My Thread Just Disappeared. Anyone Know Why?

[Moronium]

There was a thread here related to the relativity of simultaneity in SR that I and others have made quite a few posts in.

 

Now I can't find it--not even in the "strange" or "silly claims" forum.

 

Does anyone know why this would be?  Am I doing something wrong?

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moronium

[exchemist]

There was a thread here related to the relativity of simultaneity in SR that I and others have made quite a few posts in.

 

Now I can't find it--not even in the "strange" or "silly claims" forum.

 

Does anyone know why this would be?  Am I doing something wrong?

They are being kind I suspect: alternative theories? 

Edited April 23, 2018 by exchemist

[Moronium]

As I said, I couldn't locate it anywhere.  Something strange is happening, that's for sure.

 

This thread was gone a minute ago, and the simultaneity thread had reappeared (in this forum).

 

I even made a new post in it.  As soon as I exited that thread, I find that it has once again "disappeared," and this thread has "magically" re-appeared.

 

Can anyone explain these phenomena?

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Now I see that is has re-appeared in the "strange" forum.  Funny, because there is nothing "strange" about it, other perhaps than the complete inability of certain posters to recognize, acknowledge, and consider the propositions of physical tenets which are widely acknowledged by mainstream physicists (such as Einstein, just to mention one).

 

Who is responsible for this forum transfer?

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moronium

[exchemist]

Now I see that is has re-appeared in the "strange" forum.  Funny, because there is nothing "strange" about it, other perhaps than the complete inability of certain posters to recognize, acknowledge, and consider the propositions of physical tenets which are widely acknowledged by mainstream physicists (such as Einstein, just to mention one).

 

Who is responsible for this forum transfer?

Moderation. You are a crank, after all, so what do you expect? Mods have a duty not to let crank theories appear unchallenged in the main section, where the innocent might see them and be misled into thinking they were accepted science.

 

If you don't like it, try complaining to the mods and see how they respond. But the above would be my best guess. 

[Moronium]

Moderation. You are a crank, after all, so what do you expect? Mods have a duty not to let crank theories appear unchallenged in the main section, where the innocent might see them and be misled into thinking they were accepted science.

 

If you don't like it, try complaining to the mods and see how they respond. But the above would be my best guess. 

 

1.  Define "crank," as you use it, please.

 

2.  Please state your exact and specific reasons why you call me one, if you would be so kind.  In particular, please identify any "theory" I have discussed which is not "accepted science."  If you are talking about a theory of relative motion which, unlike SR, employs absolute simultaneity, do YOU deny what Einstein and every physicist worth his salt since him has expressly acknowledged, i.e, that such theories are just as viable, empirically, as is SR?

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moronium

[exchemist]

1.  Define "crank," as you use it, please.

 

2.  Please state your exact and specific reasons why you call me one, if you would be so kind.

No. You know perfectly well the answers to both questions.   

[Moronium]

No. You know perfectly well the answers to both questions.   

 

Did you look at the the questions to you that I appended to that post, Ex?  I notice that you did not reproduce them in this response.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moronium

[exchemist]

Did you look at the the questions to you that I appended to that post, Ex?  I notice that you did not reproduce them in this response.

Nope. [sigh] Relativity is about the most exhaustively tested and successful theory in the whole of physics and I, being a chemist, am simply not tremendously interested in yet more eccentric ideas about it. Relativity cranks are two a penny on these forums and I find them a bore. 

 

Now, I've told you what I think is the reason why your thread was moved. If you don't like it, I suggest you take it up with moderation, both the reason for the move and, if you wish, my characterisation of you as a crank (a characterisation also made by pzkpfw).

 

Good day to you. 

[Moronium]

Nope. [sigh] Relativity is about the most exhaustively tested and successful theory in the whole of physics...

 

 

As any competent mainstream physicist (which you obviously are NOT) will acknowledge, alternate theories incorporating absolute simultaneity as just as "well-tested" as SR, and have passed every "test" that SR has (and some that SR doesn't).  You obviously don't know this, and obviously haven't (and presumably won't) even listened to the authorities who say (and who I have quoted) otherwise.  Bigotry is not "wisdom," I'm afraid.  Apparently the "whole of physics" which you purport to refer to includes ONLY that portion of physics which you have chosen, as an arbitrary personal matter, to adopt and promote as "proven to be correct."  Big mistake on your part, but help yourself.

