Scientific Forums


Pages: (24) « First ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Law Of Time
mik
Posted: Apr 4 2012, 06:53 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1215
Joined: 1-February 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (AlexG @ Apr 4 2012, 06:18 AM)
So you don't deny relativity, you just deny what relativity tells you. rolleyes.gif

Ummm... Once again, I do not deny all relativity. GR, for instance has an excellent track record for predicting how objects move in relation to each other. I do see "spacetime" as just an abstract coordinate system for the math/physics, not an "entity" in the "real world" which curves and somehow guides objects in their curved paths.

As for SR, I have said that the study of light in general can be a "very tricky business." Synthsin disagreed, as if it is all very straight forward. I gave examples of how "tricky" light is to measure. they were dismissed as a tangent.
Bottom line, earth does not change shape to accommodate different measurements of it from relativistic (very fast moving) frames of reference. I gave several other examples... no thinner atmosphere "for muons" or shorter distance to the sun "for a high speed fly-by" frame, etc.

Roll your eyes if it makes you feel superior... or engage in discussion of the above points... not likely.
Top
synthsin75
Posted: Apr 4 2012, 07:01 PM


Ex Nihilo
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2253
Joined: 19-December 10

Positive Feedback: 93.75%
Feedback Score: 22


QUOTE (mik @ Apr 4 2012, 12:38 PM)
I am not "suffering" for anything. The name calling doesn't really hurt. It just demonstrates the prevailing substitution of insults for respectful discussion of scientific issues being discussed, including reasonable disagreement, i.e., that constant 'c' does not make the earth change shape (or make its shape unknowable), for instance.

I use "dogma" metaphorically referring to the belief above, that lengths vary with observational frames of reference, as 'mandated' by constant 'c'.

Oh, you're suffering alright...from substituting your intuitive incredulity for "respectful discussion of scientific issues". You only feel that you are being unduly berated because you don't understand the answers you have been given. And feeling berated, you act so petulant that people are no longer willing to humor you.

The only thing that does any "mandating" in science is evidence.

Now perhaps you should take a break and try again when you don't feel quite so sore. Perhaps then you'll be able to digest what you're told.


--------------------
Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,
and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation. -P.A.M.Dirac
Send PM ·
Top
mik
Posted: Apr 4 2012, 08:13 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1215
Joined: 1-February 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (synthsin75 @ Apr 4 2012, 07:01 PM)
Oh, you're suffering alright...from substituting your intuitive incredulity for "respectful discussion of scientific issues". You only feel that you are being unduly berated because you don't understand the answers you have been given. And feeling berated, you act so petulant that people are no longer willing to humor you.

The only thing that does any "mandating" in science is evidence.

Now perhaps you should take a break and try again when you don't feel quite so sore. Perhaps then you'll be able to digest what you're told.

I say I am not suffering. Yo say I am.... that I should come back when I don't feel so sore. How considerate of my feelings!, as you are now also an expert on them.

Of course I am incredulous of SR's assertion that either earth changes shape or that we can not know its true shape.
And yet you will not answer the direct question, "Does earth change shape, or?... etc.
Total avoidance.

"The only thing that does any "mandating" in science is evidence. "

Show me the evidence for a flattened earth. What... there is none?, and yet you insist...

" Perhaps then you'll be able to digest what you're told."

How utterly superior and condescending of you.
Btw, what is your IQ, if you are not ashamed of a comparison, being so superior and all? Such statements as above 'make me' bring it up again... I just couldn't help it!
Top
synthsin75
Posted: Apr 4 2012, 09:50 PM


Ex Nihilo
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2253
Joined: 19-December 10

Positive Feedback: 93.75%
Feedback Score: 22


QUOTE (mik @ Apr 4 2012, 02:13 PM)
I say I am not suffering. Yo say I am.... that I should come back when I don't feel so sore. How considerate of my feelings!, as you are now also an expert on them.

Of course I am incredulous of SR's assertion that either earth changes shape or that we can not know its true shape.
And yet you will not answer the direct question, "Does earth change shape, or?... etc.
Total avoidance.

"The only thing that does any "mandating" in science is evidence. "

Show me the evidence for a flattened earth. What... there is none?, and yet you insist...

" Perhaps then you'll be able to digest what you're told."

How utterly superior and condescending of you.
Btw, what is your IQ, if you are not ashamed of a comparison, being so superior and all? Such statements as above 'make me' bring it up again... I just couldn't help it!

That's one heaping helping of typical troll baiting, and most here can tell you, I don't raise to the bait unless I so choose.

I've already answered your question, and will not reiterate it to someone acting such a troll. It's telling that the one recent answer you've gotten to that question you completely ignored, while only responding to that person's criticism. I don't have to know anything about your emotional state to notice when you ignore answers that could quell your ire.

And why don't you just come right out with your IQ, if you are so confident as to challenge people on their own? Of course IQ and education are very different things when it comes to specific subjects, such as physics. IQ cannot compensate for a lack of education/study.


