper.

 

The result is that you now have one object with opposite ends existing in different times! We already know that this is impossible.

 

Therefore the LT hypothesis is necessarily incorrect, and must be discarded from Physics.

 

There, now you have something to work on. Whats your reply?


Edited by marcospolo, 12 February 2019 - 05:56 PM.


#627 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 06:04 PM

The "moving rod" illustration is no better than the "moving light clocks prove that time dilation is reciprocal" argument, which I have already debunked.

 

But that's not the basis of the L.T.


Edited by Moronium, 12 February 2019 - 06:09 PM.


#628 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 06:29 PM

I'll quote Hume again (leaving some out for now):

 

“Disputes between men pertinaciously obstinate in their principles are the most irksome.  …and, as reasoning is not the source from whence either disputant derives his tenets, it is in vain to expect that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.”

 

 

 

Here's the part I left out:

 

The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence in enforcing sophistry and falsehood.

 

 

Your virtually continuous contemptuous attempts to ridicule, demean, and insult me over your last few posts is just one aspect of why it is, to use Hume's word, "irksome" to even try to communicate with you, Marco.  But that's not even the main reason.  The main reason is contained in the first part of Hume's quote which I posted above.

 

You continue to convey the impression that you are a fervent ideologue.  "Discussions" are not possible with such types.


Edited by Moronium, 12 February 2019 - 06:38 PM.


#629 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 06:58 PM

I came across this announcement of an imminent "press release" concerning the good doctor of chemistry, Vesselin C. Noninski, on the internet.  Apparently he couldn't get full attention of the National Academy of Science, so he decided to announce the time of an upcoming press conference entitled "Einstein’s Relativity Must be Removed from Physics."

 

The goal of this press conference is to make known to the public that there is an issue of substantial importance regarding its interest but this issue is deliberately kept hidden from the public. I have sent an invitation to the National Academy of Sciences 4 times, to advise the nation, as charged by the US Congress on matters related to science, that fundamentals of physics must undergo an overhaul beginning with the removal of Einstein’s relativity. My invitation, resulting from a crucial argument presented to NAS, was totally ignored all 4 times.

 

...about a decade or so ago, [Noninski] accidentally came upon some problems in the fundamentals of physics, which, in the course of his studies, led him to reach the conclusion that a major overhaul of physics fundamentals is mandatory and inevitable. Consequently, he feels it is his obligation as a scientist to ensure that these findings become part of mainstream science.

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS EVENT...

 

 

I wonder if anyone attended?  No matter, I guess, He's plastered himself all over youtube and disseminated his unique insights that way.


Edited by Moronium, 12 February 2019 - 07:01 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Relativity