Jump to content
Science Forums

marcospolo

Members
  • Content Count

    811
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by marcospolo

  1. Sluggo, this comment is a very weak attempt, actually no attempt at all, ZERO effort on you behalf to counter the videos Math claims. You think that your simple statement that "the video conveys nothing" counts as suitable response to a detailed explanation of a Mathematical error? You think that you "poo Pooing" the video would get you far in any debate involving pure math? Sorry, but your pathetic response can only mean that you do not have any counter to the authors claims in his detailed video. Clearly you have only verbal personal attacks remaining to offer which always lose ag
  2. But YOU or your university or some specific group called "the scientific community" DO NOT OWN "science". nor are you the god ordained custodians of all knowledge, or the "scientific police". You are not the Judge, Jury and executioner of thoughts of scientific inquiry. And the "scientific method" is an illusion. Its purpose is not to promote the discovery of knowledge, but to contain it, filter it, and manage it. Lots of discoveries are made, of course, but like-wise lots of critical reviews of questionable "science" are demolished by this cult like overlord gang that shoot down any di
  3. How on earth do these "physicists" justify TWO versions of the one property of an Object? Really? my car has a Mass or 1 tonne when in the garage (resting) but once ii push it down the road, it GAINS MASS? No, there is only ONE definition for the Mass property, and "velocity" has ZERO effect on it, and momentum is an entirely different measured property. The only thing in a kinetic sense that changes is the Momentum measurement, which is 100% due to the velocity. p=mv, and that's where the story ends. "Rest vs inertial" is irrational unscientific nonsense. There i
  4. Its a bit hard to get your mind clear of the barrage of pro einstein propaganda, and see the inconsistencies. I suggest you watch the videos made by Yaseen Al Azzam. Here is the intro.
  5. Me too, but I found that anyone can read what Einsteins is claiming, its not at all complex to follow his concepts. He makes it seem complex by using irrationally applied maths based on bizarre equations that don't relate to actual reality in any way. If something seems really weird, and against your intuition, there is a strong possibility that you should lean toward your intuition. This is not always going to be correct, like when you observe a gyroscope, its hardly intuitive, or a magnet attracting a steel ball. Not intuitive, nor is gravity, we just take these things for granted.
  6. Yes, but I fear that you are getting two OPPOSITE theories that use the same word, mixed up together! There is classical Relative motion, theory ONE. Then the second theory, totally at odds with the first, is Einsteins Special Relative motion. Theory one, has been around since ancient times, but Einsteins is since 1905. Theory one, the classical relativity includes a full explanation of Doppler. Theory one is correct and demonstrable, theory two is irrational nonsense. Unable to even be explained by rationally and logically. So relativity is normal, and correct,
  7. Nonsense. A number of critics (over the last 100 years) of Einsteins Special Relativity have presented papers that use experimental evidence to demonstrate that SR is incorrect, and they use circular motion. Without exception, these proposals never got past stage one, and were tossed out because they were not inertial motion. Now when it suits you, you are pronouncing that circle is close enough to straight line. Also you are discarding ALL of the conditions that Einstein set out for SR, namely, Inertial straight line motion, neither accelerating or decelerating, and no where near any gr
  8. Its not an example of SR if it is already an example of classical Physics, the two are opposite claims. "C" is not impossible, its the assumed finite limit of the speed of light in a vacuum. Assumed because its impossible to verify in a one way experiment. What I said is that its impossible to have an observer who is traveling alongside a photon, at 90% of the speed of the Photon, yet somehow still measure that photons speed as c. This is supposed to be true even if the observer is doing 90% c in the opposite direction. This cannot be demonstrated, its flies in the face of all experi
  9. If they are actual Physicists, and not high school students, every observer will use his instruments along with his knowledge of Physics to come up with the true pitch of the whistle. All 3 will have the same correct answer, each applying the laws of Physics to his measured result, and compensating if necessary. Einsteins does not allow this type of intelligent application of the laws of Physics in his SR hypothesis. The observer on the ship must remain a high school observer, ignorant of his condition, but the stationary observer does have all the necessary information. They are each wor
  10. Einsteins whole hypothesis is based totally on fooling you over relative motion, and what it is supposed to mean. Explain how a finite easily measurable speed of a photon, could still possible be measured at the same speed, even if you are flying alongside it at 99% light speed. Of lets just say 100% light speed, to make it easy. According to Einstein and every Physicist ever, "the Laws of Kinematics apply in ALL inertial frames of Reference", so, those laws dictate that the observer doing 100% c will measure light velocity as identical to himself, i.e, light is motionless relative t
