Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
So your answer is that is not "actual science?"
"Light is frame-dependent in PF, but constant in SR"
- Thread starter Maxila
- Start date
So your answer is that is not "actual science?"
Yes, your talking about science does not significantly differ from what most people would call wild, uneducated speculation or talking about science fiction.
As well it might but that doesn't negate the point the quote was making or the fact a not insignificant fraction of the hack population are of a particular demographic.Be careful about judging too harshly, AN. You'll be 40 one day as well, searching for meaning in life. It hits you hard and fast.
Ultimately it is irrelevant why someone claims to have some new grasp of Nature which they've done all by themselves, the claims stand or fall on their merits, their ability to do what they claim, their accuracy in describing reality. In this regard MD has failed to provide sufficient justification for anyone to think he is right. MD can put forth his ideas (in the appropriate forum) but if he says he knows how Nature works or that he knows that Nature couldn't work any way other than how he asserts then he is being dishonest. He hypothesises, he believes, he guesses, he does not know.
I have no idea.It certainly does. It's like needing reading glasses in that respect. I never wore glasses as a kid. At the age of 40 I suddenly couldn't get enough light to read small print. After a very short time I couldn't take it anymore and went to see an eye doctor. The first thing she asked me is how old I am. I said 40. She said you're on schedule. I laughed. She explained that it comes on fast and furious at the age of 40. Not all people, but most.
AN, which category do you predict that you will land in? Fast car, fast women, or fast light??
There is a fine line between 'having faith in one's convictions' and 'close mindedness'. The former is about being able to argue your case rationally when people might find it too disparate from their own understanding. The latter is about ignoring anything and everything, no matter how valid the criticisms.
You'll notice that the hacks here have a great deal of issues when someone explains a mistake, no matter how big or small, in their understanding or their claims. Rather than going away, reading up on relevant material and then coming back with new information, either to support their case or to admit an error, too often they just dial the arrogance up to 11 and proclaim themselves superior to either all of science or particularly well known scientists.
Motor Daddy is the case in point. He claims to understand special relativity better than Einstein yet he doesn't know how to do even the most rudimentary of formalism necessary to understand the details of special relativity. Despite the fact he cannot do any of the mathematics, doesn't properly grasp various concepts within special relativity and cannot do even the most basis of physical problems pertaining to special relativity (ie of the sort you'd give a 1st year student for their first homework) he believes himself superior in knowledge to Einstein in this regard. So you tell me, is that an admirably stance to take, to stand up for what he believes, or is it a more distasteful kind of behaviour? Or how about how he claims to know that reality work the way he claims? If he had new experimental data to support his case then he'd be standing his ground but he doesn't. In fact he doesn't have any experimental data (even that already done by actual scientists) so his assertions become more like religious dogma, asserted without evidence and often in contradiction to it, than a scientific viewpoint.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Oh, I get it, in order to be talking about "actual science" one must not be uneducated about that actual science, nor is speculation allowed.
So let's run down the list just to be sure I have this right.
Dark matter - science, not actual science.
Gravity - science, not actual science.
Einstein - actual science
Newton - actual science
Magical attractions - actual science.
Speculation is allowed, but trying to refute well-tested science is only allowed in the pseudoscience forums. Your wild guesses at what actual science entails only further illustrate why you are ill-equipped to refute anything.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You've thrown in yet another type of science now, that of the elusive "well-tested" science.
So you are making this more complicated indeed. Is your goal to make this so complicated that nobody can understand this nonsense you speak?
Science
Actual Science
Well-Tested Science
Are there any more states of science that I need to be aware of, before I go off and try to discern that information?
Are there various rules like in religion, that require that you talk about well-tested science on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and actual science on Sunday? Is there a scroll for this nonsense?
Now you are just trolling, and it is your who is moving the goalposts. Actual science, whether verified by experiment, confident hypothesis, or intelligent speculation based on known facts, is all very far from the nonsense you typically post. There is nothing complicated about it, but I have no doubt that you find it so anyway. Like I said, what you post is closer to wild speculation and sci-fi, at best, and most probably ignorant, self-assured delusion.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Syne, I think I now have a pretty good grasp of the difference between the sciences. I hope you don't mind if I try them on your posts and label them as you have instructed me. In the future, I will read your posts and let you know. The problem is, sometimes you might be speaking about science and not actual science or well tested science so it might be a little embarrassing for you when I call you out on that. I hope you don't take it personally, as I am just trying to apply what you taught me.