 

Good day to you, sir.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Well, after being shuffled all over the place, it seems my thread has (for now, at least) settled in the "alternative theories" forum rather than the "strange claims" forum.

 

Well, OK, the whole point of the thread is to contrast theories incorporating relative simultaneity with those employing absolute simultaneity, and these are definitely "alternatives."

 

But since, for practical purposes, absolute simultaneity is posited and embraced by virtually all modern cosmologists and astrophysicists: by well-functioning technological systems such as the GPS; and by experimental physicists conducting time dilation experiments, etc., then why is IT considered to be the "alternative" theory rather than a theory employing relative simultaneity, which is rejected by (and refuted by) virtually all existing practitioners?

Edited April 24, 2018 by Moronium

[LaurieAG]

Mods have a duty not to let crank theories appear unchallenged in the main section, where the innocent might see them and be misled into thinking they were accepted science.

 

The following was in the editorial of my state newspaper yesterday and it relates to people of your ilk because of the bad example you set for the real innocents. 

 

ONLINE Trolls are like cockroaches. They scuttle around in the shadows, brave in their anonymity, and spreading grime and pestilence wherever they go. Unlike cockroaches though, they tend to hunt in packs, a swirling cloud of confected outrage and judgement looking for a soft target.

 

If the mods have a duty it should also be to keep people like yourself at bay, people who only carp on about others and don't follow the scientific method or even bother to contribute to a discussion and explain their concerns or even bother to point people in the right direction without being nasty and venting their spleen. 

[exchemist]

The following was in the editorial of my state newspaper yesterday and it relates to people of your ilk because of the bad example you set for the real innocents. 

 

 

If the mods have a duty it should also be to keep people like yourself at bay, people who only carp on about others and don't follow the scientific method or even bother to contribute to a discussion and explain their concerns or even bother to point people in the right direction without being nasty and venting their spleen. 

What do you think these are? :-

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31071-basic-quantum-mechanics-help/

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31077-thermal-detection-and-infrared-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=355731

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31005-why-do-we-use-soap-to-remove-germs-and-bacteria-what-does-it-do/

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31082-implicit-constructs-in-wave-particle-duality/

[hazelm]

Well, after being shuffled all over the place, it seems my thread has (for now, at least) settled in the "alternative theories" forum rather than the "strange claims" forum.

 

Well, OK, the whole point of the thread is to contrast theories incorporating relative simultaneity with those employing absolute simultaneity, and these are definitely "alternatives."

 

But since, for practical purposes, absolute simultaneity is posited and embraced by virtually all modern cosmologists and astrophysicists: by well-functioning technological systems such as the GPS; and by experimental physicists conducting time dilation experiments, etc., then why is IT considered to be the "alternative" theory rather than a theory employing relative simultaneity, which is rejected by (and refuted by) virtually all existing practitioners?

Who was it who said "There is a bit of good in the worst of us and a bit of bad in the best of us?"  My point:  I don't know what the quarrel in the thread is.  Also I cannot contribute anything intelligent to the theory/theories.  My comprehension of the theory of special relativity is miniscule and my quarrel with it is brazen.  I simply have never been able to accept it and no one could give me an answer that made sense.  Attribute all of this to my total lack of education in physics.  Those of us without that simply live by what we see with our eyes.

 

So>  ---  I am only here to say "thank you" to Moronium for "relative simultaneity".   All I wanted was a definition and I  found a gold mine. 

 

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_rel_sim/index.html

 

Quote:  "There is no absolute fact as to whether spatially separated events are simultaneous.  There is only a fact of simultaneity or its failure relative to an inertial frame of reference."  (Underscoring mine)

 

And what relative (relativity of) simultaneity is not:  appearnace simultaneity.  I leave that to those who are interested in reading the web site article.

 

Question:  Does all this make it right to say the theory of SR is still open to question and that no one can say "it's simple; he (Einstein) proved it. 

