Misleading Science

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Oct 11, 2004.


Do You Agree or Disagree that the conclusions of James R's thread are misleading?

  1. Agree

  2. Disagree

  3. UnSure

    0 vote(s)
  4. Don't care

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Only if you do not also swap v and -v. Do you really think that would slide by?

    I always have but you choose to not understand the issue. Further this issue has nothing what-so-ever to do with reciprocity and relative velocity affects on clocks.

    The point is you do not know why the velocity oif light "Appears" to be invariant. I have made the point many times that assuming a quantum energy affect where light is produced or observed at an energy level of "c" which happens to corelate with the Lorentz Contract oint of zero dimension, that any motion relative to the light source would obviously appear to hold the veloicty of light constant. But that observation has nothing to do with Relativity and its "Assumed" consequences.

    It is even more likely that light is nothing more than an energy release at the dimensional collapse to zero. A Star Trek warp drive point where you see the flash is a good example of this affect. Don't bother making comment about thinking Star Trek is reality but stick to the issue of quantum energy and the fact that at an energy equivelent to "c" dimension is also collapsed to zero.

    I see light as being nothing more than spatial binding energy being released. Of course yo have no idea what I'm talking about because you are about 50 years behind the point that I have arrived at because you are stuck in a rut.

    Repeating this has nothing to do with the current issue. So don't mix the two. You want to argue the feasibility of light invarance. Star another thread. I'll be gald to participate.

    Pardon me for getting blunt but FUCK YOU for your repeated allegations that I lie. I do not. Asshole. If you can't respond correctly to the issue then ddon't think your personal attacks do the job you cannot. Your are a fool.


    Put up or shut up.

    Swap, now inlight of this conversation that typo wasn't teally all that hard to understand was it?

    Which does not alter the ultimate conclusion. So what is your point?

    I am obligated to match your changing conditions of the test rather than addressing the issue. Each time yo attempt to circumvent the issue by inserting irrelevant bullshit I have eliminated it to bring you back to the issue.

    Now address the issue. Do the calculations or refute (correctly) my calculations in the above Challenge or shut the hell up.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    MacM, the comic.

    The sad thing is that he really believes that he understands SR better than anyone, despite his complete inability to handle the formalism, and his regular breathtakingly ignorant statements of what SR apparently imples.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    MacM: It is a waste of time to argue with you, but I believe I have a duty to cast a vote in favor of James R.

    You seem prone to making misleading posts. I have yet to notice a misleading post by James R.

    I have empathy for your problems with Relativity. The human brain has been conditioned by millions of years of evolution in the world of our senses, which is essentially a world governed by the laws of Newtonian Physics. Our intuition tells us that Newtonian Physics is correct.

    Our educational system teaches Newtonian Physics starting with general science courses in grades 6-8 and usually continuing with various physics course through grades 11-12. Few encounter either Relativity or Quantum Theory until college and some do not encounter these topics until graduate school.

    It is small wonder that many intelligent people cannot accept the counterintuitive notions of Relativity and Quantum Theory when they are finally presented.

    I am reminded of an excellent answer to an old question: “Why do intelligent people believe foolish ideas?”

    Answer: “They use their intelligence to find arguments in favor of foolish ideas accepted when they were not using their intelligence (or perhaps when their intelligence had not yet fully developed).”
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    For the record you have failed to do the calculations and post your data.
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Certainly your perogative.

    I have no such problem. Do the calculation and post your data.

    Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the issue since I am using relativity's own formulas. Do the calculations and show your data or show a mathemactical flw in my presentation.

  9. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    MacM: Why should I waste my time doing calculations, knowing that you will not accept the results? I have wasted enough time in the past on other issues. Remember the apparent motion threads?

    Arguing with you is like trying to convince a Creationist that evolution is a valid scientific theory. Evidence and reason do not convince those whose beliefs are based on faith.

    I have never understood why many with faith based beliefs are not willing to admit to having faith in their beliefs. If you have faith, you do not need evidence or rational arguments.
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    the issue of recipriation could be demonstrated by the following:

    Person A is sitting in an observatory in galaxy A. He is watching person B in galaxy B 19 billion light years away.

    A and B are watching each other with a distance separation off 19 billion Ly's.

    Because B is 19 billion years ago the person B doesn't even exist to be seen by person A and the same applied vica versa.

    OK, peson A and person B both fire of and energy pulse with velocity c towards each other. at the same time.[ by chance]

    19 billion ly later both galaxies are destroyed simultaneously. But at the time of destruction both A and B can see each other and sadly regrets firing the beams of energy.

