ralfcis Posted March 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 Nice general meaningless comment. What specifically have I got wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 .My math totally supports the empirical results, there is no dispute there. Simply a product of your own immense hubris, Ralf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted March 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Oh wait, I know, it's all wrong and you don't know where to begin. Correct, there's no way you'd know where to begin. Same argument as when you didn't understand relative velocity follows the relativistic velocity combo equation. You still think 1/3 c + 1/3 c = 2/3 c. 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) Nice general meaningless comment. What specifically have I got wrong? First of all, I'll repeat Al's thoughts on the topic. The main thing is the content, not the mathematics. With mathematics one can prove anything. (Albert Einstein) You've gone wrong twice with respect to this quote alone. 1. You don't understand that "one can prove anything" with math. Which boils down to the claim that math proves nothing. Yet you think "your" math actually proves something. 2. You do not have a systematic or coherent understanding SR, purely as a theory. You don't think the "content" is worth bothering with. Yet that's the "main thing," according to Al. Edited March 21, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) You still think 1/3 c + 1/3 c = 2/3 c. Yes, I still think that the velocity addition formula is a crock of crap, if that's what you're getting at. If you understood the premises and implications of SR, you would too. You cling to that mathematical formula while rejecting the premises it is based upon. You're just contradicting yourself. 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 You, least of all people know what I'm talking about. Why do you continue to pretend? Is it some form of insecure pride that keeps you coming back for more. If you have something to prove, you're not succeeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) If you have something to prove, you're not succeeding. Nobody, anywhere, anytime, could ever prove anything to you. All your assertions, no matter how much they change or how much they contradict each other, are self-proving to you. You believe only what you want to believe, and then only what you think proves that you are a genius. In one sentence it may be one thing. In the next it may be the opposite. It doesn't matter to you. You are infallible, and if you think that what you saying at the moment "proves" the point you're trying to make at the time, then that makes it true. No need for any kind of proof. The mere fact that you said it makes it true, to you. 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 If that's how you feel, I hope you can find someone else who'll make your life worthwhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Here's another way of assessing the flaws of SR (one which I've talked about before). SR claims that "all inertial frames are equivalent." Now, whatever else this might mean, SR says it means that you can never tell which of 2 (or more) objects is moving relative to the other. You can't, for example, know if the sun is orbiting the earth or if the earth is orbiting the sun. This proposition is ridiculous, but let's go on. SR then suggests that if two different observers take opposing views on this matter, then both are correct. A self-contradictory claim. But from this we get reciprocal time dilation, the supposed relativity of simultaneity, etc. Math can accept all these ridiculous propositions with no problem. Math is oblivious to the soundness of the premises you give it. So you might say it is mathematically "true." But it isn't even that. Why? Because the math does not adhere to these premises in SR's operation. The twin paradox shows this. SR says the moving clock runs slow, and concludes that the space-twin's clock is the one which runs slow. This means that it is his clock that is/was moving. So SR has just told us which of the two is moving, despite it's claim that such a thing can never be known. It also shows that time dilation is NOT reciprocal. Furthermore, it gives us an empirical way to test for motion. If you're not sure, just bring two relatively moving clocks back together and see which one displays less accumulated time during the same period. So, in this way, you CAN know which one is/was moving relative to the other. 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 You know, I've been thrown off physics forums for a lot less than I've said here thank GAHD. I've never come this close to actually finishing my theory. But while I celebrate the leeway I've been given here, I do not understand the extreme leeway Moronium has been given. Why is he allowed on a physics forum and Polly isn't? Is it to stimulate debate? I'm not pushing for anything, I'm just curious because I don't know how close I am to getting thrown out as what happened on thescienceforums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 I do not understand the extreme leeway Moronium has been given. Why is he allowed on a physics forum and Polly isn't? I It's not surprising that you think that anyone who disagrees with your "physics" should be thrown out of the forum, eh, Ralf? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted March 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 As you said you don't understand enough of what I'm saying to be even qualified to disagree with it. Nice try though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Why does the moving party think the non-moving party is aging less slowly in SR? Answer: Because he thinks HE is not moving and that the other guy is. Why would any astronaut who has been accelerated into space think that, the second he stops accelerating, he is no longer moving away the earth, but rather that the earth is now moving away from him while he has, suddenly become absolutely motionless? Answer: No astronaut ever would think that. For a whole variety of reasons, one of which is that he would be aware of Newton's "law of inertia." So why does he think that in SR? Answer: Because SR forces him to adopt, and adhere to, completely false assumptions. But why would SR require that? Answer: Because if it didn't, the whole theory would self-destruct. Edited March 22, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alright1234 Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 Did you know that the greatest American physicists in the last 130 years is an African American. (Hint: it writes well) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alright1234 Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) When you refer to SR which of Einstein's papers are you using 1905 or 1917? I am an expert in SR. I know SR inside and out. Example, the earth's daily and yearly motions, and, the main purpose of SR is the ether. So lets talk Special relativity. Edited March 21, 2019 by alright1234 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) When you refer to SR which of Einstein's papers are you using 1905 or 1917? I am an expert in SR. I know SR inside and out. Example, the earth's daily and yearly motions. The main purpose of SR is the ether. A good question, since they all differ, and hence it's always ambiguous to just say "SR." His 1905 version is really no different than Lorentz's. I generally am referring to SR in terms of the "geometrical" interpretation developed by Minkowski (which has itself been modified since 1908). I also include what have become "mainstream" views of its content and meaning. I hope you really are an expert who can knowledgeably discuss the theory. Edited March 21, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 Did you know that the greatest American physicists in the last 130 years is an African American. (Hint: it writes well) Who dat is? 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.