9 of 16
9
Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity
Posted: 04 August 2013 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 121 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4812
Joined  2007-10-05
Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 06:39 PM

Darron,

I’m not certain the relevance of asking me to explain GPS. Although I haven’t investigated the matter particularly, I’m guessing that it would use two or three reference points or satellites, using the parabolic formula and the Lorentz formula to determine your location.

You might want to start by reading this.

GPS cannot work without accounting for time dilation: that Special Relativity stuff you dismiss as nonintuitive.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2013 07:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 122 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
DarronS - 04 August 2013 06:52 PM
Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 06:39 PM

Darron,

I’m not certain the relevance of asking me to explain GPS. Although I haven’t investigated the matter particularly, I’m guessing that it would use two or three reference points or satellites, using the parabolic formula and the Lorentz formula to determine your location.

You might want to start by reading this.

GPS cannot work without accounting for time dilation: that Special Relativity stuff you dismiss as nonintuitive.

You can’t even be reading what I post. The “non-intuitive” aspect wasn’t my own original personal observation. Everyone nearly everywhere since Einstein himself has described it this very way. Watch any documentary describing Relativity and you will learn this claim is universal. And what is your point with regards to time dilation? Did I miss that inclusion in the Lorentz formula? It works. That doesn’t prove whether time itself dilates or the chemistry and physics involved in translation through a fixed space slows down the observer’s perception of time. The formula is still the same regardless. Only the causative explanation differs.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2013 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 123 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4812
Joined  2007-10-05

You did not explain how GPS works.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2013 01:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 124 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4521
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

Damn right its wrong! You are not reading me correctly. Maybe it’s because we are in different frames of inertia?  cool hmm

No. Because you are extremely vague in what your position really is. From your ‘1 hour program example’ one must conclude that the math of SR is wrong. It is an absolute miracle to me how you can derive the Lorentz transformations based on such considerations.

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

It’s been a long while since I derived the Lorentz transformations on my own. I used the assumption that the Michelson-Morley experimental results were true and used trigonometry with the assumption of “c” as the fixed speed of light.

Great. That was done by Fitzgerald, Voight, Poincaré and Lorentz too: adhoc solutions for unexplainable experimental results. All of them presupposed the existence of an absolute reference frame and/or the existence of the ether. In due time the physics community chose for Einstein’s solution as the simplest, most sensible, and the one with the fewest assumptions. Interesting is that you seem to choose for a dynamic solution, i.e. that the ether exerts a force on objects moving through it, while in relativity it is just the effect of a ‘geometric transformation’ in space-time needed to translate coordinates from one frame of reference to another.

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

(F = ma. So if Energy is just a representation of force through a distance, its instantaneous energy would be the force at a point: thus F(inst) =E = mc*c.)

question
Force and energy are different things. How can you equate them? Is this supposed to be derivation?? How does this follow from your assumptions? Again, you show no understanding of basic physics at all.

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

I don’t think I should even have to defend my understanding of relativity by repeating what I know and learned specifically. I come to the same mathematical results assuming a Cartesian space without contradictions. What do you want me to do?

Clearly stating what your assumptions are, and from these derive the LT, which of course include time dilation, length contraction and Doppler effect, and not to forget, a real derivation of E=mc². And then from there, why you think a clock would be transformed to pure energy and therefore destroyed when approaching c. If you can’t, it is all just hot air. And don’t come with ‘daily intuitions’, I want a derivation from first principles: if these principles happen to be ‘daily intuitions’, then OK.

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

Just grant me the respect and charity that I already ventured through the same material as those students have learned by.

Honestly, I don’t. I’ve only seen that your thinking is confused, and that you have not shown to me that you understand relativity.

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

I require illustrations to demonstrate why specific light waves in particular can be have the same velocity while actually differing in its actual travel paths. Hints: photons are not all created by there sources in the same particular way (even though the general form is the same) and since the actual sine waves differ in amplitude, the net effect of actual travel makes each ‘string’ even lengths and while their velocities remain constant in translation, their total directional (vector) lengths vary according to differing spectrums.