    The point being that if A can see B then B can see A if A can't see B then B can't see A. Reflective reciprication is used I think when talking about Newtonian gravity. mass A and mass B are in a state of reciprication. It may be true that there is a time delay between the two regards change due to 'c'

    But the change is always recipricatory.

    The arguement could be stated:

    If Object B is dillated what "real" effects does that dilation have on object A.

    Object A exists in a recipriactaory relationship with Object B.

    Object A's dillation and Object B's dillation must effect each other.

    IN doing so in reality the equivilance of both objects would be the reality not the single object it self but the effect on that object also.

    The thinking:
    I get the impression that because relativity takes a A OR B approach rather than an A AND B approach we have unnecessary confusion as to the reality of both A and B.
  11. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Note that the "one hour" specified in this post is measured in two different frames.

    Let's look at the reality here. This is an illustration of the symmetry inherent in SR.
    In each of the following diagrams, the following events are marked:
    1. two clocks pass each other and are synchronized to 0.
    2. Clock A reads 3600 seconds and stops
    3. Clock B reads 3600 seconds and stops
    4. Clock A reads 1,569.2 seconds
    5. Clock B reads 1,569.2 seconds
    <hr><img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3351&stc=1"><hr><img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3352&stc=1"><hr><img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3350&stc=1"><hr>
    Note that in Clock A's frame, Clock B keeps ticking after Clock A stops, and vice versa.

    MacM can't quite grasp this concept, and wants to somehow force both clocks to stop at the same time in all reference frames.

    He can't do it.

    He can only make them stop simultaneously in the Mean Velocity frame. In a different thread, he is attempting to prove that this really stops them simultaneously in all frames... but his proof relies on assuming that time is absolute, which is a circular argument.
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I think possibly that MacM is and will only refer to the mean velocity frame. Now I woudl agree that this is the intuitive position. I would also normally look at objects in their mean velocity and mean time state.

    And of course to do so immediately implies universal mean time. It doesn't prove universal time but it implies universal 'mean' time.

    To take the position of mean velocity is to declare an external third frame of reference and that thirdframe of reference is universal mean time.

    When we draw a diagram of velocities as Pete has done we automatically can see the mean relationship between two objects. Relativity refuses to accept that a third oberver is involved in this diagram and of course that observer is the one doing the math.

    So I guess it is really a POV after all.

    You can sit on either object or you can take the "God" position and observe all from frame of absolute rest.Relativeity requires that we take a postion of either A or B were as the real observation is neither A or B but both A and B and this can only be achieved by taking the abstract 'God' POV.
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Universal time is really "universal Mean time" if reciprication is absolute.

    We always take at least 3 POV in relativity but only ever declare one as valid and this I find puzzling.....
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2004
  14. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    It implies the existence of "mean time".

    What do you mean by "universal mean time"?


    You can choose any reference frame at all. There are infinitely many to choose from. Here's another one:
    <img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3353&stc=1">
  15. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    It's about consistency... any reference frame is valid, but the equations are meaningless if you're not consistent about your choice of frame.
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Now this is interesting.

    Why do the math or even comment on the mathematical results presented a :bugeye: s it is all based on faith. HeHeHe. YOU GOT TO BE DRUNK.
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    False. I relied upon the equal finite velocity of recipocal light signals. throughout the synchronization starting and stopping of clocks.

    To argue that they were not synchronized and started and stopped simultaneously requires you to reject your own premis that light speed is finite and invariant.
  18. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Let's take it to the other thread, then, shall we?
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Nice explanation with diagrams, once again.

    MacM doesn't know how to read a spacetime diagram, so you won't see any comments from him other than unsupported assertions that there must be something wrong somewhere. MacM doesn't know where the error is; he just knows there must be one. It's a matter of faith.


    "BLUE Car is at rest. Green Car travels at speed v relative to blue car. Blue car sends a signal to the green car."

    Now, do what I said, and we get:

    "Green car is at rest. Blue car travels at speed -v relative to green car. Green car sends a signal to the blue car."

    We now have a signal going in the opposite direction, while the two cars continue travelling in the same direction as before.

    There's your "reciprocity", even though you don't understand it.

    No, you can't give a straight answer to a "yes-no" question.

    Poor confused MacM.

    Yes I do. It's because it is invariant.

    Your sentence is gibberish. "c" is a speed, not an "energy level". And I don't know what an "oint" is.

    Who cares what light is? I asked you a simple "yes/no" question, and you can't answer it.

