Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Pmb

  1. I'm not flaming you. I'm warning members of this forum to beware of the fact that most of the posts you create are nonsense, such as this one. You started this thread by posting numerous symbols whose meaning cannot be deduced from what you wrote, although you'll insist otherwise probably claiming that those who can't figure it out are dumb.
  2. With this nonsense of a post and the fact that the same exact post was posted in The Naked Scientists forum I finally know who you are. Note to my fellow members: this member will rarely, if ever, make any sense whatsoever. He quite often ignores simple facts in physics and declares himself right on too numerous occasions regardless of the fact that 100% of the physics community holds otherwise. Never expect anything logical from him and expect insults. E.g. he flamed me when I explained that space and expand and contract meaning that space can be created and destroyed. He knows absolutely n
  3. Is it possible that RbM and Ryndanangnysen are the same people?
  4. Why? Why is believing that we went to the moon so fantastic to you? Do you know nothing about science and engineering and for that reason can't grasp how it can e done? Where's your evidence? Where's your argument demonstrating that what you said is reasonably correct?
  5. Ryndanangnysen wrote - Are you sure?? It turned out some where just fake! which is a lie. People who make such claims do so without providing evidence because it's wrong and as such there is no evidence of the claim Ryndanangnysen wrote - In orbit around the earth, mate! You've once again provided no basis for this accusation. Merely saying something is not evidence that what you said it's true. In this case ham radio operators listened in on astronauts in the Apollo-11 capsules as they went to the Moon. It's easy to determine that the transmissions were not from Apollo-11 as it circled the
  6. Just because I explained in detail why your reasoning process is far from being reasonable is no basis whatsoever to assert that I'm brainwashed. In fact I've posted nothing here that could be taken as evidence of being brainwashed. I fact your response here indicates that you don't know what it means to be brainwashed. By definition, brainwashing is to affect a person's mind by using extreme mental pressure or any other mind-affecting process. There has never been anything close to this in my life. You certainly can't make that claim based only on the fact that I used sound reasoning to sho
  7. If that's true then provide evidence that she and I were the one's who were lied to and not you. I haven't seen any attempt by you to do that as of yet.
  8. When someone makes an assertion so challenging to widely accepted beliefs as done here claiming that we never went to the moon it requires a great deal of evidence to back it up. Nobody in their right mind and who knows how to reason properly would never accept such an assertion as "We never went to the Moon." But nowhere in this thread have I seen any such evidence supporting such a claim. In fact all we've been given so far as the claim "We never went to the moon!" and simply making a claim in no way justify believing it. In fact when I gave evidence what we did in deed go to the moon all we
  9. Actually you're quite wrong. It does prove that people were on the moon. That's what makes it a valid argument. While lasers can be bounced off the moon without those mirrors the mirrors allow us to get much greater precision measurements with the mirror. Ryndanangnysen's fault here is that all he did is make claims. That's not science. To be science one has to back it up with evidence.
  10. The Bible is not a physics textbook. It was written long before people knew that the sun was a star. However, if you feel the need to think of the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge (which it surely isn't) then all that says is that God created the star near the Earth first and called it "Sun" and then created all the other stars but didn't name them. That's quite wrong. If that were true then every place on Earth would have day light since the light from anyplace inside a sphere lands on the entire surface area inside the sphere. It also follows that the sun wouldn't rise and set be
  11. Pyrotex - You're right in that length contraction and time dilation are very different. Not only do they have very different physical meanings but their relationship between two frames S and S' are T' = T/sqrt[1- v^2/c^2] L' = L*sqrt[1- v^2/c^2] Where T = proper time and L = proper length. So as anybody can readily see, they're very different. As I've said many times, A-wal's grasp of this subject is very weak. This is just another example of it.
  12. xyz - All galaxies moving away from each other is not space expanding is it now, is science trying to say that they observe bigger gaps between masses? I'll say this again; it's not that its irrational to say that space is expanding. The problem lies in your ignorance of general relativity and cosmology. E.g. you don't know what it means for space to expand. You keep looking for something physical like a rubber sheet to stretch. That's the error in your reasoning. Frankly its irritating discussing this with you since you make claims that all of we physicists are wrong and wrong in the exact
  13. xyz - There is a lot that goes into observations than just the fact that there is a cosmological redshift. What's important is the exact nature of the redshift as a function of the distance between galaxies. That's where Hubble's law comes in. If you really want to get into it then read this page: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p4.html
  14. Craig - There are other types of geometric objects defined on Minkowski space, not simply 4-vectors. The following are examples: the metric tensor, the Faraday tensor (aka EM tensor), the stress-energy-momentum tensor and the angular momentum density tensor readily come to mind.
