ralfcis Posted March 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Ok we'll just let you calm down and maybe you can sort things out on your own. Meanwhile, I hope the other two guys have seen the videos on what they're supposed to believe. I'll bet it'll come as a surprise to them. Edited March 21, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 You still haven't answered the questions, Ralf. Do you even have an answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted March 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) I don't really respect people who snipe and then run away and hide. I'd like to flush them out because even arguing with the dumbest people can result in clarity. People think science is about settling arguments, it's actually about creating them. So let's fight. Both sides here are just talking past each other without addressing valid points. Moronium has a valid point that relativity says reciprocal time dilation is real for both parties; both are really younger than each other from their perspectives. That's just a straight up ridiculous paradox. But then it goes on to say if you want to really, really find out who's younger, you have to bring them together. Unfortunately, the act of bringing them together affects who will actually be really, really younger not who was really younger (because they were both really younger than each other before). The resolution to this paradox (even though defensive relativists mindlessly dictate there are no paradoxes in relativity) is to stop defining perspective as reality. It is just an illusion just like when people only look a thumb tall to each other from across a football field. They're not really a thumb tall, it's just an illusion of perspective. When they come together, they see it was an illusion. But not so in relativity. In keeping with this analogy, the results would be different depending on how they came together. Meeting mid-field they'd both be normal height but one walking to the other would arrive only a thumb tall. This has nothing to do with the illusion of perspective they were experiencing before they decided to come together. It does not settle that illusion. The one arriving a thumb tall didn't really start a thumb tall, he started shrinking the moment he started to walk back (and, according to my math, he stops shrinking sometime during his walk to meet the other guy.) If you start to call that initial illusion of perspective, reality, then you end up with really stupid conclusions as presented in the two videos I linked. If time is just another space axis and it doesn't flow then you must conclude past, present and future are all concurrent, all equally real simultaneously. If you're fine with that conclusion, and relativity's math is (because it's based on false assumptions), then it should be easy to disprove the math I presented which comes to the opposite conclusion. There is no shortage of opinions but they mean nothing without the facts to back them up. Wiki articles and parroting a theory without understanding math don't hold any weight. So stop sniping at me with your total ignorance until you have some valid intelligent point to make. It wastes both our time for me to try to straighten out dummies. I've got a theory with a lot of supporting math to get through yet. Edited March 21, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 The resolution to this paradox (even though defensive relativists dictate there are no paradoxes in relativity) is to stop defining perspective as reality. It is just an illusion just like when people only look a thumb tall to each other from across a football field. They're not really a thumb tall, it's just an illusion of perspective. When they come together, they see it was an illusion. But not so in relativity. The results would be different depending on how they came together. Meeting mid-field they'd both be normal height but one walking to the other would arrive only a thumb tall. This has nothing to do with the illusion of perspective they were experiencing before they decided to come together. It does not settle that illusion. The one arriving a thumb tall didn't really start a thumb tall, he started shrinking the moment he started to walk back. Your analogy is a little unclear, Ralf, and you're kinda "mixing metaphors" here. If I know how far away from me an object is, and have good knowledge of perspective distortion, then I can deduce how big it "really" is, appearances notwithstanding. And that goes both ways. If one guy "really" is thumb tall, he can deduce that the object he is looking at is much bigger than it appears. SR is full of contradictions, but I don't believe that "how" two objects get united has anything to do with it. If one guy really is a thumb tall, and the other six feet tall, that will be discovered by both no matter how they come together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) But then it goes on to say if you want to really, really find out who's younger, you have to bring them together. Unfortunately, the act of bringing them together affects who will actually be really, really younger not who was really younger because they were both really younger than each other before. SR, as a theory, does NOT say you have to bring them together. People who don't understand the theory, but who are trying to prove some side point, will often make the claim that you have to bring the two together to know who' s younger, but that's not correct. At least not as a theoretical matter. Of course it never hurts to verify the theory, and the best way to do that is to actually compare clocks, side by side. But, to repeat, the act of bringing them together has no effect on the resulting findings. "because they were both really younger than each other before." SR makes this contradictory claim, but you must ignore it if you want to fully understand what's "really" happening. The one who is younger was younger both before and after they reunited, and SR ends up having to concede as much. They only difference upon reunification is that the (moving) party who thought the other was younger discovers that he was wrong all along. Edited March 21, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted March 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 Moronium, I've answered your questions, you seem incapable of seeing them so I told you to work it out for yourself. I'm not your caregiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Moronium, I've answered your questions, you seem incapable of seeing them so I told you to work it out for yourself. I'm not your caregiver. Nor are you capable of answering a simple question in unambigous terms either, it seems. I don't really care what you think, I was only trying to help you understand certain things which you obviously don't. If you understand what Einstein was saying in the quotes I posted, then fine. I don't think you do, however, because you keep ignoring and contradicting what he's trying to tell us. Of course he's not by any means the only one to say