I see only confusion about what amplitude is. It seems to me that you think photons follow the path of a sine wave which is used to depict a light wave. But amplitude is a measure of the number of photons, nothing else. Again it all seems very confused to me.

[ Edited: 05 August 2013 02:16 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2013 04:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 125 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
DarronS - 04 August 2013 07:55 PM

You did not explain how GPS works.

And you didn’t explain the relevance.

P.S. The parabolic formula I mentioned that would be used would be that of a hyperbola, not that it’s even important to discuss here.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2013 05:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 126 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4812
Joined  2007-10-05

The relevance is GPS cannot work without taking time dilation into account. Yet another application where Einstein was right.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2013 06:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 127 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
GdB - 05 August 2013 01:51 AM
Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

Damn right its wrong! You are not reading me correctly. Maybe it’s because we are in different frames of inertia?  cool hmm

No. Because you are extremely vague in what your position really is. From your ‘1 hour program example’ one must conclude that the math of SR is wrong. It is an absolute miracle to me how you can derive the Lorentz transformations based on such considerations.

There’s nothing vague about what I said. Are you even being sincere?

GdB - 05 August 2013 01:51 AM
Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

It’s been a long while since I derived the Lorentz transformations on my own. I used the assumption that the Michelson-Morley experimental results were true and used trigonometry with the assumption of “c” as the fixed speed of light.

Great. That was done by Fitzgerald, Voight, Poincaré and Lorentz too: adhoc solutions for unexplainable experimental results. All of them presupposed the existence of an absolute reference frame and/or the existence of the ether. In due time the physics community chose for Einstein’s solution as the simplest, most sensible, and the one with the fewest assumptions. Interesting is that you seem to choose for a dynamic solution, i.e. that the ether exerts a force on objects moving through it, while in relativity it is just the effect of a ‘geometric transformation’ in space-time needed to translate coordinates from one frame of reference to another.

Regardless of its origin, Einstein used this for his theory. It should at least indicate that there is some motivation to deny an aether since Einstein does not in any way disprove this. Note too, that this also shows that his Relativity theory hasn’t added anything but a philosophical explanation on his part for causation.

GdB - 05 August 2013 01:51 AM
Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

(F = ma. So if Energy is just a representation of force through a distance, its instantaneous energy would be the force at a point: thus F(inst) =E = mc*c.)

question
Force and energy are different things. How can you equate them? Is this supposed to be derivation?? How does this follow from your assumptions? Again, you show no understanding of basic physics at all.

Your inability to follow only demonstrates that you don’t even know basic math, let alone physics, yourself—not me. W= Fd. F=ma. Since the fastest possible acceleration cannot allow anything to go faster than it, the maximum acceleration, a, is c. Therefore, F=mc. And since the furthest that something could travel in a unit time, then d=c as well. Therefore W =mc*c or mc². This maximum possible work doesn’t state that it is actually applied, therefore, it is a measure of its potential. In this ideal circumstance, we are dealing with a mass that doesn’t actually move—only its potential to do so. Therefore, the measure, E, represents a force that has a potential to be delivered in a distance c. E, as measured as mc² represents the total potential of its forces through a distance, c. E=mc² is thus a measure of force at a point as well meaning that the maximum force that that mass can apply at the instance without movement is F(max)=mc. [just E/c]

GdB - 05 August 2013 01:51 AM
Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

I don’t think I should even have to defend my understanding of relativity by repeating what I know and learned specifically. I come to the same mathematical results assuming a Cartesian space without contradictions. What do you want me to do?

Clearly stating what your assumptions are, and from these derive the LT, which of course include time dilation, length contraction and Doppler effect, and not to forget, a real derivation of E=mc². And then from there, why you think a clock would be transformed to pure energy and therefore destroyed when approaching c. If you can’t, it is all just hot air. And don’t come with ‘daily intuitions’, I want a derivation from first principles: if these principles happen to be ‘daily intuitions’, then OK.

Oh, duh, I don’t know…let’s see…if you applied the fastest acceleration upon a mass, does a nuclear explosion come close to this description? Perhaps you are suggesting that if you could boost such a clock with a nuclear bomb, you are going to try and make me believe that the clock can still survive to be measured afterwards? Golly gee, am I stupid!!

