1
   

A blow to Science

 
 
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 12:16 pm
Motion is relative - there are no absolutely fixed points in space. Therefore, there are no physical objects.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,378 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 12:20 pm
And you don't exist. LOL
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 12:20 pm
So, if you get smacked upside the head with a mallet, nothing really happened.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 12:20 pm
Why is this a blow to science?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 12:21 pm
His brain blew! LOL
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 12:24 pm
Re: A blow to Science
John Jones wrote:
Motion is relative - there are no absolutely fixed points in space. Therefore, there are no physical objects.

How do you derive:

"There are no physical objects."

from:

"Motion is relative - there are no absolutely fixed points in space?"

In a hundred years of Special Relativity, no scientist has been able to make the conclusion which was apparently so effortless for you. Could you tell me the steps in your deduction?
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 12:32 pm
Re: A blow to Science
Brandon9000 wrote:
John Jones wrote:
Motion is relative - there are no absolutely fixed points in space. Therefore, there are no physical objects.

How do you derive:

"There are no physical objects."

from:

"Motion is relative - there are no absolutely fixed points in space?"

In a hundred years of Special Relativity, no scientist has been able to make the conclusion which was apparently so effortless for you. Could you tell me the steps in your deduction?


Certainly.
Objects occupy, or are centred upon a fixed region of space. As there are no fixed regions of space the object has no place to be centred upon. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was all to cock. Particles cannot be placed, with or without certainty, period.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 12:37 pm
Re: A blow to Science
John Jones wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
John Jones wrote:
Motion is relative - there are no absolutely fixed points in space. Therefore, there are no physical objects.

How do you derive:

"There are no physical objects."

from:

"Motion is relative - there are no absolutely fixed points in space?"

In a hundred years of Special Relativity, no scientist has been able to make the conclusion which was apparently so effortless for you. Could you tell me the steps in your deduction?


Certainly.
Objects occupy, or are centred upon a fixed region of space.

False. This is precisely what Relativity disputes.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 12:57 pm
Re: A blow to Science
Brandon9000 wrote:
John Jones wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
John Jones wrote:
Motion is relative - there are no absolutely fixed points in space. Therefore, there are no physical objects.

How do you derive:

"There are no physical objects."

from:

"Motion is relative - there are no absolutely fixed points in space?"

In a hundred years of Special Relativity, no scientist has been able to make the conclusion which was apparently so effortless for you. Could you tell me the steps in your deduction?


Certainly.
Objects occupy, or are centred upon a fixed region of space.

False. This is precisely what Relativity disputes.


If relativity says, as I do, that objects are not centred upon a fixed region of space, then there are no objects if spatiality is a property of objects.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 12:57 pm
Re: A blow to Science
Brandon9000 wrote:
John Jones wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
John Jones wrote:
Motion is relative - there are no absolutely fixed points in space. Therefore, there are no physical objects.

How do you derive:

"There are no physical objects."

from:

"Motion is relative - there are no absolutely fixed points in space?"

In a hundred years of Special Relativity, no scientist has been able to make the conclusion which was apparently so effortless for you. Could you tell me the steps in your deduction?


Certainly.
Objects occupy, or are centred upon a fixed region of space.

False. This is precisely what Relativity disputes.


If relativity says, as I do, that objects are not centred upon a fixed region of space, then there are no objects if spatiality is a property of objects.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 02:32 pm
Relativity includes mass, motion, veolcity, matter, time, and space.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 02:49 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Relativity includes mass, motion, veolcity, matter, time, and space.


What's a relative object? If spatiality does not define an object, what does?
Also, not only are there no objects, but there are no things at all that can be defined in terms of space. So no gravity either.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 03:01 pm
JJ, general relativity defines gravity as curvature of space-time due to mass, energy, or momentum. So, are you implying space-time is not curved, or that it doesn't exist?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 03:12 pm
John Jones wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Relativity includes mass, motion, veolcity, matter, time, and space.


What's a relative object? If spatiality does not define an object, what does?
Also, not only are there no objects, but there are no things at all that can be defined in terms of space. So no gravity either.

It might be better for you to study the physics that exists, rather than making it up again from scratch.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 03:14 pm
yitwail wrote:
JJ, general relativity defines gravity as curvature of space-time due to mass, energy, or momentum. So, are you implying space-time is not curved, or that it doesn't exist?


Curved 'space-time' is accelerative. How can this be if motion and space is relative?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 04:17 pm
youre just encouraging him.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 04:49 pm
farmerman, was that addressed to me? Either way, you're probably right, but I found it sort of enlightening to pore over wikipedia articles on relativity. It all seems to boil down to 2 key pieces of information: the speed of light in vacuum is a constant, generally identified as 'c', and if an observer sees an object in motion with velocity w, then a second observer with constant velocity v with respect to the first observer sees the object as having velocity
w' = (w-v)/(1-(wv/c^2)).

How that produces the famous equation E = mc^2 I have no idea. But since it specifically deals with observations of objects in motion, the thesis of this thread that special relativity precludes the existence of objects must be specious.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 04:54 pm
It was meant for all of you who were trying to talk what we normally call"sense" to jj. He has little familiarity with it.

Einsteins E=mc^2 was Einstein thinking about the relationship between the old physics equation F=mA, and extending it to its ultimate limits of energy production.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 05:43 pm
Einstein was having a laugh.

c squared he knew to be outside everybody's comprehension.He just meant a big number.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 05:54 pm
He's just saying that mass is energy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A blow to Science
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 10:31:54