it. Millions of others have said the same. Edited March 21, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted March 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Who gives a flying f what someone's opinions on math are. You view that as a justification of your own ignorant opinions. They at least had some basis for theirs, you don't. Like anything, if you use math wrong, it can lead you astray. So what. So don't do that. Does it take a genius to make that obvious point and for you to drag me into your tedious rabbit hole. You always pick minutiae to discuss instead of the main topic because if you can find the tiniest intellectual foothold, you feel like one of the adults. People who concentrate on the literal are most often a little off. Now if you can stop your bellyaching for a little while, I'm going after the two guidos and you're going to bury my post with all your crying. Edited March 21, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Who gives a flying f what someone's opinions on math are. You view that as a justification of your own ignorant opinions. I see you're right back to calling Einstein ignorant. For good reason. We all know that if he was even 1/10th as smart as you (which he could never be), you'd make him look like he should be riding the short bus. Edited March 21, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted March 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 How did you pass grade 6, you can't read. I even called him a genius in my last post and you still can't read. He was a genius, he turned his bad assumptions through fluke into a theory that brought to light relativistic facts which I totally accept. You can disagree with geniuses but you can't disagree with what defines genius. Every great in science will eventually be proven wrong but that doesn't make him less of a genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 I even called him a genius in my last post and you still can't read. No, you didn't. Is there ANYTHING you won't say, whether true or not, if you think it makes you look like you're right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted March 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 So liar, you couldn't see this sentence or you couldn't understand this sentence?" Does it take a genius to make that obvious point and for you to drag me into your tedious rabbit hole." Don't answer, I don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 So liar, you couldn't see this sentence or you couldn't understand this sentence?" Does it take a genius to make that obvious point and for you to drag me into your tedious rabbit hole." Don't answer, I don't care. Hahahahaha. You're utterly hopeless Ralf, I understand the sentence. And I perfectly understand that it does NOT say "Einstein was a genius." You don't even understand your own words, which says a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amplituhedron Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 It’s amazing, Ralf — no matter where you wander on the internet in your Quixotic quest to overturn relativity and win a Nobel Prize, no one understands maths, according to you! And yet …. well, Jorrie: There is coordinate dependent time dilation and then there is proper time dilation. There is coordinate dependent Lorentz contraction, but there is no proper Lorentz contraction. In this sense, the two are different, not 'the same thing’. However, Lorentz contraction is real in the sense that when you make a real measurement of the length of a passing spaceship, you get a Lorentz contracted value. In this sense Lorentz contraction is 'real', but then, 'real' means different things to different people - a debate that I have no intention of entering. As long as you have standard synchrony, i.e. Einstein synchronization of clocks, you have Lorentz contraction and the limiting one-way speed is c. The limiting 2-way speed is c, irrespective of the clock sync convention used.” Ralfcis: "I'm lost here, totally blank. What you said may be beyond my ability to understand. I can't even formulate a question.” Jorrie doesn’t understand maths, Ralf? Relativity does NOT say that past, present, and future exist simultaneously — that would be stupid. It would be like saying that Boston and New York exist in the same place. So much for your strawman. However, an important implication of Minkowski spacetime is eternalism — the philosophical stance that past, present and future are all ontologically on a par; that all moments in time exist, when they exist, just as all locations in space exist, where they exist. In SR, then, planes of simultaneity would be cross sections of an extant 4-world or block-world — a perfectly reasonable idea. See: Vesselin Petkov SR and GR are first conceptual, preceding the math, which is descriptive; later, both theories became empirically verified. You mathletics mean nothing. so long as relativity is empirically verified, as it always is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 On the other hand, here's what you did say: Who gives a flying f what someone's opinions on math are. The whole topic was about Einstein's opinions on math, not mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted March 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Unlike you, I was eventually able to learn and admitted when I didn't understand things. I've evolved my views even since the start of this thread. So you can call up any number of examples of my ignorance. At some point before I entered school, I was even illiterate. Imagine that. How am I able to read now and wasn't back then? It must make no sense to you. Jorrie does know his maths but he doesn't know mine. Jorrie spent many years correcting me, that foundation is what I've built upon. He taught me relativity to a depth none of you parrots will ever master. You obviously haven't seen the videos I linked. Although closing one's eyes might be your way to enlightenment. I'm glad you admit the concurrence of past present and future is stupid, now go out into the world and learn that is the theory you're actually following. Einstein himself said past, present, and future are persistent illusions if you want to settle this through battling quotes instead of reason and math. You're no different from Moronium, just a different set of unassailable beliefs. My math totally supports the empirical results, there is no dispute there. But my math predicts results relativity can't which falsifies relativity right there. If you don't know what those predicted results are, then you haven't been paying attention. PS. Jorrie gave his seal of approval to those two videos and I can pretty much guarantee he knows a lot more about relativity than you do. Edited March 21, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) But my math predicts results relativity can't which falsifies relativity right there. You once again prove that you have no clue about what Einstein was saying, Ralf. No surprise there. Edited March 21, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.