GdB - 05 August 2013 01:51 AM
Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

Just grant me the respect and charity that I already ventured through the same material as those students have learned by.

Honestly, I don’t. I’ve only seen that your thinking is confused, and that you have not shown to me that you understand relativity.

I’m sure you can follow if you tried. (See, at least I give you that charity, even without knowing whether you, yourself actually have a relevant degree in physics or not.) Your confusion is not mine, own it.

GdB - 05 August 2013 01:51 AM
Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 09:46 AM

I require illustrations to demonstrate why specific light waves in particular can be have the same velocity while actually differing in its actual travel paths. Hints: photons are not all created by there sources in the same particular way (even though the general form is the same) and since the actual sine waves differ in amplitude, the net effect of actual travel makes each ‘string’ even lengths and while their velocities remain constant in translation, their total directional (vector) lengths vary according to differing spectrums.

I see only confusion about what amplitude is. It seems to me that you think photons follow the path of a sine wave which is used to depict a light wave. But amplitude is a measure of the number of photons, nothing else. Again it all seems very confused to me.

The number of photons increases the intensity and is not merely a direct result of any particular amplitude of the wave form. It does become important, however, when you measure a large collection of photons from an extreme distance that appear brighter than usual since our normal close measure of any given frequency of light has its own fixed amplitude. As the wave travels extreme distances, the expansion of space is the reason why distant frequencies appear more intense. This is an example of why excepting relativity skews the actual understanding of those distant quasars because with its assumption that light travels at the true maximum speed in its direction of motion, then in Einstein’s explanation, it forces us to believe that light can only expand in its direction of motion. Therefore, they presume that the amplitude of the wave doesn’t change and so what they are seeing (the unusual high intensity of quasars) proves that those objects differ from ordinary galaxies. Taking my assumption, it says that those distant objects are still ordinary, everyday galaxies.
  So who is really doing the fudging? By eliminating the full assumption of consistency in time (The [non-perfect] Cosmological Principle), we are always assured to judge our evidence as supporting a Big Bang Theory, and it also assures us that we can never disprove it, since it is unfalsifiable. As for your demand for first principles, which I am all on board with, why is it allowed that time itself should have a God-like essence of being able to be (A) insufficiently defined as an entity with powers to alter physics; (B), granting this entity to omniscience of being able to know a particular instance of a volume of space is in an altered inertial frame and thus alters its physical characteristics to assure that those in that frame perceive reality just so; (C), allowing the origin of the Universe to be in an actual different form that we do not actually experience in our normal empirical reality like a God that can be argued to have formed reality in lieu of our inability to experience such powers first hand; and (D), incapable of disproving under these assumptions.
  Assuming the consistency of time is not an extra additive and unessential assumption that can be sloughed off by claiming that the Cosmological Principle has one less assumption than its Perfect form. If simplicity of the assumptions alone is relevant, then why assume anything at all? Zero is less than any other quantity of assumptions.

It seriously raises suspicion to me that what I have even proposed has not been properly recognized. It is absurdly more reasonable on logical grounds, not only doesn’t deny any empirical observations and is even more powerfully supported by the evidence than the status quo because it doesn’t abort, nor contravene the normal capabilities of our senses that the traditional view does.  It’s no surprise to me that Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a priest proposed the theory either. While you try to discredit my capacity to reason with bias, how is it that you would grant this priest with more credibility to lack such biases?
  I have raised the issue in another post that most people cannot handle the truth in a very real and dangerous way. This suggests a real and strong political motivation to advance the Big Bang philosophy by adjusting the premises of proper scientific and philosophic foundation to save the psychological and social upheavals should we be able to undeniably demonstrate that reality doesn’t require any preference for humanity and makes morality absolutely fictitious. If this is the case, I recommend that those of you who find me a threat, please make my life a LOT easier by distracting me with a big bank account that I can use to shut up and live a life of pleasure instead.  wink

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2013 07:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 128 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
DarronS - 05 August 2013 05:44 AM

The relevance is GPS cannot work without taking time dilation into account. Yet another application where Einstein was right.

