The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists

[JMJones0424]

Like you said, what?  What moronic claim of yours do you suppose my last response supported?

[Moronium]

Like you said, what?  What moronic claim of yours do you suppose my last response supported?

 

 

Heh, now it has gotten to the point where you can't even read a post where I only write two short sentences, eh, JM?  This:

 

 

You have not said a single word about science.  You have, however, clearly indicated your metaphysical devotion to the ideology of solipsism.

 

 

 

 

 

See post 130 for elaboration:   http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31062-the-relative-simultaneity-of-special-relativity-is-only-plausible-to-solipsists/page-8

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Now we get to the crux of the matter.  Besides your otherwise idiotic claims, you don't know what solipsism is.  Solipsism is not a description of relativity, and relativity is not a claim based on solipsism.  Relativity is a claim that the measurements that observer A makes in observer A's inertial frame are just as valid as observer B's measurements in observer B's inertial frame.  Solipsism, in contrast, is the philosophical view that only observer A exists and observer A cannot prove that observer B exists.

 

So, we can conclude that you are, in fact, a moron.

 

This is better than being a liar, I guess.

Edited May 21, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

JM, you are so deeply steeped in the subjectivist, relativistic, solipsistic conviction that there is no objective truth that you can't even imagine someone not sharing that metaphysical position with you, eh?  The "fact" that all truth is purely subjective is an assumption that is so thoroughly embedded in the fabric of your being that it is impossible for you to question it.

 

Rave on.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Let's entertain your stupid notion of solipsism.  Relativity still works.  We can still make measurements assuming all others are a figment of our imaginations.  We can still show that regardless of our velocity, the speed of light is constant.  We can still show that even if observer B existed, we would be able to correlate our observations with theirs using Lorentz transformations.

 

Your argument is stupid, and demonstrably wrong.

[JMJones0424]

I am steeped in nothing other than the fact that you are demonstrably wrong about basic physics.

Edited May 21, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

Your argument is stupid, and demonstrably wrong.

 

 

Heh, then why don't you "demonstrate" it, eh?   But read the thread first. You have no clue about what my "argument" even is. I'm not going to repeat everything I've arleady said just because YOU come along and want it all repeated for the sake of your personal convenience.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Relativity is still internally consistent if you assume a solipsistic worldview, but relativity is not dependent nor does it necessitate a solipsistic worldview.  Again, I don't think you know what the f you are talking about, and it is clear that you haven't seriously considered your argument, as it is stupidly easy to contradict.

 

This thread is a long string of you arguing crap with others that are trying to argue you out of your belief in crap.

 

i am not going to read 10 pages of ****.  You've already displayed your proud ignorance.  If you want to correct your understanding, then you can.  I'm not getting paid to tutor an ignorant and belligerent little ****.

Edited May 21, 2018 by JMJones0424

[JMJones0424]

You can hide in your solipsistic cave and start by understanding relativity, which is the claim that physical measurements that you make should be similar to others in similar circumstances, if they existed.  This is the notion of relativity that survived until the discovery that time is not constant because the measured speed of light is constant, and since speed is distance/time, and since the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative velocity of the observer, then distance and time must be variable.  Again, this would hold true even if you were the only observer that existed in the universe and all others were a figment of your imagination.  Solipsism has no bearing whatsoever on physics.  You are simply wrong.  The veracity of physics claims are not dependent upon the veracity of solipsism.

Edited May 21, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

Solipsism has no bearing whatsoever on physics.

 

 

 

I agree.  That's precisely why the postulates of SR are not "physics."  They are metaphysics.  This is quite apparent once you follow the premises to their logical conclusions, without stopping short and just saying that all the rest is "obvious."

[JMJones0424]

**** off with your bullshit.  You have exhibited, at best, a child's understanding of SR, and every claim you've made so far has been laughably wrong.  Point me to some evidence that you know what you're talking about, otherwise you can shove your claim that SR is not physics straight back were it came from.

[Moronium]

 the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative velocity of the observer

 

Let me guess, eh?  You will claim that this is an empirically proven physical fact, right?

[Moronium]

Point me to some evidence that you know what you're talking about

 

Read the thread, fool.

[JMJones0424]

Educate yourself, moron.

[JMJones0424]

Let me guess, eh?  You will claim that this is an empirically proven physical fact, right?

 

YES!!!!!!!

 

This is the single reason why SR exists.  Every measurement we have made shows this to be accurate.  Nothing shows this claim to be false.

[Moronium]

YES!!!!!!!

 

This is the single reason why SR exists.  Every measurement we have made shows this to be accurate.  Nothing shows this claim to be false.

 

You have once again demonstrated YOUR utter lack of understanding of the philosophy of science, the scientific method, and anything else related to "science,"  JM. Your speciality is subjectivist pseudo-science.

 

Of course this was already abundantly apparent from your complete inability to understand Popper's falsifiability criterion, despite having it explained to you by multiple people, multiple times, in the most elementary terms.

 

The same with respect to your claim that "deduction has nothing to do with science."  You only display your utter ignorance about what science even is.  

 

Of course that doesn't stop you from announcing to the world what it is.

 

Rave on.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

I will rave on.  Name one experiment that disproves the universal constancy of the speed of light.  Otherwise, take your smug ignorance and choke on it.