--------------------
Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,
and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation. -P.A.M.Dirac
Send PM ·
Top
mik
Posted: Apr 4 2012, 11:26 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1215
Joined: 1-February 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (synthsin75 @ Apr 4 2012, 09:50 PM)
That's one heaping helping of typical troll baiting, and most here can tell you, I don't raise to the bait unless I so choose.

I've already answered your question, and will not reiterate it to someone acting such a troll. It's telling that the one recent answer you've gotten to that question you completely ignored, while only responding to that person's criticism. I don't have to know anything about your emotional state to notice when you ignore answers that could quell your ire.

And why don't you just come right out with your IQ, if you are so confident as to challenge people on their own? Of course IQ and education are very different things when it comes to specific subjects, such as physics. IQ cannot compensate for a lack of education/study.

"It's telling that the one recent answer you've gotten to that question you completely ignored, while only responding to that person's criticism. I don't have to know anything about your emotional state to notice when you ignore answers that could quell your ire."

You clearly have no interest in communication to clarify anything. You prefer remaining cryptic and evasive. You could specify to what "recent answer" you are referring, but you don't, and I have no idea which answer you are talking about.

QUOTE
And why don't you just come right out with your IQ, if you are so confident as to challenge people on their own?


I did already. You don't have much of a memory.

Here it is again, from 3/25:
(First me quoting you)
""No one can just hand you conceptual understanding, if you refuse to study the subject for yourself. "
Me:
QUOTE
I’m already, even as a newbie here, tired of your condescension.

I have, in fact, studied the subject for about 50 years. (I’m 66 now and *you have no idea of my credentials*... and I do prefer anonymity.) Do not believe that I am ignorant of SR just because I see how bogus “‘length contraction” is in the real world. (Like the Au changing with frame of reference from which it is observed.... distances between objects changing with how they are observed.)

So, you don’t think measuring the speed of light from various moving frames of reference is a “tricky business?” Pretty straight forward, as the M&M classical experiment demonstrated. Null hypothesis confirmed. End of story.

(Edit:... some examples of “tricky business” studying light...)

I am radically honest, and I would like you to quit under-estimating me.
Just for the record... one time only... **My SBIS was 170 and my WAIS was 178.**


You replied, same day:
QUOTE
I don't care how long you've studied philosophy, nor your IQ. You've yet to demonstrate any real understanding of SR. Period.


You can't seem to imagine anyone disagreeing with length contraction without automatically being wrong... SR being your version of absolute truth.
Top
synthsin75
Posted: Apr 4 2012, 11:54 PM


Ex Nihilo
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2253
Joined: 19-December 10

Positive Feedback: 93.75%
Feedback Score: 22


QUOTE (mik @ Apr 4 2012, 05:26 PM)
You clearly have no interest in communication to clarify anything. You prefer remaining cryptic and evasive. You could specify to what "recent answer" you are referring, but you don't, and I have no idea which answer you are talking about.

I did already. You don't have much of a memory.

Here it is again, from 3/25:

You can't seem to imagine anyone disagreeing with length contraction without automatically being wrong... SR being your version of absolute truth.

Really? So you want to berate my memory while you don't recall a post much less time ago? Suffice it to say, I've hardly taken your posts seriously since you've started whinging so.


--------------------
Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,
and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation. -P.A.M.Dirac
Send PM ·
Top
Robittybob1
Posted: Apr 4 2012, 11:59 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6588
Joined: 15-October 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


@synthsin75 and or others who believe in length contraction:
If you were to pass the Earth doing 0.9 speed of light what would you see?

A circular Earth or an ellipse?
Would it look shorter in the direction of travel?

If it is elliptical:
Even if it looks this odd shape is this a reality? Or even thought it looks elliptical when it is measured it is "still circular" as the "ruler" is shortened only in the direction of motion.
Top
AlexG
Posted: Apr 5 2012, 12:24 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5652
Joined: 8-September 06

Positive Feedback: 73.91%
Feedback Score: 108


The theory of Relativity, The Special and The General, is a cohesive entity. It is mathematically interwoven. You can't pick and choose what predictions you like and which you don't like. You can't say, "I'll accept that part of the theory because I can understand it, but that part over there offends my "common sense", so I'll discard that".


--------------------
Its the way nature is!
If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
To another universe, where the rules are simpler
Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
Prof Richard Fyenman (1979) .....

God does not roll dice with the Universe" - A. Einstein

"God not only plays dice with the Universe, He rolls them where you can't see" - N. Bohr


Top
Robittybob1
Posted: Apr 5 2012, 12:34 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6588
Joined: 15-October 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (Robittybob1 @ Apr 4 2012, 11:59 PM)
@synthsin75 and or others who believe in length contraction:
If you were to pass the Earth doing 0.9 speed of light what would you see?

A circular Earth or an ellipse?
Would it look shorter in the direction of travel?

If it is elliptical:
Even if it looks this odd shape is this a reality?  Or even though it looks elliptical when it is measured it is "still circular" as the "ruler" is shortened only in the direction of motion.