No, just because it is assumed that time itself is dilating rather than that the time only appears to be the case is merely a matter of labeling it with a term that attempts to bribe one into assuming that the real cause of the effect is actually time, and no other cause. It blurs the distinction between reality and perception to be one and the same. I don’t propose to stop using it just because the originators chose a word to associate this with their ideology or belief. It is still an absolute properly mathematical means to solve real practical applications. Its derivation isn’t absolutely dependent upon one unique description of the actual nature of reality.

The logic is no different than Anslem begging us to label our conception of absolutely everything as God. And then declare, therefore that God exists. He’s logically consistent but uses the fact that we use the same words, its symbol of the definition, to force us to use it, knowing that the association with the other definitions using the same symbol, will take hold in the minds of its users. They are homonyms if one accepts its use and effective at psychological transference.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2013 07:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 129 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4521
Joined  2007-08-31

I’ll stop here. I am flabbergasted how somebody can think he has a flawless, logical argument, and then produce such nonsense as you write here. You are mixing up energy with force, velocity with acceleration, you have not shown even a single one correct derivation etc. etc., you show you have no idea what relativity is really about.

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 06:56 AM

I have raised the issue in another post that most people cannot handle the truth in a very real and dangerous way. This suggests a real and strong political motivation to advance the Big Bang philosophy by adjusting the premises of proper scientific and philosophic foundation to save the psychological and social upheavals should we be able to undeniably demonstrate that reality doesn’t require any preference for humanity and makes morality absolutely fictitious. If this is the case, I recommend that those of you who find me a threat, please make my life a LOT easier by distracting me with a big bank account that I can use to shut up and live a life of pleasure instead.  wink

You are not a threat. Nobody will really listen to you concerning your physical ideas (expect maybe a few other crackpots). On good, scientific, on logical grounds, as every physicist can immediately see.

I am afraid your only future comfort regarding your theories will be that true geniuses go unrecognised… I have my own thoughts about it.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2013 07:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 130 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
GdB - 05 August 2013 07:37 AM

I’ll stop here. I am flabbergasted how somebody can think he has a flawless, logical argument, and then produce such nonsense as you write here. You are mixing up energy with force, velocity with acceleration, you have not shown even a single one correct derivation etc. etc., you show you have no idea what relativity is really about.

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 06:56 AM

I have raised the issue in another post that most people cannot handle the truth in a very real and dangerous way. This suggests a real and strong political motivation to advance the Big Bang philosophy by adjusting the premises of proper scientific and philosophic foundation to save the psychological and social upheavals should we be able to undeniably demonstrate that reality doesn’t require any preference for humanity and makes morality absolutely fictitious. If this is the case, I recommend that those of you who find me a threat, please make my life a LOT easier by distracting me with a big bank account that I can use to shut up and live a life of pleasure instead.  wink

You are not a threat. Nobody will really listen to you concerning your physical ideas (expect maybe a few other crackpots). On good, scientific, on logical grounds, as every physicist can immediately see.

I am afraid your only future comfort regarding your theories will be that true geniuses go unrecognised… I have my own thoughts about it.

And your light is on, but nobody is certainly home. Right back at you. You still didn’t declare your superior wisdom with a qualification to back it up. But regardless, every scientist is humanly fallible. I am just one such scientist. But no doubt, you think that the diploma is the only certainty to the title. And attempting to label me as a crackpot to diminish others from taking me seriously or actually read what I even say makes you a real the real ass, an abuser of the highest sort.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2013 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 131 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4521
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 07:48 AM

You still didn’t declare your superior wisdom with a qualification to back it up.

I told what my background is here. Part of my study was ‘introduction special relativity’ (enough to understand the LT, Doppler effect and the equivalence of mass and energy), and history of physics.

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 07:48 AM

But regardless, every scientist is humanly fallible.

Sure. But we do not have relativity just because of Einstein. His theory was extended and improved by many others (e.g. by Max Planck and Minkowski). It passed all tests until now.

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 07:48 AM

I am just one such scientist.

Sorry, you are not. Your mentality shows that very clearly: hubris, accompanied with a total lack of support from the scientific community.