 

Thank you, Moronium for inadvertently sending me on a safari that brought some light to my own "theory of scientific "facts".  :-) 

 

If I've taken this thread off-topic, my apologies.  I just had to say it.

Edited April 24, 2018 by hazelm

[Moronium]

nswer that made sense.  Attribute all of this to my total lack of education in physics.  Those of us without that simply live by what we see with our eyes.

 

So>  ---  I am only here to say "thank you" to Moronium for "relative simultaneity".    

 

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_rel_sim/index.html

 

Quote:  "There is no absolute fact as to whether spatially separated events are simultaneous.  There is only a fact of simultaneity or its failure relative to an inertial frame of reference."  (Underscoring mine)

 

 

Question:  Does all this make it right to say the theory of SR is still open to question and that no one can say "it's simple; he (Einstein) proved it. 

 

 

 

Hi, Hazel.  I'm glad you found something worth reading in my posts on this topic. You're right that this is probably not the proper thread to make such comments and ask questions, but since you did it here I will respond here.

 

As to your question:  Yes, it make perfect sense to say SR is "unproven."  Every scientific theory is "unproven" in the strict sense.  As far as SR goes, it's underlying premises are, upon analysis, especially dubious, if you ask me (and many others, for that matter).

 

The excerpt you quote from Pitt is really more of a metaphysical claim than a scientific one.  Even assuming that any claim of simultaneity can only be made with respect to an "inertial frame of reference," that does not really say anything about "simultaneity" per se.  In the theoretical sense that "absolute relativity" is used here, it does not necessarily have anything to do with the "absolute fact" that this particular author claims to "know."  Absolute simultaneity really just refers to WHICH inertial frame of reference your analysis is relative to, and what characteristics you attribute, by postulation, to that particular frame.  I will edit this post to give you a  link to where this is discussed in more detail (once I find it).

 

Here's the link I has in mind, see post #69;  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31062-the-relative-simultaneity-of-special-relativity-is-only-plausible-to-solipsists/page-5?do=findComment&comment=355887

Edited April 24, 2018 by Moronium

[hazelm]

Hi, Hazel.  I'm glad you found something worth reading in my posts on this topic. You're right that this is probably not the proper thread to make such comments and ask questions, but since you did it here I will respond here.

 

As to your question:  Yes, it make perfect sense to say SR is "unproven."  Every scientific theory is "unproven" in the strict sense.  As far as SR goes, it's underlying premises are, upon analysis, especially dubious, if you ask me (and many others, for that matter).

 

The excerpt you quote from Pitt is really more of a metaphysical claim than a scientific one.  Even assuming that any claim of simultaneity can only be made with respect to an "inertial frame of reference," that does not really say anything about "simultaneity" per se.  In the theoretical sense that "absolute relativity" is used here, it does not necessarily have anything to do with the "absolute fact" that this particular author claims to "know."  Absolute simultaneity really just refers to WHICH inertial frame of reference your analysis is relative to, and what attribute you attribute, by postulation, to that particular frame.  I will edit this post to give you a  link to where this is discussed in more detail (once I find it).

 

Here's the link I has in mind, see post #69;  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31062-the-relative-simultaneity-of-special-relativity-is-only-plausible-to-solipsists/page-5?do=findComment&comment=355887

Thank you.  I did find that thread later.  I'd wondered why your original post about your ideas was not where I was but no matter.  All is well now.  And, yes, I keep getting reminded that nothing in science is "proven" although I do read some scientific posts that make it sound as though they are.

[DaveC426913]

If the mods have a duty it should also be to keep people like yourself at bay, people who only carp on about others and don't follow the scientific method or even bother to contribute to a discussion and explain their concerns or even bother to point people in the right direction without being nasty and venting their spleen. 

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but the facts don't bear it out.

 

Exchemist has never been banned and had his thread locked for being unable to support his hypotheses when challenged.

 

The stance of the mods of at least one well-established and highly-regarded physics forum has the arrow of unscientific methods pointing in the direction opposite your belief.

Edited April 24, 2018 by DaveC426913