14 of 16
14
Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity
Posted: 02 September 2013 01:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 196 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4578
Joined  2007-08-31
Occam. - 01 September 2013 12:25 PM

Sorry Stephen, but just because the term and concept of “cyberbullying” is a current fad, if you had read all the posts carefully before they were deleted you’d recognize that your use of the term in relation to Darron and GdB was quite unjustified.

Did not realise it, but that’s true: this is per definition not what ‘cyber bullying’ is. Cyber bullying is when we do not like somebody we already know, and then misuse Web 2.0 to gossip and mob this person. Darron and I criticised Scott for his statements he has done here in this thread.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2013 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 197 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1923
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 01 September 2013 01:11 AM

I’m afraid if he has he was pushed. I Think you and Gdb need to honestly think about the motivation behind your posts on this thread. Was it cyber bullying? Was the aim to humiliate Scott for your pleasure?

Regrettably it is so, because of a deep conceptual chasm between Scott and them.

This is the result of thinking of reality as static existing objects rather than as relations.

From http://afterxnature.blogspot.com/p/process-relational-thought-guide.html

Process metaphysics, in general, seeks to elucidate the developmental nature of reality, emphasizing becoming rather than static existence or being. It also stresses the inter-relatedness of all entities. Process describes reality as ultimately made up of experiential events rather than enduring inert substances.

For instance, in the Double-slit experiment, instead of the wave-particle duality, we can alternatively consider it from a relational perspective instead.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Relational interpretation

According to the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by Carlo Rovelli, observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object. In the case of an electron, if it is initially “observed” at a particular slit, then the observer–particle (photon–electron) interaction includes information about the electron’s position. This partially constrains the particle’s eventual location at the screen. If it is “observed” (measured with a photon) not at a particular slit but rather at the screen, then there is no “which path” information as part of the interaction, so the electron’s “observed” position on the screen is determined strictly by its probability function. This makes the resulting pattern on the screen the same as if each individual electron had passed through both slits. It has also been suggested that space and distance themselves are relational, and that an electron can appear to be in “two places at once”—for example, at both slits—because its spatial relations to particular points on the screen remain identical from both slit locations.

There is thus no wave-particle duality per se, only the relations as such.

Similarly, for the mass-energy equivalence of Einstein’s E = mc^2.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

A physical system has a property called energy and a corresponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another.

Mass-energy relation:

The equivalence is described by the famous equation:

  E = mc^2

where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. Thus, this mass-energy relation states that the universal proportionality factor between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared.

There is thus no mass-energy duality, only the mass-energy relation.

What is relational quantum mechanics (RQM)?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics

Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which treats the state of a quantum system as being observer-dependent, that is, the state is the relation between the observer and the system.

EPR and quantum non-locality:

RQM provides an unusual solution to the EPR paradox. Indeed, it manages to dissolve the problem altogether, inasmuch as there is no superluminal transportation of information involved in a Bell test experiment: the principle of locality is preserved inviolate for all observers.

So, thinking of reality as dynamic relations instead of static existence can resolve/dissolve many dualities and paradoxes.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2013 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 198 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4863
Joined  2007-10-05

Now we have another crackpot extending this thread.  rolleyes

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2013 11:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 199 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
DarronS - 02 September 2013 10:56 AM

Now we have another crackpot extending this thread.  rolleyes

They’re a dime a dozen, Darron.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2013 12:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 200 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4863
Joined  2007-10-05

Yes they are, Lois, and kkwan has a long history of promoting unvalidated, out-of-the-mainstream ideas.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2013 02:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 201 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16
Lois - 02 September 2013 11:46 AM
DarronS - 02 September 2013 10:56 AM

Now we have another crackpot extending this thread.  rolleyes

They’re a dime a dozen, Darron.

Lois

  Damn, if everything else has been affected by inflation, couldn’t crackpots cost a hell of a lot more so it wouldn’t be as easy to get that many.  LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 12:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 202 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4578
Joined  2007-08-31
DarronS - 02 September 2013 10:56 AM

Now we have another crackpot extending this thread.  rolleyes

No, no, kkwan is not a crackpot. A crackpot is able to build essays that have an argumentative structure, and defend an idea with that. These argumentations have some logic, but of course there are errors in this logic.  The crackpot has blind spots in his thinking, and there is no way to clarify him, because he is fixated to the position he is arguing for.

kkwan is just a dilettante, picking up heretic positions in or about scientific views, thinking he has a point because he found a citation in the internet. He is not able to write a coherent, argumentative posting. Once he has bitten himself into an opinion, he sticks to it, even when he knows it is wrong. That is also a difference with a crackpot: a crackpot believes he is right. Scott is a crackpot, kkwan is a scientific and philosophical troll.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 04:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 203 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4863
Joined  2007-10-05

Thanks, GdB. I stand corrected.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 204 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1923
Joined  2007-10-28

The three “wise” chimpanzees?

the3monkeys.jpg

cheese

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 09:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 205 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1923
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 03 September 2013 12:19 AM

No, no, kkwan is not a crackpot. A crackpot is able to build essays that have an argumentative structure, and defend an idea with that. These argumentations have some logic, but of course there are errors in this logic.  The crackpot has blind spots in his thinking, and there is no way to clarify him, because he is fixated to the position he is arguing for.