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 07:48 AM

But no doubt, you think that the diploma is the only certainty to the title.

No I don’t. But I can recognize a little if somebody knows what he is talking about. Your case is clear.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2013 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 132 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

Your credentials do not fit. Your understanding of relativity within the context of a subsidiary study doesn’t fulfill any more credibility than I do. With one main exception: that I have a particular interest with the subject in regards to my theory, would it not follow that I’ve had an even stronger motivation to learn the details over one such as yourself who just trusts the material you read? Not to mention the fact is that you, not I, have misinterpreted Relativity. The ‘scientific community’ is not against me. The fact that I chose to dismiss scienceforums.net doesn’t displace my credibility to all scientists, either! I dismissed them on the basis of the way the organizer of that particular site operates. He, not all scientists, nor all the potential good ones who may use that site, are to blame for his activity. His decision to create a virtual ghetto for those that he deems personally unfavorable to his idea of the preservation of the scientific status quo, is vile. Wasting time there would only assure that he’d assign me to the furnaces eventually. ...Especially, if I actually began to make sense to others!

It should also be noted that while one person claimed there that, “science” is not a democracy when I pointed out the insult of classifying me in a “for-nuts” section, he was wrong. “Truth” is not a democracy. Science is merely a set of studies meant to determine that truth. Not all scientists are equal or relevant to any given subject to discussion either because science is not a simple ideology that belongs to one kind of discipline or authority of wisdom sacrosanct from criticism from others. I posted under, “Physics: Relativity” but they sent me to an area for as the very scum of the earth they predetermined I was. It is an insult to scientific integrity and process of inquiry.

I mentioned before this even occurred that I didn’t waste time on most Christian forums because they maintain the same type of moderation, “You may write as freely as you choose as long as you do not threaten the integrity of the Christian faith as we understand it.” All posts are moderated where appropriate.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2013 11:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 133 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4521
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 11:17 AM

Your understanding of relativity within the context of a subsidiary study doesn’t fulfill any more credibility than I do.

Hmmm. Personal contact with a professor and practising mathematical exercises under assistance of a tutor cannot easily be replaced by self study. Except if you are a genius… tongue wink OTOH, I don’t know what you have been reading, but I found many non-university books about relativity with errors. E.g. I once found a book that in its examples were dependent on a rocket flying in the same direction as the light. If you supposed the rocket would fly in the other direction however, time would speed up. Somehow reminds me of your ‘1 hour tv program’ example…

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 11:17 AM

With one main exception: that I have a particular interest with the subject in regards to my theory, would it not follow that I’ve had an even stronger motivation to learn the details over one such as yourself who just trusts the material you read?

No, quite the opposite. Your fanaticism to prove your theory blocks your correct understanding of relativity.

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 11:17 AM

Not to mention the fact is that you, not I, have misinterpreted Relativity.

Then tell me, and clearly separated:
- What is the traditional interpretation of relativity?
- In what does my interpretation differ from this interpretation?
- In what does your theory differ from this interpretation?

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 11:17 AM

The ‘scientific community’ is not against me.

No, no, of course not. The truth is: they do not even notice you. Be sure, there are regularly letters from Einstein-deniers coming in at the physics department. (And sometimes the philosophy department, while people think relativity is philosophy.) Get your article published in an acknowledged physics magazine. But I assure you: you won’t get through, especially if you say that you are not ready with the math… (This is a very clear symptom of ‘crackpotism’. As is your publishing your ‘theory’ on fora like this, or scienceforums.net.)

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 11:17 AM

His decision to create a virtual ghetto for those that he deems personally unfavorable to his idea of the preservation of the scientific status quo, is vile.

Hmmm… Shall I ask the moderators to put this thread under the ‘Pseudo science’ forum? tongue rolleye

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 11:17 AM

...Especially, if I actually began to make sense to others!

Yes, especially to the scientificaly educated… (Careful: irony!)

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 11:17 AM

I posted under, “Physics: Relativity” but they sent me to an area for as the very scum of the earth they predetermined I was. It is an insult to scientific integrity and process of inquiry.

scienceforums.net is not the scientific community. It is at most a small outskirt area of it.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2013 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 134 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
GdB - 05 August 2013 11:28 PM
Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 11:17 AM

Your understanding of relativity within the context of a subsidiary study doesn’t fulfill any more credibility than I do.

