I thought you just said, "That wasn't a criticism". Sure sounds like one to me. Can you say deluded?
"Light is frame-dependent in PF, but constant in SR"
- Thread starter Maxila
- Start date
I thought you just said, "That wasn't a criticism". Sure sounds like one to me. Can you say deluded?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
No, but I can say 180 out. Deluded is when you think something is going in when it is really going out. Your science is backwards, and when you finally realize it and admit it then you will have taken the first step to correcting the problem.
Deluded is thinking gravity is an attraction!
Deluded is thinking a center of a light sphere can travel in space!
And dishonest is repeatedly misrepresenting people and mainstream models, such as relativity, because you haven't taken the time or put in the effort to properly understand what it is they are saying. This is why I said what I said. You don't know how to do the mathematics of relativity, even on a level expected of freshmen students, so you're unable to properly understand what it is Lorentz transforms have to say about the specifics of things like light spheres. But rather than find out how they work so you can be confident you're raising valid complaints you refuse (and, more than likely, you're incapable of grasping it anyway) and instead build strawmen.
Like I said, if you want to see the problems in an area of science then your best course of action is to become extremely knowledgeable and competent in it. I did a string theory PhD and I am 100% certain I know more problems with quantum field theory, supersymmetry, cosmology, inflation, string theory, M theory, black hole mechanics and more besides than any hack here. And when and if I choose to talk about them I am able to accurately and articulately explain the problems and highlight what needs to be addressed. The hacks here who know nothing of mainstream physics who try to complain about various areas of physics don't actually know said physics so they cannot clearly and properly highlight problems. Almost without exception the problems are in their (ie your) understanding of the subject matter, not something inherent to the subject matter itself.
If you do not think special relativity is valid then you should bring to the table a good enough understanding of it to be able to clearly and undeniably highlight problems in it. You do not know special relativity and you only bring to the table problems with your own understanding, not the physics itself. The fact you've spent years doing this and haven't even managed to pick up any special relativity by osmosis makes it all the worse.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Dishonesty is closing my threads and banning me for showing you the errors of your ways! Ignorance is bliss! The truth will surface one day as it will be impossible to hold it back any longer, as the force on the lie will increase until such point that the lie will not be able to maintain, and it will succumb to the truth, which is absolute!
I've been busy at work, I wanted to say a quick thank you, and let you know I printed out your posts explaining the Lorentz transformation methodology. I go through them carefully and methodically when I have a little more time.
Thank you,
Maxila
So an evasion to cover your lie.
Does the center of a light sphere travel in space?
According to special relativity, no, not in any inertial frame. Light is observed to expand in a sphere when it is emitted isotropically.
According to Motor Daddy's imaginary universe, light only expands in a sphere in one unique reference frame: the frame Motor Daddy calls "space" and everyone else calls the imaginary preferred absolute reference frame. In any other frame in the MD model, it must expand in some kind of strange ellipsoid or something.
Which doesn't happen. Rather your attempts to take shots at special relativity eventually lead to a closed thread because you have shown you are incapable of honest discussion. For example, not once EVER have I seen you demonstrate any sort of working understanding of special relativity on even the 'basic' level of this post. That's what I'd consider a minimal level of working capabilities to understand the basics of special relativity's internals. When you refuse to answer direct questions, when you repeatedly misrepresent science and people discussing relativity with you, when you show you have no interest in finding out what relativity actually says then do people say "enough!" and close down your threads. Each time there's the faint hope this time will be different, you'll actually learn something but eventually each time it becomes apparent you won't.
And your complete ignorance of what relativity actually involves leads you to the 'blissful' misconception that you have identified a flaw in it. Like I said, the best way to find problems in scientific models is to learn them. The people who know the most issues with science are scientists.
And when or if that day comes it will not be because of people like you asserting things, mistaken things, about special relativity while showing you know nothing about what relativity is really about but rather it will come from people following the scientific method, showing a good understanding of the models and experimental data and then laying out in clear and methodical fashion a sequence of evidence and reason which leads a rational mind to conclude there is a demonstrable problem with the model. Hence why the best course of action is for you to learn, actually learn, what relativity says because then you are in the best position to explain clearly any flaws you perceive in it. If you cannot even grasp what a change of coordinates is then you've got no hope.
Pretty much every scientific model within physics is replaced or refined as time goes on but it is done by reason and evidence, not assertions and ignorance. You assert things about the universe you cannot possibly know to be true because you have not done any experimental tests and you do not have access to any experimental data produced by others. You assert you know things about which you have no information. Likewise you assert things about special relativity when you are demonstrably unable to do it.
Let's make this more direct. Do you understand this post? If not then where do you not understand it? I'll walk you through it in more detail so you can hopefully understand it. If you do understand it would you be willing to do an example yourself? I'd give you a 1st year homework problem, something which is supposed to take someone fresh out of high school less than 15 minutes, and we'd see if you can. After all, it is easy to say "I understand X" or "I know more about X than person Y", it is necessary to justify such things. Take Prof Layman for instance, he asserts he grasps special relativity better than Einstein did, yet he cannot even understand how to change coordinates. Do you?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
No I don't understand it, AN. My mind works according to my world. I can't understand your world. I understand my world because it is how reality works. I can't understand your world because it doesn't make sense to me. Don't you understand that?
This is how my mind works, and if you have a different way then I can't understand it, as this is the geometry of distance and time, as defined:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Wrong! My world is the DEFINITION of distance and time. When you can show an error in my diagram then we can discuss, but until then you are just flapping your lips.
And this is exactly the reaction we would expect of the delusional when their "world" is threatened. You have been corrected many times, so there is no reason to believe that repeated efforts will have any better results. Perhaps meds.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I see you prefer to flap your lips rather than show me an error.
I showed you what was wrong with that diagram years ago. That didn't stop you persisting with your fantasy-world claims.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
James, NOBODY has ever shown me one single error in that diagram. Humor me, where is the mistake again?
Here's the thread you would most like to forget, Motor Daddy. It's the one I always remind you of.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?101682-The-Relativity-of-Simultaneity
It contains the correct diagrams, right next to your wrong ones, accompanied by a detailed explanation by me of why they are different and why the relativistic diagrams are correct and yours are wrong.
I have no intention of repeating myself yet again.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Are you saying you don't agree with the numbers in my diagram? If not, then give specifics.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Still flapping your lips.