    Yes you do. You keep lying about most issues, and pretending other ones don't exist.
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Fuck you James R. You repeating such bullshit doesn't make it true.

    I understand fine. Since you clarified what you meant. But you simply stated swap cars and then swapped v for -v which made it appear you were simply running the same problem from east to west.

    When a yes or no answer is appropriate I will give it. When it is not I will qualify my position.

    Very enlightening.

    What about energy level trigger do you not understand? What about the concept of dimensional binding energy do you not understand. I suspect these concepts are simply to far advanced for your pathetic mind to follow.

    Everyone should. It very much has to do with the entire issue of what really is Relativity. But it is so much easier to just accept BS in text books and to argue anything not in the text istherefore wrong. What a rut.

  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Pete, I'll take this up in another thread some other time as I am unsubscribing to this thread.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    The statement is simple:

    "The speed of light is the same for all inertial observers."

    Either the statement is true or it is false. There are no possible shades of grey here. Either every observer measures the speed of light to have the same value, or some observers measure it to have a different value.

    Don't you know what you think?

    Everything. "Energy level trigger" is a meaningless concept to me. You've certainly never explained what an "energy level trigger" might be, so it could be a giant pink flamingo, for all I know.

    Everything. I've never heard the term "dimensional binding energy" used by anybody with a degree in physics. You've never explained the term, and I don't think you've even mentioned it before in this thread. So, where this came from, I have no idea. Must be MacM fairy land.

    I suspect they are meaningless terms made up to confuse the unwary.

    To accept or reject something in a text book, the first step is to understand it. You have failed to get to that stage with relativity.

    As I said, the given statement is either true or false. You must have a belief one way or the other, unless you want to admit you don't actual understand the terms used in the statement.

    I'm sure most people would be able to commit enough to decide whether they thought the speed of light was the same for everybody or not. But not you.

    Funny, that.

    It's not worth arguing. The evidence is there for all to see. I'll just wait until you do it again, and you can be sure I will point it out.

    Normally I would moderate your personal attack, but in this case, seeing as I am personally involved, I will not do so.

    I ask you to please at least try to remain civil. Swearing doesn't help your arguments one bit. It just tends to provoke people into not liking you. So, I'm going to ask you nicely to stop it, or I will no longer talk to you.
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    I have refused to play your game for good reason. It is not that I cannot make a statement. It is that it has nothing to do weith the issue. I will not be led away from the root topic. Reciprocity of relative motion produces no net time dilation.

    You nor Pete seem to understand that when such dilation occurs has no bearing on the fact of equal dilation (no net change in time).

    Yes I think you are severly confused about reality.

    This is why I prefer to keep this out of this discussion. It has no bearing on the fact of "Net Null" time dilation.

    Terms I made up absolutely. To confuse the unwary absolutely not. A new rather unique but enlightening view of the possiblities of invariance. You bet. Not something a true scientist would blow off as "fairy land".

    It is precisely the same affect of electrons giving off a photon when they transition from one state to another instantly without existing inbetween states.

    I really is a shame you have so little cognitive powers.

    To the contrary. I seem to have surpassed your understandings. You and Pete have both now conceeded my point about "Net Null" time dilation in cases of relative velocity but are so blinded by your faith system of Relativity that you reject the bottom line mathematics which shows that there is no accumulated time differentials between such clocks and that time dilation is restricted to being an illusion a perception of motion and not a physical reality.

    If clocks do not record this change for posterity then it is not real. Period.

    As I said, the given statement is either true or false. You must have a belief one way or the other, unless you want to admit you don't actual understand the terms used and the signifigance that clocks do not record your time dilation. You cannot agree (as you both have finally) that mathematically there is no net time dilation but still claim time dilation exist and is real physically. It is a view of entrenchment, not elightenment.

    Explained above and is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    You use the term "do it again" I would appreciate you being specific here. Just what do you think constitutes a lie in my post.?

    As always I give credit when credit is due. I commend you for leaving my words intact. I simply see nothing in the rules that say management can arbitrarily call members liars without absolute evidence, or can assault members character and intelligence with impunity.

    You are going to get what you dish out. I will not have you lie about me being a liar. Perhaps you think it increases the value of your post or view to denagrate the views and words of others but sorryfully you are mistaken.

    Knock it off and stand on your own two feet.

    Now explain to the readers how it is you think you can agree that A - B = 0 and A' - B' = 0 is not signifigant and the fact that physical clocks DO NOT record your time dilation are not the paramount facts of the case which mandate you change your view.?
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2004

Share This Page