  11. Which part of this diagram shows any inertial frames of reference? Which part of an airplane flight is inertial? None are, so any math used to calculate imaginary time dilation would need to NOT simple be the math of Lorentz which is ONLY valid for pure inertial frames. Yet that's what they used, the wrong equations. In this diagram, which of the clocks on planes G and E would lose time and which would gain time? They both would experience time dilation, none could possibly experience negative time dilation, yet that's what they claimed. Clearly they were lying and making s
  12. The claim of Einstein that because the man in a upward accelerating box of suitable acceleration, FEELS the same force as one that is on the Earth under gravity, is not rational grounds to claim that one is equivalent to the other. Gravity is NOT the same as Acceleration caused by motion, but in special cases the force experienced can seem the same. You don't think that an experiment can be done to determine if you are in one situation or another? Well its not hard to do, so bang goes Einsteins equivalence principal. Different Physics Laws are applicable for boxes under acceleration
  13. Either way, Einstein is wrong. Its interesting that with sound, the speed in air at sea level is always the same, regardless of the speed of the source. But the wave crests arrive with more frequently than they were generated if the source is moving towards an observer. Increasing the pitch but not the speed of each wave front. But to an observer moving towards the sound, he will measure the sound wave closing velocity as the speed of sound + his own velocity, and also having an increased pitch.
  14. therefore the guy in the box who knows that the light SHOULD have struck the opposite wall directly opposite to the hole, instead sees the light striking some distance down the wall, can only come to the conclusion that his box is moving upwards at a constant velocity. So contrary to Einsteins claim, a man in a box CAN do an experiment to show the difference between an upward moving inertial box, or a box on the surface of a planet under gravity. Also, he can devise another experiment to tell the different between weightlessness in deep space, compared to free-fall in a gravity field. E
  15. The light has NOT traveled diagonally downward ever! It only ever went in the direction it was facing when it was originally produced, horizontally. The box moved up! It did all the moving. That's why the light struck the opposite side of the box at a lower position. The box shifted it location during the time that the light was traversing the width of the box, (very fast box) So the light STILL moved the exact same horizontal distance as when the box was not moving, as when the box is moving. That's why the time it took is still the same, the distance the light went is still the same, box m
  16. Why pick ANY point for the "master" Time? (the Earth's center) This is supposed to be a place that shows the relative motions is space (not spacetime) that the two clocks were moving relative to. But relative to the Earth center, the Planes individually DID NOT MOVE anywhere! They each were ALWAYS exactly the same distance from the Earth center, so the center of the Earth is not relevant to the experiment at all. Discard all references to the Earth center or the Earth clock. We have only the relative distances between two Planes. BUT there were never two planes flying in
  17. Wow, you would be one of the only people on the planet that actually finds a practical use of these theories. Unless you are only a mere theoretical physicist that is. Or are you only playing with Math? which is not Physics? Which is it?
  18. Just show me where my recent explanation is wrong then. I took the trouble to explain my reasoning to you, the least you can do in return is to point out any mistakes. That's what this forum is supposed to be about.
  19. You are as stupid with Physics as you are about the goals of the Zionists.
  20. I'm totally wasting my time with you guys, as you are mostly just movie fans. Unable to think about Physics past what you have been told by your daddy. But here goes: OK we look at Special Relativity Lorentz derivation. Special Relativity relies totally on one critical principal which is always expressed in the equation x = ct. Without this equation, there can be no Lorentz transform or Special Relativity, (or General Relativity), its fundamental. Of course, this equation is just the Classical Physics principal of the relationship between Velocity and Duration (time) “
  21. So you are stumped now, right? Lost for words, so you now think its a great idea to discuss movies? Being an idiot, is never a good option to debunk an argument in Science. You actually have to think and react intelligently. This move response is being an idiot who is clearly out of his depth.
  22. See: https://journals.dbuniversity.ac.in/ojs/index.php/JFAS/article/download/529/493 http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Hafele/HafeleKeating.html http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/02/time-dilation-and-hafele-and-keating.html https://debunkingrelativity.com/twin-flight-experiment/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292970880_A_comparison_between_Newtonian_gravitational_time_effect_and_Einstein's_gravitational_time_dilation https://sci.physics.narkive.com/Lh1EKypd/debunked-by-proof-the-hafele-keating-rt-time-dilation-experiment-of-1971 https://www.
  23. X = ct, this is 100% correct, BUT ONLY FOR LIGHT. or only when x and ct are both zero. So you cant just plug x = ct into equations replacing x if that x is not referring to light. X distance is where light got to in 1 second (for instance, so in this case x =ct. but x' is NOT also equal to ct', because the x' origin is now no longer at zero x,t. In other words, is t' taken from the start of the experiment when obs2 is at x,t =zero? or is the t' taken from where obs2 end up (at x=vt) ? If t is from the beginning, and obs2 also starts his clock from then, well then t can only still
×
×
  • Create New...