Hmmm. Personal contact with a professor and practising mathematical exercises under assistance of a tutor cannot easily be replaced by self study. Except if you are a genius… tongue wink OTOH, I don’t know what you have been reading, but I found many non-university books about relativity with errors. E.g. I once found a book that in its examples were dependent on a rocket flying in the same direction as the light. If you supposed the rocket would fly in the other direction however, time would speed up. Somehow reminds me of your ‘1 hour tv program’ example…

I don’t condemn education of any sort. Whether you learn by another person or not doesn’t guarantee either way that you learn effectively (or internalize it, appropriately). But, even within the system, I am certain that those who have a self-driven motivation for learning has an advantage over others due to their sincerity in wanting to learn. I already know that I don’t know everything and that all of what I could put forward will likely have errors. I also do recognize as you point out that authors of the best intent make errors in books (including texts) and to be cautious regarding them.

GdB - 05 August 2013 11:28 PM
Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 11:17 AM

With one main exception: that I have a particular interest with the subject in regards to my theory, would it not follow that I’ve had an even stronger motivation to learn the details over one such as yourself who just trusts the material you read?

No, quite the opposite. Your fanaticism to prove your theory blocks your correct understanding of relativity.

I recognize that this is possible as well. I’m not going to dwell on the possibility if it means that I don’t put myself out there for fear of rejection, though. As to whether I understand relativity, I naturally assumed (and probably falsely) that others already understood it as I do. However, I still haven’t seen you or some of the others present any argument regarding to relativity that demonstrates that I understand it any different. What I have seen is that there seems to be a misunderstanding of what counts for a proof or disproof. I see that I am being called to provide evidence that is irrelevant to my proof and that what I did provide is not considered valid without proper warrant or particular reference to what you see I’ve erred in.

All theses do not require the same identical procedures for certification. It is false, for instance, to insist that for every proposed theory, a new experiment must be required to test it. Why? Because the particular argument may be one that merely presents an error in another logical thesis; because the particular argument may also propose a resolution to another one’s theory that simply demonstrates how the same experiments confirm a different theory with equal force.

I’ll be back for your next question in a bit.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 12:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 135 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
GdB - 05 August 2013 11:28 PM
Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 11:17 AM

Not to mention the fact is that you, not I, have misinterpreted Relativity.

Then tell me, and clearly separated:
- What is the traditional interpretation of relativity?
- In what does my interpretation differ from this interpretation?
- In what does your theory differ from this interpretation?

Relativity uses two hypothesis that I already provided for at post #103.
I demonstrated there what the problem with those in that post and the others that follow. I don’t need to give you a full lesson on Relativity. Nor should I be obliged to provide you with a course on logic. But since these two postulates are essential to the foundation of the theory that follows, if any of the postulates are shown wrong, as I did, there is no need to go further! If you can’t follow this reasoning, tell me what you are holding back on the particular error of my ways. You’re pretending that I didn’t present a case. You are either stuck on the idea that Einstein can’t be wrong especially coming from someone like myself. I urge you to read the argument carefully or stop declaring that I didn’t prove anything because you desire a mathematical formula and a suggested experiment to put forth that is new. This is not necessary here.

GdB - 05 August 2013 11:28 PM
Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 11:17 AM

The ‘scientific community’ is not against me.

No, no, of course not. The truth is: they do not even notice you. Be sure, there are regularly letters from Einstein-deniers coming in at the physics department. (And sometimes the philosophy department, while people think relativity is philosophy.) Get your article published in an acknowledged physics magazine. But I assure you: you won’t get through, especially if you say that you are not ready with the math… (This is a very clear symptom of ‘crackpotism’. As is your publishing your ‘theory’ on fora like this, or scienceforums.net.)

It will eventually be published in its full version when I am prepared. You are just demanding that I SHUT UP here. Your insistence that I didn’t prove my case and that I continue to play in to your demands is distracting from the argument at hand. Stop trying to poison the well.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
   
9 of 16
9