What about my question? Can you answer me Alex please? Or other person who know what SR or GR would predict?

This post has been edited by Robittybob1 on Apr 5 2012, 12:35 AM
Top
synthsin75
Posted: Apr 5 2012, 12:35 AM


Ex Nihilo
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2253
Joined: 19-December 10

Positive Feedback: 93.75%
Feedback Score: 22


QUOTE (Robittybob1 @ Apr 4 2012, 05:59 PM)
@synthsin75 and or others who believe in length contraction:
If you were to pass the Earth doing 0.9 speed of light what would you see?

A circular Earth or an ellipse?
Would it look shorter in the direction of travel?

If it is elliptical:
Even if it looks this odd shape is this a reality?  Or even thought it looks elliptical when it is measured it is "still circular" as the "ruler" is shortened only in the direction of motion.

What you see and what you measure are two different things. What you see is explained by Terrell rotation, and what you measure by length contraction.

Measurements are the reality, as they have a physical effect.

This post has been edited by synthsin75 on Apr 5 2012, 12:36 AM


--------------------
Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,
and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation. -P.A.M.Dirac
Send PM ·
Top
mik
Posted: Apr 5 2012, 12:42 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1215
Joined: 1-February 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (synthsin75 @ Apr 4 2012, 11:54 PM)
Really? So you want to berate my memory while you don't recall a post much less time ago? Suffice it to say, I've hardly taken your posts seriously since you've started whinging so.

Which post, and which question was that? I recall the essential points of all recent posts. I simply don't know to which post/question you are referring. And you still didn't specify.

I did not "berate" your memory as a personal attack (which is your M.O.)
I stated the fact that "You don't have much of a memory," as shown by the *evidence* that you forgot what you knew about my IQ on 3/25.

Btw, I have not been "whinging." I've been trying to bring the conversation here to a level beyond personal insults. That intent appears to be in vain, and I will not be here long if name calling continues to be the primary form of "scientific argument."
Top
Robittybob1
Posted: Apr 5 2012, 12:47 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6588
Joined: 15-October 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (synthsin75 @ Apr 5 2012, 12:35 AM)
What you see and what you measure are two different things. What you see is explained by Terrell rotation, and what you measure by length contraction.

Measurements are the reality, as they have a physical affect.

Are you sure about that? for isn't your eyes and brain just another measuring device (the eyeometer is rough and ready).

What do you see? what do you measure? (rough guess only). So if it is as you say "different" that would cause confusion. You see something and you measure it and it's different, does that worry you? I'd be all f'ed up.
Wasn't it stated that physics in all frames would be the same. But if what you see and measure is different, now that is a contradiction.

This post has been edited by Robittybob1 on Apr 5 2012, 12:48 AM
Top
synthsin75
Posted: Apr 5 2012, 01:02 AM


Ex Nihilo
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2253
Joined: 19-December 10

Positive Feedback: 93.75%
Feedback Score: 22


QUOTE (mik @ Apr 4 2012, 06:42 PM)
Which post, and which question was that? I recall the essential points of all recent posts. I simply don't know to which post/question you are referring. And you still didn't specify.

Huh, the one you've been trolling me about, numbnuts. You do remember that much, right?


--------------------
Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,
and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation. -P.A.M.Dirac
Send PM ·
Top
synthsin75
Posted: Apr 5 2012, 01:15 AM


Ex Nihilo
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2253
Joined: 19-December 10

Positive Feedback: 93.75%
Feedback Score: 22


QUOTE (Robittybob1 @ Apr 4 2012, 06:47 PM)
Are you sure about that? for isn't your eyes and brain just another measuring device (the eyeometer is rough and ready).

What do you see? what do you measure? (rough guess only). So if it is as you say "different" that would cause confusion. You see something and you measure it and it's different, does that worry you? I'd be all f'ed up.
Wasn't it stated that physics in all frames would be the same. But if what you see and measure is different, now that is a contradiction.

Your eyes suffer from the signal delay of the finite speed of light.

It is the consistent physics which predicts both what you see and what you measure.


--------------------
Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,
and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation. -P.A.M.Dirac
Send PM ·
Top
Robittybob1
Posted: Apr 5 2012, 03:33 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6588
Joined: 15-October 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (synthsin75 @ Apr 5 2012, 01:15 AM)
Your eyes suffer from the signal delay of the finite speed of light.

It is the consistent physics which predicts both what you see and what you measure.

If the traveller started with 2 rulers and attained 0.99c and he/she held up the rulers one pointing in the direction of travel and one at right angles to the first. Would the length contraction, that we know happens, be noticeable to the person or would the fact that even the observers body, brain and hence perception have gone through the same length contraction that absolutely no change is perceivable.

For if the ruler is used to measure length in any direction, both the ruler and the distance has contracted by the same proportional amount, so all readings are as they were at the commencement of the journey irrespective of the velocity.
Top

Topic Options Pages: (24) « First ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use