1
   

Relativity revisited once more still again

 
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 03:33 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Dunno Que but if the Universe is finite and one proceeds in what seems like a straight line he presumably returns to where he started


well, maybe so maybe not, but the fact remains that space itself by its definition can't be curved. It really is impossible. It is a mind-****. Like the rest of relativity.



Quote:
What got me going was the notion that relativity tacitly required a stationary reference, which my OP seemed to contradict--tho I'll be first to admit that somewhere along the line I might'v' stepped off the lory and from that point forward got everything wrong


well, it is actully very simple. There is no experimental evidence for relativity.
Furthermore if you start to think logic about it all, you can see the stupidity of relativity.
Relativity is full with logical fallacies.

e.g. clock in a plane will have different times then here on earth.
Well, first of all this is never really proven. (Yes I know the Hafele-Keating experiment and what have you.)
But besides that, if there was a difference in the clocks it could have been caused by so many things like gravity, field differences,oversights, human error, confirmation bias, and so on and so forth.
That a clock measures a different time then another clock doesn't mean of course that time itself has been different!
Does a different time on your clock in your bedroom and the one in the kitchen that 'time' was different at those two places? Of course not!
Or take two clocks that are synchronzied, Now put one in a fire so the metal or other material will burn and the clock will stop working. Has 'time' stopped now?
And besides all this no one yet knows what time is anyway! So the whole thing is rather hilarious!


Let's put some common sense in this idiocy!

0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 03:43 pm
@dalehileman,
Remember guys we don't know how fast Earth is going. For all we know the visible Universe is traveling at very nearly c when you and I cross paths; so who's accelerating or decelerating doesn't much matter, we're merely two travelers passing each other at near velocity c. When I fire my rocket I assume I'm accelerating but that's based on the notion there's such a thing as absolute motionlessness, a zero reference where I'm actually I'm decelerating to a halt

Now ignore Earth. The instant after my takeoff you pass me going the other way, merely two observers traveling at (near) speed c with respect to one another. Yet next time we meet (an instant later, to me) you're very old while I'm still a youngster. So under the usual interpretation my acceleration slowed my clock. Okay there's apparently something wrong with the "usual" supposition; but what

To me there's maybe something wrong with the view that all motion is relative, a remote suggestion that after all there's a stationary ref, a principle that everyone else tacitly ignores

Or our relative speed and therefore my youth don't remain constant thru my trip as I had conjectured somewhere above

Or the usual ideas of time-at-a-distance are skewed, that apparent changes in te moving object must be looked at in a new relativistic light. I've speculated upon this possibility at length in earlier threads, encountering much opposition but still no clear rebuttal


Help anybody capable of resolving the apparent difficulty using ordinary words placed in the usual order within a readable paragraph suitable to the comprehension of your Average Clod (me)
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 03:52 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Okay there's apparently something wrong with the "usual" supposition; but what


Yes, you are right. What is wrong is that it is logical impossible! You are right!
You can read prof Dingle's 'science at the crossroads" It is not a difficult book but you will read how stupid the scientists are!

Here you have the book for free:

http://www.google.nl/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=tspnVOv7Fcih7Abb7ID4AQ#q=science+at+the+crossroad+filetype:pdf



Quote:
Tribute to Herbert Dingle


" It is ironical that, in the very field in which Science has claimed superiority to Theology, for example - in the abandoning of dogma and the granting of absolute freedom to criticism - the positions are now reversed. Science will not tolerate criticism of special relativity, while Theology talks freely about the death of God, religionless Christianity, and so on." H.Dingle
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 03:54 pm
I quote from page 17 of prof. Dingle's book,

" Science at the crossroads ":

Quote:

" It would naturally be supposed that the point at issue, even if less esoteric than it is generally supposed to be, must still be to subtle and profound for the ordinary reader to be expected to understand it. On the contrary, it is one of the most extreme simplicity. According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates,i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless the question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A - which it requires no super- intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false. But as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort has failed to produce either response. The question is left by the experimenters to the mathematical specialists, who either ignore it or shroud it in various obscurities, while experiments involving enormous physical risk go on being performed. "


There is no need to say much more about Einstein's 'special theory of relativity', it is clearly irrational, it was fabricated by Einstein in order to correct a false premise.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 03:59 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Que thanks for that link, I'll look it up, but it's my immediate impression that Dingle is kind of Dangly

Quote:
equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves…... [so] how does one determine…….which clock works the more slowly?
To me, maybe Que me only, that q doesn't make sense. Surely Einstein would reply, it depends upon from which reference frame you view it

For one to "really" establish which is slower would be to construct an absolute reference frame, which according to Albert there isn't any such
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 04:01 pm
@dalehileman,
okido!
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 04:16 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
To me, maybe Que me only, that q doesn't make sense. Surely Einstein would reply, it depends upon from which reference frame you view it

For one to "really" establish which is slower would be to construct an absolute reference frame, which according to Albert there isn't any suc


what are you saying here?
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 04:26 pm
Now and after relativity nonsense, we get the quantum mechanis nonsense, the big bang nonsense, the sring nonsense, and so on and so forth

It is all bullshit, but people are afraid to say so, because, just like sheep, they follow the herd, wherever they may go.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 04:52 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
what are you saying here?
To me, maybe Que me only, that q doesn't make sense. Surely Einstein would reply, it depends upon from which reference frame you view it


If you're in Frame A for instance, then moving clock B runs slower. If in B, then A

Quote:
For one to "really" establish which is slower would be to construct an absolute reference frame, which according to Albert there isn't any such
In order for one clock to be running absolutely faster than another you'd have to find a special reference frame "at rest", which supposedly there isn't
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 12:36 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
In order for one clock to be running absolutely faster than another you'd have to find a special reference frame "at rest", which supposedly there isn't


Exactly! So, by it own theory, it has been shown now to be invalid!