Thank you, but no thank you, GdB.

kkwan is just a dilettante, picking up heretic positions in or about scientific views, thinking he has a point because he found a citation in the internet. He is not able to write a coherent, argumentative posting. Once he has bitten himself into an opinion, he sticks to it, even when he knows it is wrong. That is also a difference with a crackpot: a crackpot believes he is right. Scott is a crackpot, kkwan is a scientific and philosophical troll.

What is a troll?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.

Perhaps in Chinese?

In Chinese, trolling is referred to as bái mù (Chinese: 白目; literally “white eye”), which can be straightforwardly explained as “eyes without pupils”, in the sense that whilst the pupil of the eye is used for vision, the white section of the eye cannot see, and trolling involves blindly talking nonsense over the internet, having total disregard to sensitivities or being oblivious to the situation at hand, akin to having eyes without pupils.

Prejudice and narrow-mindedness, Humpty Dumty-ness, ad hominem-ness and the tendency to exhibit the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, GdB.

What is relational theory?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_theory

In physics and philosophy, a relational theory is a framework to understand reality or a physical system in such a way that the positions and other properties of objects are only meaningful relative to other objects. In a relational spacetime theory, space does not exist unless there are objects in it; nor does time exist without events.

In physics:

The relational point of view was advocated by in physics by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Ernst Mach (in his Mach’s principle), and it was rejected by Isaac Newton in his successful description of classical physics. Although Albert Einstein was impressed by Mach’s principle, he did not fully incorporate it into his theory of general relativity. Several attempts have been made to formulate a full Machian theory, but most physicists think that none have so far succeeded. For example, see Brans-Dicke theory.

Relational quantum mechanics and a relational approach to quantum physics have been independently developed, in analogy with Einstein’s special relativity of space and time. Relationist physicists such as John Baez and Carlo Rovelli have criticised the leading unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics, string theory, as retaining absolute space. Some prefer a developing theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity for its ‘backgroundlessness’.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 206 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4578
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 03 September 2013 09:54 AM

Relationist physicists such as John Baez and Carlo Rovelli…

This John Baez?

Oh, and he has this on his page. Seems a very good introduction to general relativity to me…

You did it again, kkwan, googling a bit without knowing what you are quoting or linking…

[ Edited: 03 September 2013 10:43 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 207 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6199
Joined  2006-12-20
DarronS - 01 September 2013 08:09 AM
StephenLawrence - 01 September 2013 01:11 AM

I Think you and Gdb need to honestly think about the motivation behind your posts on this thread. Was it cyber bullying? Was the aim to humiliate Scott for your pleasure?


Stephen

Do you really consider refuting a crackpot theory cyber bullying? No, I was not aiming to humiliate Scott for my pleasure.

Glad to hear it

I was trying, unsuccessfully, to get Scott to see the errors in his thinking and the arrogance of believing he could correct the so-called mistakes of some of science and mathematics’ greatest geniuses, especially considering Scott’s obvious ignorance of freshman physics and astronomy.

So just stupid then.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 208 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6199
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 01 September 2013 01:19 AM
StephenLawrence - 01 September 2013 01:11 AM

I’m afraid if he has he was pushed. I Think you and Gdb need to honestly think about the motivation behind your posts on this thread. Was it cyber bullying? Was the aim to humiliate Scott for your pleasure?

No. I wanted to argue with him, convince him that he was wrong.

That’s great if so but the trouble is you knew that approach wouldn’t work.

I’d like to believe you.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 209 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6199
Joined  2006-12-20
Occam. - 01 September 2013 12:25 PM

Sorry Stephen, but just because the term and concept of “cyberbullying” is a current fad, if you had read all the posts carefully before they were deleted you’d recognize that your use of the term in relation to Darron and GdB was quite unjustified.

Occam

We don’t know their motives Occam, I hope I’m wrong and suspect that at least in part I’m right. Really what was the point in responding in the way they did?

I’m just used to you not thinking very deeply. It was a lot better when we had Doug Smith’s skill with these issues.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 01:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 210 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4863
Joined  2007-10-05
StephenLawrence - 03 September 2013 12:51 PM

I was trying, unsuccessfully, to get Scott to see the errors in his thinking and the arrogance of believing he could correct the so-called mistakes of some of science and mathematics’ greatest geniuses, especially considering Scott’s obvious ignorance of freshman physics and astronomy.

So just stupid then.

Stephen

You need to look up the word “ignorance.” Ignorance can be fixed. I don’t believe Scott is stupid.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
14 of 16
14