Jump to content
Science Forums

Moronium

Members
  • Content Count

    2,840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Everything posted by Moronium

  1. Other way around, Ralf. Awol hasn't showed his face around here precisely because he discovered that he won't get any positive reception to his occult-like pseudo-scientific metaphysical pronouncements unless he is dealing with chumps. He keeps to the bars now.
  2. Another irrelevant and misconceived analogy of yours, eh, Ralf? What "storage device" are you even talking about?
  3. You didn't respond to the questions I asked at all, Vic. You just re-asserted your mistaken notion ("Its not a force in the form that you are describing it doesn't make things gain motion"). I hate to have to say it, but you're starting to sound exactly like Awol.
  4. "You" introduced? You think that's something novel? The concept of absolute time, which is all you're talking about, was introduced long before Newton and is quite ancient. Unfortunately, you follow up on this new "insight" of yours with all kinds of serious misconceptions. You still don't quite know how to apply it. Neither the doppler shift nor delays in transmission time resulting from the limited speed of light have ANYTHING to do with either (1) so-called "time dilation" in SR or (2) clock retardation in LR (which is all so-called "time dilation" really is). Time does not dilate.
  5. What you have "long suspected" has been widely known for over a century, Ralf. Einstein openly admitted that his clock synchronization method was not dictated by either fact or principle. Instead it was, he said, merely a product of his own voluntary choice. Without "Einstein synchronization" SR goes out the window, you're right. PFT's use external synchronization, not Einstein synchronization.
  6. Still not following your reasoning here, Vic. You say: "If the object was being accelerated it would move faster rather the crash." It seems to me that you are attempting to limit "acceleration" to "increased speed." But acceleration is ANY change in speed or direction. That would include stopping, right? And it takes a "force" (like friction, for example) to slow a moving object, right?
  7. Your wiki source says: GR claims that gravity is "not a force." A lot of this just seems to be semantics. Treating gravity as a force gets us to the moon and back. Such "approximation" is good enough for government work, eh?
  8. Doesn't accelerate? Drive a car into into a concrete wall sometime, eh, Vic? The inertia of that wall will accelerate the hell out of the car, even if it does nothing more than stop it dead in its tracks. That is acceleration. And it is the car, not the wall, which gets accelerated. I don't see any significant difference between "moving" and "resisting movement" in this case.. A force doesn't have to consist of kinetic energy.
  9. Is there some point you're trying to make, Ralf?
  10. I'm not clear about why anything you've said there is relevant, Dubbo. No one said inertia is a force because it is mass. I've elaborated on this train of thought in several posts (mainly back around page 3 or 4). None of them mentioned "spacetime" or "quantum forces." I don't even know what you're saying "yes" to.
  11. Reverse psychology aint gunna work with Trump, sorry, AP. They'll all be rounded up later. ICE will implant a GPS receiver in their azz before they can go. As for the cost, well, that's why Trump is gunna make them walk. It would be like an evening stroll after trekking clean across Mexico, ya know? It's not unprecedented, and has been done before. Ever heard of the "trail of tears?"
  12. Actually, Newton himself described inertia as a force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia But wiki goes on to say: Why was this view "ultimately problematic?"
  13. As a rule, physicists tend to state that "inertia is NOT a force." I decided to see if anyone else shared the view stated above. There is. This guy is a professor of both physics and math. He says: . https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/force_inertial.htm#.XLJxBzBKjX5 This guy has no problem calling inertia (mass) a force based on Newton's 3rd ("equal and opposite reaction) Law of Motion. That's something I was going to bring up before, but never got around to. He appears to be saying that any "applied" (positive or external force) will be opposed by the "negative" (or internal
  14. The great Howlin Wolf, playin with some Limey boys:
  15. Well, it's an interesting article, Popeye, but I have to confess that I'm reallly not capable of understanding it. As I read it, it only relates to the mass of a proton, and not mass generally. It "explains" that: So, it's "due to quantum effects that occur when quarks and gluons interact in complicated ways within the proton,", eh? And that's somehow because the "principle" of "scale invariance" is violated, eh? I'm afraid that's a little vague, and over my head to begin with.
  16. You told a story about fighting a friend over some climate matter and math, Vic. I've had similar experiences. I once had to beat a 4 year old half to death to get him to say "There aint no Santa Claus." But, ya know what? The sorry little bastard still didn't believe it, even then. He was just saying it, I come to find out later. So I had to beat him some more, ya know?
  17. Nor can I prevent you from drawing "necessary" conclusions from premises which in no way warrant those conclusions. Like I said, everyone is free to believe anything they want, based on whatever "evidence" they choose to regard as "true" and irrefutable. Faith doesn't require evidence. Try telling some 4 year old kid that there aint no Santa Claus, sometime, if you don't believe me. Or a fundy that there aint no God. Ask a kid if he's ever actually seen Santa Cllaus. He'll say "Hell, yeah, he's in every department store I go to." He's certainly "proved his point." To his own satisfactio
  18. Well, without going into all of that, the idea here is to prove SR, not prove (or disprove) classical mechanics. Of course Newtonian mechanics MUST be modified to account for such things as the (then unknown) fact that clocks slow down with increased speed. But that does not prove SR.
  19. Did you even read this post (#114) or ones I made before it about the same issue? If you do read it, can you understand what I'm even saying?
  20. No, I didn't. I saw what you said, but I didn't see you "prove" anything about SR. How do you think you accomplished that feat?
  21. Well, OK, Vic, but that's not really saying much. You can take "no evidence" as "proof," if you so desire. It doesn't take amy evidence to get a kid to believe in Santa Claus. Of course it helps that he really wants to believe, to begin with.
  22. As I recall, Vic, I made some posts, and asked you some questions, pertaining to this topic in another thread. You never responded to them. I even sent you a PM asking you if you had looked at my posts. You never responded to that either. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to continue this discussion in THAT thrread, eh?
  23. You didn't even consider the posts I made after that, did you? Again, let's assume that c cannot be exceeded IN A GIVEN REST FRAME. That assumption would not "prove" SR. But, yes, that assumption would preclude you from seeing a particle exceed c in your own frame. They're two different things.
  24. So you say. You actually think the postulates of SR have been "proven," don't you? It's not the way you ASSUME it works. That's about all you can legitimately say about the matter.
×
×
  • Create New...