  15. xyz - I never avoided the explanation. I simply choose not to repeat myself. I already described what it means for space to expand, i.e. all galaxies moving away from each other. There's more to it than that of course but I'm unable to cut and paste URLs making it very difficult for me to reference pages. I said that we know that space is expanding because we observe all galaxies moving away from each other and there are galaxies whose cosmological redshift is so high that it can only mean that the galaxy is moving away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. That can only happen
  16. The problem is that what you think is illogical is actually valid but beyond your comprehension. People are not raised with such notions in mind or in their experience. That's why on some occasions when physicists make advances in science the layman is unable to grasp it and thus claim it's not true or illogical just as you have done here. The fact is that what I described corresponds to reality, i.e. what is actually measured in nature. Re - flat earth etc/ That's a misconception. In most of history it was known that the earth was round.,
  17. xyz - I know the other version, and it suggests walls of space by suggesting by suggesting a balloons surface which is simply not true. If that's what you think then you do not understand the analogy. A 2D occupant in the surface of balloon can walk all over the surface and never hit anything which could be thought of as a "wall." That's the whole point of that analogy. Every time you claim you know the analogy you say something which tells us that you really don't understand it like you did in that comment.
  18. xyz - You're quite correct that I didn't use your balloon analogy since the analogy that you used is quite wrong in that it's not an analogy that reflects expanding space. What you wrote was which is not the balloon analogy that cosmologists use to describe expanding space. The balloon analogy that I used is the correct one.
  19. xyz - Within the context of general relativity, space most certainly can expand and can be destroyed. Regarding the balloon analogy; most people misuse the analogy by thinking that its like a real balloon that, when expanded, occupies more space since they picture it as expanding into space. That's quite wrong and a misuse of the analogy. The analogy, correctly utilized, is that the surface of the balloon is what's expanding. But if you imagine that its expanding into something then you don't understand the analogy correctly. The analogy is one in two dimensions, not three dimensions. When you
  20. That is incorrect. First off the E in that expression only pertains to the sum of rest energy and kinetic energy. I myself refer to this as Inertial Energy. I say this so that nobody makes the mistake of thinking that E includes potential energy of position. The only potential energy that it pertains to is the internal potential energy of the interaction of particles that make up the rest energy of the body whose mass is m. What E = mc2 does mean is that it a body having mass m then there is an internal energy E associated with it. For example; if you have a body at rest having an initial ma
  21. The truth of the matter is that nobody knows what was before the big bang. There's a theory called the Pre-Big Bang scenario which is based on string theory. Try looking it up using Google.
  22. CraigD - The gap between A-wal and I is that I thoroughly understand SR and he has a very poor grasp of it, close to that of a layman. And when I point out his mistakes his understanding is so poor he can't understand the correction to it. Not to mention that his personality is not of the type that allows one to admit their mistakes. And he kept it up in this thread posting rude responses when I corrected him. Why do you allow him to use that kind of tone with people? If you'd like to see a nice application of spacetime see my page at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/invariant_mass.
  23. re - the way that time dilates and length contracts are physically identical ! Far from it. There were too many errors in your claims for me to want to bother correcting so I'll just correct this one to make a point, i.e. you don't know what you're talking about in relativity, In what follows let there be an inertial frame S and let S' be an inertial frame in standard configuration with S. Let the time interval between two events A and B which occur at the same location in S be dt (dt = proper time). Then it's value in S' will be dt' = dt/sqrt[1 - v^2/c^2]. I.e. dt' > dt - Time dilat
  24. I think I misread that. Let me try again. In post #23 you said that energy has to increase with frame velocity and that consumption of energy is equal to work done in that frame. Then you claim that W = Wo/y and hence work done decreases as v increases. Then you make a completely unintelligible statement "This proves that consume energy in doing work changes as E = E0/y. None of that makes sense. For example; you talk about work done but you never mention what's doing the work. If you do an about of work W0 in frame S and in S' the work is W then the increase in energy in S is E0 = W0 so tha
  25. A-wal claims that - ...special relativity shows that time is no different by treating coordinate time as simply another spatial dimension. In relativity there's no distinction and you don't need to specify which dimension is undergoing length contraction and which is undergoing time dilation because they're physically identical. Clearly wrong. E.g. time dilates whereas space contracts. By merely looking at the metric one can see which coordinate is the temporal one and which are the spatial ones. And while particles travel in any direction in space they never travel backwards in time. By lo
  • Create New...