It really is a extremely dumb and stupid theory, and Einstein was rather dumb and more...

But the relativists hide behind mathematics, but in reality it is impossible to do so because mathematics also is full of contradictions and is against common sense!

So, there ya go!

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 02:51 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Your analysis Bran pretty much agrees with mine, the apparent discrepancy doubtless arising from my oversimplifications. I probably shouldn't have had us taking off from "nearby planets"

Also I had inadvertently reversed our roles. Returning to the OP I see it was I who kept going. Blame my age, 84 day before yesterday, incipient Alz's

Anyhow it's the guy who accelerates who stays young

So instead here are you and I 20 years old, approaching Earth where A lives, also 20. You apply your retros, joining A for lunch, where we're all three of course still 20.

Not if I travelled for some time near the speed of light. In this case, A might be much older, depending on the particulars.

dalehileman wrote:
Much (much) later when I reappear (coming from the opposite direction?) A and you are very (very) old while I'm still 20

Sorry Bran if I was misunderstood. I am continually amazed at how easily misunderstandings arise

Incidentally I'd been making the assumption that my clock had stopped for my entire trip but I'm no expert.

It's only different rates of time passage. No one has the suspension of time.

dalehileman wrote:
Perhaps owing to the curvature of space, my movement slowly resumes, reversing at the "halfway" mark, in which case upon my return we're all three the same old age. Just wild speculation

Absolutely wrong, and what does the curvature of space have to do with it? Do you know the difference between special and general relativity? You've been at this for a year and still know almost nothing. Buy a book, or read the description carefully at a Web site written by a scientist. Clearly discussion on this board is not teaching you.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 03:28 am
@Brandon9000,
Why do you think relativity (special or general) is true?
Logic aside (there is no logic in relativity, it is an irrational theory!) there is no experimental evidence for this shite.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 04:01 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Perhaps Ora you perhaps misunderstood my experiment. You and I are the same age, taking off eg from nearby planets opposite Earth.

Taking off???

Your experiment involved people who were, from the start, traveling at very high speeds relative to the rest of the universe.

Note: "Suppose at the instant of our parting we had both been traveling, relative to the rest of the visible Universe, near c"
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 04:21 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Now ignore Earth. The instant after my takeoff you pass me going the other way, merely two observers traveling at (near) speed c with respect to one another. Yet next time we meet

You've not explained how these two people are meeting a second time.

I've assumed that you are envisioning a finite universe that loops on itself, so that someone who travels far enough is a straight line will one day end up at the same spot. However, you've never confirmed this.

Note that the real universe is infinite. If these two guys travel in a straight line away from each other, they will never meet each other a second time.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 12:08 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Not if I travelled for some time near the speed of light. In this case, A might be much older, depending on the particulars.
I'm assuming you and A are both 20 at the instant you fire your retros, at which moment all three of us are of course still 20

Perhaps owing to the curvature of space, my movement slowly resumes, reversing at the "halfway" mark, in which case upon my return we're all three the same old age. Just wild speculation

Quote:
Absolutely wrong,
Well, I did say "wild speculation"

Quote:
and what does the curvature of space have to do with it?
Some think in a finite Universe traveling in a straight line returns you to your starting position

Quote:
You've been at this for a year and still know almost nothing
Almost, Bran, but I'm slowly working on it
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 12:20 pm
I am having a laugh here!

Someone is trying to describe the Emperor Clothes!

LOL
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 12:34 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Taking off???………... "Suppose at the instant of our parting we had both been traveling, relative to the rest of the visible Universe, near c"
Ora you're absolutely right, a misleading assertion I later modified in favor of merely assuming that somehow when we three meet for the first time that you and I are passing by A (I'd supposed in opposite directions) when we're all three still 20, regardless where you and I came from. It's at that instant you fire your retros so that both of you then watch me pass, nearly at c, though apparently motionless

The q is, Ora, assuming a finite Universe whether or not at my return I'm still 20 at our second meeting

Admittedly I'm simplifying; though it's the "same spot" of course you and A (as well as Earth probably) are long gone by millions or maybe billions of generations
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 12:37 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
I've assumed that you are envisioning a finite universe that loops on itself, so that someone who travels far enough is a straight line will one day end up at the same spot. However, you've never confirmed this.
Yes Ora, as I confirm to Ora just above. Sorry if I wasn't clear; but just wait til you're 84

Quote:
Note that the real universe is infinite. If these two guys travel in a straight line away from each other, they will never meet each other a second time.
If it were infinite yes but some of us seriously doubt it is. At least one other participant, and I wish I could remember who, supports my contention of finty by appeal to Occam's Razor, the principle that the simpler concept almost always wins, the simpler the more likely. Both of us find it hard to support the inevitable suggestion of an infinite number of Oras and Dales at this moment in an infinite number but otherwise identical solar systems where the on ly difference is that I had inadvertently hit the space bar before striking the "l"
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 01:00 pm
@dalehileman,
Ora perhaps I should reiterate that my assertion concerning the Infinite Universe is based on the notion that if there's the slightest chance of anything happening--anything--that it will happen at the same instant at an infinite number of different solar systems or "visible universes"

Admittedly I'm not at all sure this assertion is true. I'm conceding the possibility that somebody who really understands the math of infinity will show that it's not, based on some obscure principle of different sorts of infinities

Yes almost everything I say, suggest, assert, is speculation
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 05:19 pm
@dalehileman,
So anyhow one of the most intriguing q's remaining is, that if space is finite whether I'd return after just a few moments still at age 20 or whether circumnavigating the whole affair somehow changes your and A's view of me so that coming back from the other direction I've aged too
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 03:22:18