I hope there isn't a waiting list for that ESL class of yours, the numerous errors make it tough to read your posts.
I hope there isn't a waiting list for that ESL class of yours, the numerous errors make it tough to read your posts.
Evidently the value of the content here is also relative.
Of course even in a game the idea is to play by the rules. Here the rule is to stay within the baseline of science. You don't get to redraw the baseline as you see fit. In matters of science, nature is umpire and calls all of the plays.
Fields propagate in all frames at the same rate, c. Measurement is relative to the local frame. Measurements made from one frame to the next are subject to the effects of relativity, which is negligible until the relative velocity between frames approaches c, and/or the gravity changes substantially. There is no absolute position in space, nor any absolute time reference, thus there is no absolute frame in which absolute velocity can be established.
That's the baseline. No matter how many times you're called out you are not able to redraw it.
Sounds like you are threatening to troll me, not counting this last petty ad hominem based on a single typo.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Like I said, Syne, your brain is malfunctioning so you aren't capable of thinking clearly. You really should seek professional medical attention immediately. Something is misfiring, or something, because your state of mind is really all over the place.
I suggest you desist with this particular attempt at baiting people lest you get an infraction.
If you want to explain why Syne is mistaken, fine. If you want to attempt medical assessments, for which you are not qualified and even if you were you would require a face to face evaluation, then you're stepping out of line.
That is a lie.
You said the thread by Futilitist was genuine, yet haven't bothered to read it.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I'm not a doctor so I certainly make no professional assessment of your mental condition. However, I was given a problem by a mathematician several years ago. He said only the top 2% of the living population of the world could solve the problem. I figure heck, if the mathematician says only 2% of the population in the world can solve the problem, then those people must be thinking clearly. So we can use this to see if you are thinking clearly. If you can solve the problem then you should be thinking at least on par with the 2% that do in fact think clearly. Give it a try.
Five Pontiacs are parked side-by-side. Each car has a different owner. Each car is running a different engine, and each car is running different heads.
The question is, “who is running 7F6 heads on his car?”
The clues:
Jim Hand owns the blue car.
JohnV is running 670 heads.
Motordaddy has a GTO.
The yellow car is parked on the left of the red car.
The yellow car is a LeMans.
The 400 is running number 13 heads.
The green car has a 455.
The car parked in the center is a Firebird.
Glennsgto owns the first car.
The 421 car is parked next to the car running number 12 heads.
The car running 197 heads is parked next to the 455 car.
The TransAm has a 389 under the hood.
IgnitionMan has a 428 in his car.
Glennsgto’s car is next to the white car.
The 421 car is next to the Bonneville.
(note: only two percent of the living population on earth can solve this question – are you one of the top-two percent?)
Edit: In all seriousness, I would like to meet this guy in person because he inspired me so much!
Last edited:
The problem with the assumption of no absolute frame is that this assumption can violate energy conservation. Let me give a simple example. I will use two references with relative velocity V. One reference has mass M and the other has mass 2M. If there was no absolute reference and we can define either as the preferred reference, then the kinetic energy of the universe would can be either 1/2 MV2 or MV2 depending on which we choose.
Einstein used three variables in special relativity connected to time, distance and mass. The mass term is downplayed in the assumption of no absolute reference because it adds that pesky energy balance that spoils the trick. In the above example, one reference has twice the relativistic mass of the other. This extra energy, within the universe, is important since it defines the energy limitations of universal dynamics and therefore impacts all theories.
In above example, say we use the reference with 1/2MV2 as our base observational reference, since there is no preferred reference. This reference makes the universe appear to have 1/2 the energy. All the theories of the universe, will now have to use the assumption of 1/2 energy. Everything will be consistent with this amount of energy and will also be integrated and therefore kosher to the untrained eye. But a very basic premised would be flawed, connected to assuming 1/2 energy. Eventually someone will find an inconsistency and there will be a need to add an addendum to increase the energy; dark matter/energy.
Which part is the lie then? Let me look at what I said "I don't know what MD is on about but I admire is ability to stand up for what he believes in. One day I may read your thread from the beginning and pull it apart."
"I don't know what MD is on about" that is true.
"I admire is ability to stand up for what he believes in" that is true.
"One day I may read your thread from the beginning" I said "may" so that is true
"and pull it apart." may be that is untrue bit. Bragging rights claimed.
"You said the thread by Futilitist was genuine, yet haven't bothered to read it" I don't remember it sorry. If you remind me please.
Your not genuine.